The Experts below are selected from a list of 12996 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Susan E Hankinson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Oral Contraceptive Use and colorectal cancer in the nurses health study i and ii
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 2015Co-Authors: Xuehong Zhang, Brittany M Charlton, Stacey A Missmer, Bernard Rosner, Edward Giovannucci, Charles S Fuchs, Susan E HankinsonAbstract:Background: It remains unclear if Oral Contraceptive (OC) Use is associated with the incidence of colorectal cancer. Few studies have examined this association by duration of OC Use, time since last OC Use, and different cancer subsites. Methods: Among 88,691 participants of the Nurses' Health Study I (NHSI) and 93,080 participants of the Nurses' Health Study II (NHSII), we assessed OC Use every 2 years between 1976-2010 and categorized it as ever Use, duration of Use, and time since last Use. We included incident colorectal cancer cases through 2010 (NHSI: age at diagnosis=36-88, N=1,764, NHSII: age at diagnosis=33-64, N=206). Multivariable hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals [HR (95% CIs)] were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results: Ever OC Use was not associated with colorectal cancer in NHSI [1.01 (0.91, 1.12)] nor NHSII [1.03 (0.69, 1.53)]. In NHSII, when compared to never-Users, longer durations (5+ years) of OC Use were inversely associated with the risk of colon cancers (test for trend p=0.02) but the number of endpoints was limited. No other colorectal cancer subsites were associated with OC durations or times since last OC Use in either cohort. Conclusions: In two large prospective cohorts, we found little evidence that OC Use may be protective for colorectal cancer, except potentially with longer durations of Use among younger women. Impact: Our results do not support the previous initial studies that reported an inverse association of recent OC Use with colorectal cancer but instead support newer, larger studies demonstrating no such association.
-
Oral Contraceptive Use and mortality after 36 years of follow up in the nurses health study prospective cohort study
BMJ, 2014Co-Authors: Graham A Colditz, Susan E Hankinson, Brittany M Charlton, Janet W Richedwards, Stacey A Missmer, Bernard RosnerAbstract:Objective To determine whether Use of Oral Contraceptives is associated with all caUse and caUse specific mortality. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Nurses’ Health Study, data collected between 1976 and 2012. Population 121 701 participants were prospectively followed for 36 years; lifetime Oral Contraceptive Use was recorded biennially from 1976 to 1982. Main outcome measures Overall and caUse specific mortality, assessed throughout follow-up until 2012. Cox proportional hazards models were Used to calculate the relative risks of all caUse and caUse specific mortality associated with Use of Oral Contraceptives. Results In our population of 121 577 women with information on Oral Contraceptive Use, 63 626 were never Users (52%) and 57 951 were ever Users (48%). After 3.6 million person years, we recorded 31 286 deaths. No association was observed between ever Use of Oral Contraceptives and all caUse mortality. However, violent or accidental deaths were more common among ever Users (hazard ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.37). Longer duration of Use was more strongly associated with certain caUses of death, including premature mortality due to breast cancer (test for trend P Conclusions All caUse mortality did not differ significantly between women who had ever Used Oral Contraceptives and never Users. Oral Contraceptive Use was associated with certain caUses of death, including increased rates of violent or accidental death and deaths due to breast cancer, whereas deaths due to ovarian cancer were less common among women who Used Oral Contraceptives. These results pertain to earlier Oral Contraceptive formulations with higher hormone doses rather than the now more commonly Used third and fourth generation formulations with lower estrogen doses.
