Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28114999›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2017

Parity, hormones and breast cancer subtypes - results from a large nested case-control study in a national screening program.

Merete Ellingjord-Dale, Linda Vos, Steinar Tretli, Solveig Hofvind, Isabel Dos-Santos-Silva, Giske Ursin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Relationship between early age at menarche, older age at menopause and subtypes of breast cancer: a scoping review.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Merete Ellingjord-DaleCancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-2758-0140
Linda VosCancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway.
Steinar TretliCancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway.
Solveig HofvindCancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway.
Isabel Dos-Santos-SilvaDepartment of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Giske UrsinCancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway. Giske.Ursin@kreftregisteret.no.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer comprises several molecular subtypes with different prognoses and possibly different etiology. Reproductive and hormonal factors are associated with breast cancer overall, and with luminal subtypes, but the associations with other subtypes are unclear. We used data from a national screening program to conduct a large nested case-control study.

methodsWe conducted a nested case-control study on participants in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program in 2006 - 2014. There was information on estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) for 4748 cases of breast cancer. Breast cancer subtypes were defined as luminal A-like (ER+ PR+ HER2-), luminal B-like (ER+ PR- HER2- or ER+ PR+/PR-HER2+), HER2-positive (ER- PR- HER2+) and triple-negative (ER- PR- HER2-). Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) of breast cancer associated with age at first birth, number of pregnancies, oral contraceptive use, intrauterine devices and menopausal hormone therapy. Analyses were adjusted for age, body mass index, education, age at menarche, number of pregnancies and menopausal status.

resultsNumber of pregnancies was inversely associated with relative risk of luminal-like breast cancers (p-trend ≤0.02), and although not statistically significant, with HER2-positive (OR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.31-1.19) and triple-negative cancer (OR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.41-1.21). Women who had ≥4 pregnancies were at >40% lower risk of luminal-like and HER2-positive cancers than women who had never been pregnant. However, there was a larger discrepancy between tumor subtypes with menopausal hormone use. Women who used estrogen and progesterone therapy (EPT) had almost threefold increased risk of luminal A-like cancer (OR = 2.92, 95% CI 2.36-3.62) compared to never-users, but were not at elevated risk of HER2-positive (OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.33-2.30) or triple-negative (OR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.43 - 1.98) subtypes.

conclusionsReproductive factors were to some extent associated with all subtypes; the strongest trends were with luminal-like subtypes. Hormone therapy use was strongly associated with risk of luminal-like breast cancer, and less so with risk of HER2-positive or triple-negative cancer. There are clearly some, but possibly limited, etiologic differences between subtypes, with the greatest contrast between luminal A-like and triple-negative subtypes.

trial registrationNot applicable.

Indexed as

HormonesParityAgedBiomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsCase-Control StudiesConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleHormone Replacement TherapyHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNorwayOdds RatioPopulation SurveillanceBiomarkers, TumorErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesHormonesReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneBreast cancer subtypesHormone therapyReproductive factors

Identifiers

PMID28114999
PMCPMC5259848

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.