ArticleBMC cancer2017
Disparities of time trends and birth cohort effects on invasive breast cancer incidence in Shanghai and Hong Kong pre- and post-menopausal women.
Article in BMC cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Changes in Breast Cancer Risk and Risk Factor Profiles among U.S.-Born and Immigrant Asian American Women Residing in the San Francisco Bay Area.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2023Article
- High-background parenchymal enhancement in the contralateral breast is an imaging biomarker for favorable prognosis in patients with triple-negative breast cancer treated with chemotherapy.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- Induced Abortion, Birth Control Methods, and Breast Cancer Risk: A Case-Control Study in China.Journal of epidemiology · 2019Article
- Trends in incidence and mortality of female breast cancer during transition in Central China.Cancer management and research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer is the leading cause of cancer morbidity among Shanghai and Hong Kong women, which contributes to 20-25% of new female cancer incidents. This study aimed to describe the temporal trend of breast cancer and interpret the potential effects on the observed secular trends.
methodsCancer incident data were obtained from the cancer registries. Age-standardized incidence rate was computed by the direct method using the World population of 2000. Average annual percentage change (AAPC) in incidence rate was estimated by the Joinpoint regression. Age, period and cohort effects were assessed by using a log-linear model with Poisson regression.
resultsDuring 1976-2009, an increasing trend of breast cancer incidence was observed, with an AAPC of 1.73 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.54-1.92)] for women in Hong Kong and 2.83 (95% CI, 2.26-3.40) in Shanghai. Greater upward trends were revealed in Shanghai women aged 50 years old or above (AAPC = 3.09; 95% CI, 1.48-4.73). Using age at 50 years old as cut-point, strong birth cohort effects were shown in both pre- and post-menopausal women, though a more remarkable effect was suggested in Shanghai post-menopausal women. No evidence for a period effect was indicated.
conclusionsIncidence rate of breast cancer has been more speedy in Shanghai post-menopausal women than that of the Hong Kong women over the past 30 years. Decreased birth rate and increasing environmental exposures (e.g., light-at-night) over successive generations may have constituted major impacts on the birth cohort effects, especially for the post-menopausal breast cancer; further analytic studies are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.