-
Oral Contraceptive Use and breast cancer a prospective study of young women
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 2010Co-Authors: David J Hunter, Graham A Colditz, Susan E Hankinson, Susan Malspeis, Donna Spiegelman, Wendy Y Chen, Meir J Stampfer, Walter C WillettAbstract:Background : Previous studies convincingly showed an increase in risk of breast cancer associated with current or recent Use of Oral Contraceptives from the 1960s to 1980s. The relation of contemporary Oral Contraceptive formulations to breast cancer risk is less clear. Methods : We assessed lifetime Oral Contraceptive Use and the specific formulations Used among 116,608 female nurses ages 25 to 42 years at enrollment in 1989, and subsequently updated this information every 2 years. We related this information to risk of breast cancer up to June 1, 2001. Results : During 1,246,967 person-years of follow-up, 1,344 cases of invasive breast cancer were diagnosed. Past Use of any Oral Contraceptive was not related to breast cancer risk [multivariate relative risk (RR), 1.12; 95% confidence interval 0.95-1.33]. Current Use of any Oral Contraceptive was related to a marginally significant higher risk (multivariate RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.03-1.73). One specific formulation substantially accounted for the excess risk: the RR for current Use of triphasic preparations with levonorgestrel as the progestin was 3.05 (95% CI, 2.00-4.66; P < 0.0001). Conclusions : Current Use of Oral Contraceptives carries an excess risk of breast cancer. Levonorgestrel Used in triphasic preparations may account for much of this elevation in risk. Impact : Different Oral Contraceptive formulations might convey different risks of breast cancer; ongoing monitoring of these associations is necessary as Oral Contraceptive formulations change. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 19(10); 2496–502. ©2010 AACR.
-
perineal Use of talc and risk of ovarian cancer
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2008Co-Authors: Hilde Langseth, Susan E Hankinson, Jack Siemiatycki, Elisabete WeiderpassAbstract:Ovarian cancer is one of the most common gynaecological neoplasms, especially in industrialised countries. The aetiology of the disease is not well understood, except that inherited mutations in the breast cancer genes BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 account for up to 10% of all cases, and child-bearing, Oral Contraceptive Use and breast-feeding reduce the risk. Some environmental exposures, notably talc and asbestos, have been suspected as ovarian carcinogens.
-
association of Oral Contraceptive Use other Contraceptive methods and infertility with ovarian cancer risk
American Journal of Epidemiology, 2007Co-Authors: Graham A Colditz, Susan E Hankinson, Bernard Rosner, Shelley S Tworoger, Kathleen M FairfieldAbstract:Although Oral Contraceptives are protective for ovarian cancer it is unclear how long this protection persists. The authors prospectively assessed this question as well as associations of other less studied Contraceptive methods (tubal ligation rhythm method diaphragm condoms intrauterine device foam spousal vasectomy) and infertility with ovarian cancer risk among 107900 participants in the US Nurses Health Study. During 28 years of follow-up (1976-2004) 612 cases of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer were confirmed. Duration of Oral Contraceptive Use was inversely associated with risk (p-trend = 0.02) but no clear trend was observed for years since last Use. However for women using Oral Contraceptives for >5 years the rate ratio for ovarian cancer for 20 years since last Use (rate ratio (RR) = 0.92 95% CI: 0.61 1.39). Tubal ligation (RR = 0.66 95% CI: 0.50 0.87) was associated with decreased ovarian cancer risk whereas intrauterine device Use (RR = 1.76 95% CI: 1.08 2.85) and infertility (RR = 1.36 95% CI: 1.07 1.75) were associated with an increased risk. Results suggest that the beneficial effect of Oral Contraceptives on ovarian cancer risk attenuates after 20 years since last Use. (authors modified)
Mara Z Vitolins - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
reproductive history and Oral Contraceptive Use in relation to risk of triple negative breast cancer
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2011Co-Authors: Amanda I Phipps, Jean Wactawskiwende, Rowan T Chlebowski, Ross L Prentice, Anne Mctiernan, Lewis H Kuller, Lucile L Adamscampbell, Dorothy S Lane, Marcia L Stefanick, Mara Z VitolinsAbstract:Results Reproductive history was differentially associated with risk of triple-negative and ER+ breast cancers. Nulliparity was associated with decreased risk of triple-negative breast cancer (HR = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.37 to 0.97) but increased risk of ER+ breast cancer (HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.20 to 1.52). Age-adjusted absolute rates of triple-negative breast cancer were 2.71 and 1.54 per 10 000 person-years in parous and nulliparous women, respectively; by comparison, rates of ER+ breast cancer were 21.10 and 28.16 per 10 000 person-years in the same two groups. Among parous women, the number of births was positively associated with risk of triple-negative disease (HR for three births or more vs one birth = 1.46, 95% CI = 0.82 to 2.63) and inversely associated with risk of ER+ disease (HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.74 to 1.04). Ages at menarche and menopaUse were modestly associated with risk of ER+ but not triple-negative breast cancer; breastfeeding and Oral Contraceptive Use were not associated with either subtype. Conclusion The association between parity and breast cancer risk differs appreciably for ER+ and triple-negative breast cancers. These findings require further confirmation becaUse the biological mechanisms underlying these differences are uncertain.
