SynthesisMedicine2019
The relationship between exposure to particulate matter and breast cancer incidence and mortality: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- The long-term effect of exposure to respirable particulate matter on the incidence of myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis study.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2022Pooled it
- Association between long-term ambient air pollution exposure and the risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Pooled it
- Breast Cancer Risk in Association with Atmospheric Pollution Exposure: A Meta-Analysis of Effect Estimates Followed by a Health Impact Assessment.Environmental health perspectives · 2021Pooled it
- Relationship between particulate matter exposure and female breast cancer incidence and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2021Pooled it
- Review
- Long-term atmospheric exposure to particulate matter and breast cancer risk: findings from a nested case-control study in France.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Statistical approaches to analyse the combined effect of seven air pollutants and breast cancer risk: a case-control study nested in the French E3N-Generations cohort.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Long-term exposure to PMThe Lancet. Planetary health · 2025Article
- Ambient air pollution and mortality in older patients with breast cancer.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- Long-term exposures to PMBMC cancer · 2025Article
- Neighborhood Disadvantage, Built Environment, and Breast Cancer Outcomes: Disparities in Tumor Aggressiveness and Survival.Cancers · 2025Article
- Air Pollution and Breast Cancer Incidence in the Multiethnic Cohort Study.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025Article
- Epidemiological Evidence That Air Pollutants May Accelerate or Delay Breast Cancer Mortality: A Retrospective Cohort Study.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Air pollution and its impact on cancer incidence, cancer care and cancer outcomes.BMJ oncology · 2025Review
- The recurrence and mortality risk in Luminal A breast cancer patients who lived in high pollution area.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Traffic-Related Air Pollution and Breast Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.Cancers · 2023Review
- Cohort studies of long-term exposure to outdoor particulate matter and risks of cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2021Review
- Cancer Progress and Priorities: Breast Cancer.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundParticulate matter (PM) acts as an environment pollutant and thus plays a vital role in the development of human lung cancer. Whether PM is a risk factor for breast cancer (BC) morbidity and mortality, however, is not clear. Recently, several studies have reported inconsistent results for the association between PM and BC risk. This meta-analysis examines the indefinite relationship between exposure to PM and BC morbidity and mortality.
methodsBased on a search of Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library, the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were extracted and analyzed by Review Manager 5.3 and Stata14.0 to estimate the association between PM and BC morbidity and mortality. The heterogeneity for the included studies was evaluated using a Chi-square test and the I statistic. Forest plot was used to illustrate the pooled HR and mean difference. A Funnel plot, Begg test, and Egger test were performed to explore the publication bias between the included studies.All analyses were based on previous published studies, thus, no ethical approval and patient consent are required.
resultsA total of 14 of 284 publications with 1,004,128 BC cases were gathered. The analysis showed each 10 μg/m of PM2.5 (diameter ≤2.5 μm) was associated with 1.17 (95% CI: 1.05-1.30, P = .004) fold risk BC mortality, and each 10 μg/m of PM10 (diameter ≤10 μm) was associated with 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02-1.21, P = .021) fold risk BC mortality. However, neither PM10 nor PM2.5 was found to be significantly associated with BC morbidity. Publication bias was detected in studies on PM2.5 and BC mortality.
conclusionsOur study suggests that PM exposure may raise the mortality but not the morbidity of BC. Still, further studies may be necessary to confirm this finding.
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.