A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22547473/ below:

Risk factors for breast cancer for women aged 40 to 49 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Review

. 2012 May 1;156(9):635-48. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-156-9-201205010-00006. Risk factors for breast cancer for women aged 40 to 49 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis Bernadette ZakherAmy CantorRongwei FuJessica GriffinEllen S O'MearaDiana S M BuistKarla KerlikowskeNicolien T van RavesteynAmy Trentham-DietzJeanne S MandelblattDiana L Miglioretti

Affiliations

Affiliation

Item in Clipboard

Review

Risk factors for breast cancer for women aged 40 to 49 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Heidi D Nelson et al. Ann Intern Med. 2012.

. 2012 May 1;156(9):635-48. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-156-9-201205010-00006. Authors Heidi D Nelson  1 Bernadette ZakherAmy CantorRongwei FuJessica GriffinEllen S O'MearaDiana S M BuistKarla KerlikowskeNicolien T van RavesteynAmy Trentham-DietzJeanne S MandelblattDiana L Miglioretti Affiliation

Item in Clipboard

Abstract

Background: Identifying risk factors for breast cancer specific to women in their 40s could inform screening decisions.

Purpose: To determine what factors increase risk for breast cancer in women aged 40 to 49 years and the magnitude of risk for each factor.

Data sources: MEDLINE (January 1996 to the second week of November 2011), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (fourth quarter of 2011), Scopus, reference lists of published studies, and the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Study selection: English-language studies and systematic reviews of risk factors for breast cancer in women aged 40 to 49 years. Additional inclusion criteria were applied for each risk factor.

Data extraction: Data on participants, study design, analysis, follow-up, and outcomes were abstracted. Study quality was rated by using established criteria, and only studies rated as good or fair were included. Results were summarized by using meta-analysis when sufficient studies were available or from the best evidence based on study quality, size, and applicability when meta-analysis was not possible. Data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were analyzed with proportional hazards models by using partly conditional Cox regression. Reference groups for comparisons were set at U.S. population means.

Data synthesis: Sixty-six studies provided data for estimates. Extremely dense breasts on mammography or first-degree relatives with breast cancer were associated with at least a 2-fold increase in risk for breast cancer. Prior breast biopsy, second-degree relatives with breast cancer, or heterogeneously dense breasts were associated with a 1.5- to 2.0-fold increased risk; current use of oral contraceptives, nulliparity, and age 30 years or older at first birth were associated with a 1.0- to 1.5-fold increased risk.

Limitations: Studies varied by measures, reference groups, and adjustment for confounders, which could bias combined estimates. Effects of multiple risk factors were not considered.

Conclusion: Extremely dense breasts and first-degree relatives with breast cancer were each associated with at least a 2-fold increase in risk for breast cancer in women aged 40 to 49 years. Identification of these risk factors may be useful for personalized mammography screening.

Primary funding source: National Cancer Institute.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1. Literature search and selection

BMI…

Figure 1. Literature search and selection

BMI = body mass index; OC = oral contraceptive.…

Figure 1. Literature search and selection

BMI = body mass index; OC = oral contraceptive. *Cochrane databases include the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. †Other sources include reference lists, Scopus, and studies suggested by experts. ‡Some articles are included for more than 1 risk factor. §No articles met inclusion criteria for race/ethnicity, menopausal stage and type (surgical/nonsurgical), age at menopause, and menopausal hormone use. ||Published meta-analyses. ¶ Although some studies met inclusion criteria for the systematic review, they did provide data for the meta-analysis because they used dissimilar categories or different measures than the other included studies.

Similar articles Cited by References
    1. Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, Evans P, Monsees B, Monticciolo D, et al. Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll of Radiol. 2010;7(1):18–27. - PubMed
    1. Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA, Burke W, Costanza ME, Evans WP, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin. 2003;53(3):141–69. - PubMed
    1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice bulletin no. 122: breast cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(2 Pt 1):372–82. - PubMed
    1. U S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):716–26. - PubMed
    1. van Ravesteyn N, Miglioretti D, Stout N, Lee S, Schechter C, Buist D, et al. What level of risk tips the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40? Ann of Intern Med. 2011 Submitted. - PMC - PubMed

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.3