-
reproductive history and Oral Contraceptive Use in relation to risk of triple negative breast cancer
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2011Co-Authors: Amanda I Phipps, Jean Wactawskiwende, Rowan T Chlebowski, Ross L Prentice, Anne Mctiernan, Lewis H Kuller, Lucile L Adamscampbell, Dorothy S Lane, Marcia L Stefanick, Mara Z VitolinsAbstract:Background Triple-negative (ie, estrogen receptor [ER], progesterone receptor, and HER2 negative) breast cancer occurs disproportionately among African American women compared with white women and is associated with a worse prognosis than ER-positive (ER+) breast cancer. Hormonally mediated risk factors may be differentially related to risk of triple-negative and ER+ breast cancers. Methods Using data from 155,723 women enrolled in the Women's Health Initiative, we assessed associations between reproductive and menstrual history, breastfeeding, Oral Contraceptive Use, and subtype-specific breast cancer risk. We Used Cox regression to evaluate associations with triple-negative (N = 307) and ER+ (N = 2610) breast cancers and Used partial likelihood methods to test for differences in subtype-specific hazard ratios (HRs). Results Reproductive history was differentially associated with risk of triple-negative and ER+ breast cancers. Nulliparity was associated with decreased risk of triple-negative breast cancer (HR = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.37 to 0.97) but increased risk of ER+ breast cancer (HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.20 to 1.52). Age-adjusted absolute rates of triple-negative breast cancer were 2.71 and 1.54 per 10,000 person-years in parous and nulliparous women, respectively; by comparison, rates of ER+ breast cancer were 21.10 and 28.16 per 10,000 person-years in the same two groups. Among parous women, the number of births was positively associated with risk of triple-negative disease (HR for three births or more vs one birth = 1.46, 95% CI = 0.82 to 2.63) and inversely associated with risk of ER+ disease (HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.74 to 1.04). Ages at menarche and menopaUse were modestly associated with risk of ER+ but not triple-negative breast cancer; breastfeeding and Oral Contraceptive Use were not associated with either subtype. Conclusion The association between parity and breast cancer risk differs appreciably for ER+ and triple-negative breast cancers. These findings require further confirmation becaUse the biological mechanisms underlying these differences are uncertain.
Jean Wactawskiwende - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
exogenous hormone Use reproductive factors and risk of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma among women results from cohort studies in the liver cancer pooling project and the uk biobank
British Journal of Cancer, 2020Co-Authors: Jessica L Petrick, Una C Mcmenamin, Xuehong Zhang, Anne Zeleniuchjacquotte, Jean Wactawskiwende, Tracey G Simon, Howard D Sesso, Rashmi Sinha, Catherine SchairerAbstract:Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) arises from cholangiocytes in the intrahepatic bile duct and is the second most common type of liver cancer. Cholangiocytes express both oestrogen receptor-α and -β, and oestrogens positively modulate cholangiocyte proliferation. Studies in women and men have reported higher circulating oestradiol is associated with increased ICC risk, further supporting a hormonal aetiology. However, no observational studies have examined the associations between exogenous hormone Use and reproductive factors, as proxies of endogenous hormone levels, and risk of ICC. We harmonised data from 1,107,498 women who enroled in 12 North American-based cohort studies (in the Liver Cancer Pooling Project, LCPP) and the UK Biobank between 1980–1998 and 2006–2010, respectively. Cox proportional hazards regression models were Used to generate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence internals (CI). Then, meta-analytic techniques were Used to combine the estimates from the LCPP (n = 180 cases) and the UK Biobank (n = 57 cases). Hysterectomy was associated with a doubling of ICC risk (HR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.27–3.09), compared to women aged 50–54 at natural menopaUse. Long-term Oral Contraceptive Use (9+ years) was associated with a 62% increased ICC risk (HR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.03–2.55). There was no association between ICC risk and other exogenous hormone Use or reproductive factors. This study suggests that hysterectomy and long-term Oral Contraceptive Use may be associated with an increased ICC risk.
