LAST UPDATE :

 

 

 

 

Breast Cancer

 

 

Current Work

 

Available publications

A review of the relation of smoking (active and passive) to breast cancer
Morabia A, Bernstein MS
1999;in press

Smoking and breast cancer: reconciling the epidemiologic evidence by accounting for passive smoking and/or genetic susceptibility
[letter] Am J Epidemiol 1998;147(10):992-993

Relation of smoking to breast cancer by estrogen receptor status
Morabia A, Bernstein M, Heritier S Morabia A, Bernstein M, Ruiz J, Heritier S, Diebold Berger S, Borisch B

It has been suggested that smoking is associated with estrogen-negative breast cancer but not with estrogen-positive breast cancer. A population-based case-control study was conducted in Geneva, Switzerland, to determine the relation of passive and active smoking to breast cancer when the referent unexposed category consisted of women unexposed to active and passive smoke. The 242 patients with breast cancer (cases), in whom estrogen receptor (ER) status was determined on biopsy material, were compared with 1,059 women free of breast cancer (controls). Lifetime history of active and passive smoking was recorded year by year, between age 10 and the date of interview. Prevalence rates of ER+ tumors were 74.7% in pre-menopausal women and 74.2% in post-menopausal women. Post-menopausal active smokers had a lower prevalence of ER+ tumors (70.0%, p = ns). Among pre-menopausal women, the age-adjusted ORs of breast cancer with having smoked an average of or = 20 cigarettes per day (cpd) during lifetime were 2.7 for ER- tumors and 2.6 for ER+ tumors. Among post-menopausal women, corresponding ORs were 5.7 for ER-tumors and 2.4 for ER+ tumors. Smoking was related to both ER-and ER+ breast cancer in pre- and post-menopausal women, but the strength of the association appeared to be greater for ER- tumors among post-menopausal women.
Int J Cancer 1998;75(3):339-342

NAT2-smoking interaction with respect to breast cancer in menopausal women
Morabia A, Bernstein M, Héritier S, Bouchardy I, Morris MA
American Journal of Epidemiology 1998;147(11):S45-S45

Relation of breast cancer with passive and active exposure to tobacco smoke
Morabia A, Bernstein M, Heritier S, Khatchatrian N
Studies on passive smoking have consistently shown a tendency toward an increased risk of breast cancer, while studies an active smoking have failed to demonstrate an association. This apparent contradiction may stem from not separating passive smokers from the unexposed when assessing the effect of active smoking. a population based case-control study was conducted in Geneva, Switzerland, between January 1992 and October 1993 to determine the relation of passive and active smoking to breast cancer when the referent unexposed category consisted of women unexposed to active and passive smoke. The 244 patients with breast cancer (cases) were compared with 1.032 women free of breast cancer (controls). The lifetime history of active and passive smoking was recorded year by year, between the age of 10 and the date of the interview. The adjusted odds of breast cancer for ever active smokers, compared with women unexposed to either passive or active smoke, were 2.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-4.4) for an average lifetime consumption of 1-9 cigarettes per day, 2.7% (95% CI 1.4-5.4) for 10-19 cigarettes per day, and 4.6 (95% CI 2.2-9.7) for 30 or more cigarettes per day. Among passive smokers, the adjusted odds ratio was 3.2 (95% CI 1.6-6.3) for being exposed for the equivalent of 2 hours per day for 25 years. The odds ratios were adjusted for known or postulated risk factors of breast cancer, including alcohol and saturated fat intake. There was no evidence of strong selection, detection, or recall biases. Active and passive exposure to tobacco smoke may increase the risk of breast cancer. Additional studies are needed to decide whether the association is causal. Further elucidation of this relation would benefit not only the prevention of breast cancer but also the the prevention of other smoking-related diseases in women.
Am J Epidemiol 1996;143(9):918-928

Contact the Webmaster