The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Proportion of Breast Cancer Cases in the United States Explained by Well-Established Risk Factors
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few estimates of the fraction of cases of breast cancer attributable to recognized risk factors have been published. All estimates are based on selected groups, making their generalizability to the U.S. population uncertain. PURPOSE: Our goal was to estimate the fraction of breast cancer cases in the United States attributable to well-established risk factors (i.e., later age at first birth, nulliparity, higher family income, and first-degree family history of breast cancer), using data from the first National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES I) Epidemiologic Follow-up Study (NHEFS), the survey and follow-up of a probability sample of the U.S. population. METHODS: From a cohort of 7508 female participants surveyed in the early 1970s, and followed up between 1982 and 1984 and again in 1987, 193 breast cancer cases were accrued for study. We calculated incidence rates, relative risks (RRs), and population attributable risks (PARs) for breast cancer risk factors and extended our results to the U.S. female population by using sample weights from the NHANES I survey. RESULTS: Our PAR estimates suggest that later age at first birth and nulliparity accounted for a large fraction of U.S. breast cancer cases, 29.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.6%-53.3%); higher income contributed 18.9% (95% CI = -4.3% to 42.1%), and family history of breast cancer accounted for 9.1% (95% CI = 3.0%-15.2%). Taken together, these well-established risk factors accounted for approximately 47% (95% CI = 17%-77%) of breast cancer cases in the NHEFS cohort and about 41% (95% CI = 2%-80%) in the U.S. population. CONCLUSIONS: The RRs for most of these risk factors were modest, but their prevalence as a group was high, leading to estimates that suggest that a substantial proportion of breast cancer cases in the United States are explained by well-established risk factors. IMPLICATIONS: Elucidation of the determinants underlying recognized factors and study of other factors that may confer risk or protection are needed in efforts to advance understanding of breast cancer etiology and to aid in devising strategies for prevention.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Estimating the population attributable risk for multiple risk factors using case-control data.
BRUZZI, P., GREEN, S. B., BYAR, D. P., BRINTON, L. A., & SCHAIRER, C. (1985) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114174 · Cited by 1,214
Cited by
Cummings, S. R., Eckert, S., Krueger, K. A., Grady, D., Powles, T. J., Cauley, J. A., Norton, L., Nickelsen, T., Bjarnason, N. H., Morrow, M., et al. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.281.23.2189 · Cited by 1,872
Use and misuse of population attributable fractions
Rockhill, B., Newman, B., & Weinberg, C. (1998) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.88.1.15 · Cited by 1,683
Microbial Dysbiosis Is Associated with Human Breast Cancer
Xuan, C., Shamonki, J. M., Chung, A., DiNome, M. L., Chung, M., Sieling, P. A., & Lee, D. J. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083744 · Cited by 543
Increased breast cancer risk among women who work predominantly at night
Hansen, J. (2001) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/00001648-200101000-00013 · Cited by 503
Maas, P., Barrdahl, M., Joshi, A. D., Auer, P. L., Gaudet, M. M., Milne, R. L., Schumacher, F. R., Anderson, W. F., Check, D., Chattopadhyay, S., et al. (2016) · JAMA Oncology · doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.1025 · Cited by 373
Self-citationEnvironmental pollutants and breast cancer: Epidemiologic studies
Brody, J. G., Moysich, K. B., Humblet, O., Attfield, K. R., Beehler, G. P., & Rudel, R. A. (2007) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.22655 · Cited by 375
Light-at-night, circadian disruption and breast cancer: assessment of existing evidence
Stevens, R. G. (2009) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyp178 · Cited by 345
Distinct Microbial Signatures Associated With Different Breast Cancer Types
Banerjee, S., Tian, T., Wei, Z., Shih, N., Feldman, M. D., Peck, K. N., DeMichele, A. M., Alwine, J. C., & Robertson, E. S. (2018) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2018.00951 · Cited by 281
Shift work and cancer – considerations on rationale, mechanisms, and epidemiology
Costa, G., Haus, E., & Stevens, R. (2010) · Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health · doi:10.5271/sjweh.2899 · Cited by 241
Shift work, light at night, and breast cancer on Long Island, New York
O'Leary, E. S., Schoenfeld, E. R., Stevens, R. G., Kabat, G. C., Henderson, K., Grimson, R., Gammon, M. D., & Leske, M. C. (2006) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwj211 · Cited by 156
Adolescent dietary phytoestrogen intake and breast cancer risk (Canada)
Thanos, J., Cotterchio, M., Boucher, B. A., Kreiger, N., & Thompson, L. U. (2006) · Cancer Causes & Control · doi:10.1007/s10552-006-0062-2 · Cited by 136
(2022) · doi:10.1016/j.hsr.2021.100010 · Cited by 69
Pierozan, P., Cattani, D., & Karlsson, O. (2022) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151945 · Cited by 68
BRCA1- and BRCA2-related mutations: therapeutic implications in ovarian cancer
Pothuri, B. (2013) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdt307 · Cited by 50
Activation of estrogen receptor-α by the anion nitrite
Veselik, D. J., Divekar, S., Dakshanamurthy, S., Storchan, G. B., Turner, J. M. A., Graham, K. L., Huang, L., Stoica, A., & Martin, M. B. (2008) · Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-07-2783 · Cited by 42
Associations between breast cancer risk factors and religious practices in Utah
Daniels, M. (2004) · Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.09.025 · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- Madigan, M. P., Ziegler, R. G., Benichou, J., Byrne, C., & Hoover, R. N.
- Venue
- JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1995-11-15
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- 1681-1685
- ISSN
- 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2105
- OpenAlex
- W2162207052
- Cited by
- 655
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.