-
reproductive history and Oral Contraceptive Use in relation to risk of triple negative breast cancer
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2011Co-Authors: Amanda I Phipps, Jean Wactawskiwende, Rowan T Chlebowski, Ross L Prentice, Anne Mctiernan, Lewis H Kuller, Lucile L Adamscampbell, Dorothy S Lane, Marcia L Stefanick, Mara Z VitolinsAbstract:Results Reproductive history was differentially associated with risk of triple-negative and ER+ breast cancers. Nulliparity was associated with decreased risk of triple-negative breast cancer (HR = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.37 to 0.97) but increased risk of ER+ breast cancer (HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.20 to 1.52). Age-adjusted absolute rates of triple-negative breast cancer were 2.71 and 1.54 per 10 000 person-years in parous and nulliparous women, respectively; by comparison, rates of ER+ breast cancer were 21.10 and 28.16 per 10 000 person-years in the same two groups. Among parous women, the number of births was positively associated with risk of triple-negative disease (HR for three births or more vs one birth = 1.46, 95% CI = 0.82 to 2.63) and inversely associated with risk of ER+ disease (HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.74 to 1.04). Ages at menarche and menopaUse were modestly associated with risk of ER+ but not triple-negative breast cancer; breastfeeding and Oral Contraceptive Use were not associated with either subtype. Conclusion The association between parity and breast cancer risk differs appreciably for ER+ and triple-negative breast cancers. These findings require further confirmation becaUse the biological mechanisms underlying these differences are uncertain.
-
reproductive history and Oral Contraceptive Use in relation to risk of triple negative breast cancer
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2011Co-Authors: Amanda I Phipps, Jean Wactawskiwende, Rowan T Chlebowski, Ross L Prentice, Anne Mctiernan, Lewis H Kuller, Lucile L Adamscampbell, Dorothy S Lane, Marcia L Stefanick, Mara Z VitolinsAbstract:Background Triple-negative (ie, estrogen receptor [ER], progesterone receptor, and HER2 negative) breast cancer occurs disproportionately among African American women compared with white women and is associated with a worse prognosis than ER-positive (ER+) breast cancer. Hormonally mediated risk factors may be differentially related to risk of triple-negative and ER+ breast cancers. Methods Using data from 155,723 women enrolled in the Women's Health Initiative, we assessed associations between reproductive and menstrual history, breastfeeding, Oral Contraceptive Use, and subtype-specific breast cancer risk. We Used Cox regression to evaluate associations with triple-negative (N = 307) and ER+ (N = 2610) breast cancers and Used partial likelihood methods to test for differences in subtype-specific hazard ratios (HRs). Results Reproductive history was differentially associated with risk of triple-negative and ER+ breast cancers. Nulliparity was associated with decreased risk of triple-negative breast cancer (HR = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.37 to 0.97) but increased risk of ER+ breast cancer (HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.20 to 1.52). Age-adjusted absolute rates of triple-negative breast cancer were 2.71 and 1.54 per 10,000 person-years in parous and nulliparous women, respectively; by comparison, rates of ER+ breast cancer were 21.10 and 28.16 per 10,000 person-years in the same two groups. Among parous women, the number of births was positively associated with risk of triple-negative disease (HR for three births or more vs one birth = 1.46, 95% CI = 0.82 to 2.63) and inversely associated with risk of ER+ disease (HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.74 to 1.04). Ages at menarche and menopaUse were modestly associated with risk of ER+ but not triple-negative breast cancer; breastfeeding and Oral Contraceptive Use were not associated with either subtype. Conclusion The association between parity and breast cancer risk differs appreciably for ER+ and triple-negative breast cancers. These findings require further confirmation becaUse the biological mechanisms underlying these differences are uncertain.
Brittany M Charlton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a prospective study of Oral Contraceptive Use and colorectal adenomas
Cancer Causes & Control, 2016Co-Authors: Brittany M Charlton, Edward Giovannucci, Charles S Fuchs, Andrew T Chan, Jung Lee, Yin Cao, Stacey A MissmerAbstract:The influence of reproductive factors on colorectal cancer, including Oral Contraceptive (OC) Use, has been examined, but less research is available on OC Use and adenomas. Participants of the Nurses’ Health Study who had a lower bowel endoscopy between 1986 (when endoscopies were first assessed) and 2008 were included in this study. Multivariable logistic regression models for clustered data were Used to estimate odds ratios and 95 % confidence intervals [OR (95 % CIs)]. Among 73,058 participants, 51 % (n = 37,382) reported ever using OCs. Ever OC Use was associated with a slight increase in non-advanced adenomas [OR 1.11, 95 % CI (1.02, 1.21)] but not with any other endpoints. Duration of OC Use was not associated with adenomas, but longer times since last OC Use were associated with increased odds of adenomas [e.g., compared to never Use, 15+ years since last Use: OR 1.17 (1.07, 1.27)]. Shorter times since last OC Use were inversely associated [e.g., ≤4 years since last Use: OR 0.74 (0.65, 0.84)]. We observed a modest borderline increase in risk of colorectal adenomas with any prior OC Use. Additionally, more recent OC Use may decrease risk, while exposure in the distant past may modestly increase risk of adenomas.
-
Oral Contraceptive Use and colorectal cancer in the nurses health study i and ii
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 2015Co-Authors: Xuehong Zhang, Brittany M Charlton, Stacey A Missmer, Bernard Rosner, Edward Giovannucci, Charles S Fuchs, Susan E HankinsonAbstract:Background: It remains unclear if Oral Contraceptive (OC) Use is associated with the incidence of colorectal cancer. Few studies have examined this association by duration of OC Use, time since last OC Use, and different cancer subsites. Methods: Among 88,691 participants of the Nurses' Health Study I (NHSI) and 93,080 participants of the Nurses' Health Study II (NHSII), we assessed OC Use every 2 years between 1976-2010 and categorized it as ever Use, duration of Use, and time since last Use. We included incident colorectal cancer cases through 2010 (NHSI: age at diagnosis=36-88, N=1,764, NHSII: age at diagnosis=33-64, N=206). Multivariable hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals [HR (95% CIs)] were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results: Ever OC Use was not associated with colorectal cancer in NHSI [1.01 (0.91, 1.12)] nor NHSII [1.03 (0.69, 1.53)]. In NHSII, when compared to never-Users, longer durations (5+ years) of OC Use were inversely associated with the risk of colon cancers (test for trend p=0.02) but the number of endpoints was limited. No other colorectal cancer subsites were associated with OC durations or times since last OC Use in either cohort. Conclusions: In two large prospective cohorts, we found little evidence that OC Use may be protective for colorectal cancer, except potentially with longer durations of Use among younger women. Impact: Our results do not support the previous initial studies that reported an inverse association of recent OC Use with colorectal cancer but instead support newer, larger studies demonstrating no such association.
-
Oral Contraceptive Use and mortality after 36 years of follow up in the nurses health study prospective cohort study
BMJ, 2014Co-Authors: Graham A Colditz, Susan E Hankinson, Brittany M Charlton, Janet W Richedwards, Stacey A Missmer, Bernard RosnerAbstract:Objective To determine whether Use of Oral Contraceptives is associated with all caUse and caUse specific mortality. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Nurses’ Health Study, data collected between 1976 and 2012. Population 121 701 participants were prospectively followed for 36 years; lifetime Oral Contraceptive Use was recorded biennially from 1976 to 1982. Main outcome measures Overall and caUse specific mortality, assessed throughout follow-up until 2012. Cox proportional hazards models were Used to calculate the relative risks of all caUse and caUse specific mortality associated with Use of Oral Contraceptives. Results In our population of 121 577 women with information on Oral Contraceptive Use, 63 626 were never Users (52%) and 57 951 were ever Users (48%). After 3.6 million person years, we recorded 31 286 deaths. No association was observed between ever Use of Oral Contraceptives and all caUse mortality. However, violent or accidental deaths were more common among ever Users (hazard ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.37). Longer duration of Use was more strongly associated with certain caUses of death, including premature mortality due to breast cancer (test for trend P Conclusions All caUse mortality did not differ significantly between women who had ever Used Oral Contraceptives and never Users. Oral Contraceptive Use was associated with certain caUses of death, including increased rates of violent or accidental death and deaths due to breast cancer, whereas deaths due to ovarian cancer were less common among women who Used Oral Contraceptives. These results pertain to earlier Oral Contraceptive formulations with higher hormone doses rather than the now more commonly Used third and fourth generation formulations with lower estrogen doses.
-
abstract 2166 a prospective study on Oral Contraceptive Use and risk of colorectal adenomas
Cancer Research, 2014Co-Authors: Brittany M Charlton, Stacey A Missmer, Bernard Rosner, Edward Giovannucci, Charles S Fuchs, Karin B MichelsAbstract:Background: Most colorectal cancers (CRC) arise from colorectal adenomas. The influence of reproductive factors on CRC, including Oral Contraceptive (OC) Use, has been examined for a number of years, but less research is available on the role of OC Use on adenomas. A better understanding of this association will provide insight into the mechanism through which hormones impact colorectal carcinogenesis. Objective: To examine the association of OC Use and colorectal adenomas using detailed data from a large prospective cohort study with 32 yrs of follow-up data. Design: The Nurses9 Health Study was established in 1976 when 121,701 female registered nurses 30-55 yrs of age completed a mailed questionnaire on medical history and lifestyle factors. We assessed OC Use every 2 yrs between 1976-1982 and categorized this Use according to ever (≥2 mo) and never Use (reference), duration of Use (never, ≤1, >1- 4- Methods: Multivariable logistic regression models for clustered data were Used to estimate odds ratios [OR (95% CIs)]. Models were adjusted for age, body mass index, height, physical activity, smoking, processed and red meat, folate, calcium, total energy, alcohol, aspirin Use, age at first birth, parity, hormone therapy Use/duration, family history of CRC, time period, as well as endoscopy information including reason, number, and yr since most recent. Results: Among 70,164 participants who had a lower bowel endoscopy, 49% (N=34,329) reported never using OCs and 51% (N=35,835) reported ≥2 mo of Use. We recorded 2,950 never-Users with an adenoma compared to 3,075 ever-Users. Ever OC Use was associated with a slight increase of small/early stage adenomas [OR=1.12 95% CI (1.03-1.22)] but not with large/advanced stage adenomas or any other category (e.g., number of adenomas). Duration of OC Use was not associated with adenomas but longer times since last OC Use were associated with increased odds for all of the adenoma outcomes [e.g., compared to never Use, 15+ yrs since last Use for all adenomas: OR=1.18 (1.08, 1.29)]. Shorter times since last OC Use were inversely associated [e.g., ≤4 yrs since last Use for all adenomas: OR=0.76 (0.67, 0.86)]. Conclusions: The null association between OC Use and colorectal adenomas may be more nuanced than initially described in the literature. We found that OC Use was associated with certain stages/sizes of colorectal adenomas (e.g., small/early) and further exploration of the time since last OC Use associations are warranted. Support: P01CA87969, T32CA09001, T32HD060454 Citation Format: Brittany M. Charlton, Ed Giovannucci, Charles S. Fuchs, Stacey A. Missmer, Bernard A. Rosner, Kana Wu, Karin B. Michels. A prospective study on Oral Contraceptive Use and risk of colorectal adenomas. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 2166. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-2166
Amanda I Phipps - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
reproductive history and Oral Contraceptive Use in relation to risk of triple negative breast cancer
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2011Co-Authors: Amanda I Phipps, Jean Wactawskiwende, Rowan T Chlebowski, Ross L Prentice, Anne Mctiernan, Lewis H Kuller, Lucile L Adamscampbell, Dorothy S Lane, Marcia L Stefanick, Mara Z VitolinsAbstract:Results Reproductive history was differentially associated with risk of triple-negative and ER+ breast cancers. Nulliparity was associated with decreased risk of triple-negative breast cancer (HR = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.37 to 0.97) but increased risk of ER+ breast cancer (HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.20 to 1.52). Age-adjusted absolute rates of triple-negative breast cancer were 2.71 and 1.54 per 10 000 person-years in parous and nulliparous women, respectively; by comparison, rates of ER+ breast cancer were 21.10 and 28.16 per 10 000 person-years in the same two groups. Among parous women, the number of births was positively associated with risk of triple-negative disease (HR for three births or more vs one birth = 1.46, 95% CI = 0.82 to 2.63) and inversely associated with risk of ER+ disease (HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.74 to 1.04). Ages at menarche and menopaUse were modestly associated with risk of ER+ but not triple-negative breast cancer; breastfeeding and Oral Contraceptive Use were not associated with either subtype. Conclusion The association between parity and breast cancer risk differs appreciably for ER+ and triple-negative breast cancers. These findings require further confirmation becaUse the biological mechanisms underlying these differences are uncertain.
-
reproductive history and Oral Contraceptive Use in relation to risk of triple negative breast cancer
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2011Co-Authors: Amanda I Phipps, Jean Wactawskiwende, Rowan T Chlebowski, Ross L Prentice, Anne Mctiernan, Lewis H Kuller, Lucile L Adamscampbell, Dorothy S Lane, Marcia L Stefanick, Mara Z VitolinsAbstract:Background Triple-negative (ie, estrogen receptor [ER], progesterone receptor, and HER2 negative) breast cancer occurs disproportionately among African American women compared with white women and is associated with a worse prognosis than ER-positive (ER+) breast cancer. Hormonally mediated risk factors may be differentially related to risk of triple-negative and ER+ breast cancers. Methods Using data from 155,723 women enrolled in the Women's Health Initiative, we assessed associations between reproductive and menstrual history, breastfeeding, Oral Contraceptive Use, and subtype-specific breast cancer risk. We Used Cox regression to evaluate associations with triple-negative (N = 307) and ER+ (N = 2610) breast cancers and Used partial likelihood methods to test for differences in subtype-specific hazard ratios (HRs). Results Reproductive history was differentially associated with risk of triple-negative and ER+ breast cancers. Nulliparity was associated with decreased risk of triple-negative breast cancer (HR = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.37 to 0.97) but increased risk of ER+ breast cancer (HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.20 to 1.52). Age-adjusted absolute rates of triple-negative breast cancer were 2.71 and 1.54 per 10,000 person-years in parous and nulliparous women, respectively; by comparison, rates of ER+ breast cancer were 21.10 and 28.16 per 10,000 person-years in the same two groups. Among parous women, the number of births was positively associated with risk of triple-negative disease (HR for three births or more vs one birth = 1.46, 95% CI = 0.82 to 2.63) and inversely associated with risk of ER+ disease (HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.74 to 1.04). Ages at menarche and menopaUse were modestly associated with risk of ER+ but not triple-negative breast cancer; breastfeeding and Oral Contraceptive Use were not associated with either subtype. Conclusion The association between parity and breast cancer risk differs appreciably for ER+ and triple-negative breast cancers. These findings require further confirmation becaUse the biological mechanisms underlying these differences are uncertain.