scholarly journals Thyroid dysfunction and breast cancer risk among women in the UK Biobank cohort

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thi‐Van‐Trinh Tran ◽  
Camille Maringe ◽  
Sara Benitez Majano ◽  
Bernard Rachet ◽  
Marie‐Christine Boutron‐Ruault ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. e203760
Author(s):  
Kawthar Al Ajmi ◽  
Artitaya Lophatananon ◽  
Krisztina Mekli ◽  
William Ollier ◽  
Kenneth R. Muir

2020 ◽  
Vol 112 (9) ◽  
pp. 893-901 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rhonda S Arthur ◽  
Tao Wang ◽  
Xiaonan Xue ◽  
Victor Kamensky ◽  
Thomas E Rohan

Abstract Background Breast cancer is considered to result from a combination of genetic and lifestyle-related factors, but the degree to which an overall healthy lifestyle may attenuate the impact of multiple genetic variants on invasive breast cancer risk remains equivocal. Methods Using Cox proportional hazards regression models, we examined the association of a modified healthy lifestyle index (HLI) with risk of invasive breast cancer by genetic risk group among 146 326 women from the UK Biobank. We generated an HLI score based on a combination of diet, physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption and anthropometry, and a polygenic risk score (PRS) using 304 breast cancer-associated genetic loci. Results Among premenopausal and postmenopausal women, a favorable lifestyle (highest tertile) was associated with 22% and 31% reductions in invasive breast cancer risk, respectively (hazard ratio [HR]high vs low = 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64 to 0.94; HRhigh vs low = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.77, respectively), whereas a high PRS (highest tertile) was associated with more than a doubling in the risk in both groups. For premenopausal women, the greatest risk reduction in association with the HLI was seen among those with a high PRS (HRhigh vs low = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.95). In postmenopausal women, those with a favorable lifestyle had 30%, 29%, and 32% reductions in risk of invasive breast cancer in the low, intermediate, and high PRS groups, respectively (HRhigh vs low = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.56 to 0.88; HRhigh vs low = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.84; and HRhigh vs low = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.78, respectively). There was an additive but not multiplicative interaction between the HLI score and PRS for postmenopausal and, to a lesser extent, premenopausal women. Conclusion Our findings support the view that an overall healthy lifestyle may attenuate the impact of genetic factors on invasive breast cancer risk among women of European ancestry.


Author(s):  
Sandar Tin Tin ◽  
Gillian K. Reeves ◽  
Timothy J. Key

Abstract Background Some endogenous hormones have been associated with breast cancer risk, but the nature of these relationships is not fully understood. Methods UK Biobank was used. Hormone concentrations were measured in serum collected in 2006–2010, and in a repeat subsample (N ~ 5000) in 2012–13. Incident cancers were identified through data linkage. Cox regression models were used, and hazard ratios (HRs) corrected for regression dilution bias. Results Among 30,565 pre-menopausal and 133,294 post-menopausal women, 527 and 2,997, respectively, were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer during a median follow-up of 7.1 years. Cancer risk was positively associated with testosterone in post-menopausal women (HR per 0.5 nmol/L increment: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.14, 1.23) but not in pre-menopausal women (pheterogeneity = 0.03), and with IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor-1) (HR per 5 nmol/L increment: 1.18; 1.02, 1.35 (pre-menopausal) and 1.07; 1.01, 1.12 (post-menopausal); pheterogeneity = 0.2), and inversely associated with SHBG (sex hormone-binding globulin) (HR per 30 nmol/L increment: 0.96; 0.79, 1.15 (pre-menopausal) and 0.89; 0.84, 0.94 (post-menopausal); pheterogeneity = 0.4). Oestradiol, assessed only in pre-menopausal women, was not associated with risk, but there were study limitations for this hormone. Conclusions This study confirms associations of testosterone, IGF-1 and SHBG with breast cancer risk, with heterogeneity by menopausal status for testosterone.


BMJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. l2327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca C Richmond ◽  
Emma L Anderson ◽  
Hassan S Dashti ◽  
Samuel E Jones ◽  
Jacqueline M Lane ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective To examine whether sleep traits have a causal effect on risk of breast cancer. Design Mendelian randomisation study. Setting UK Biobank prospective cohort study and Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) case-control genome-wide association study. Participants 156 848 women in the multivariable regression and one sample mendelian randomisation (MR) analysis in UK Biobank (7784 with a breast cancer diagnosis) and 122 977 breast cancer cases and 105 974 controls from BCAC in the two sample MR analysis. Exposures Self reported chronotype (morning or evening preference), insomnia symptoms, and sleep duration in multivariable regression, and genetic variants robustly associated with these sleep traits. Main outcome measure Breast cancer diagnosis. Results In multivariable regression analysis using UK Biobank data on breast cancer incidence, morning preference was inversely associated with breast cancer (hazard ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 0.98 per category increase), whereas there was little evidence for an association between sleep duration and insomnia symptoms. Using 341 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with chronotype, 91 SNPs associated with sleep duration, and 57 SNPs associated with insomnia symptoms, one sample MR analysis in UK Biobank provided some supportive evidence for a protective effect of morning preference on breast cancer risk (0.85, 0.70, 1.03 per category increase) but imprecise estimates for sleep duration and insomnia symptoms. Two sample MR using data from BCAC supported findings for a protective effect of morning preference (inverse variance weighted odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 0.93 per category increase) and adverse effect of increased sleep duration (1.19, 1.02 to 1.39 per hour increase) on breast cancer risk (both oestrogen receptor positive and oestrogen receptor negative), whereas evidence for insomnia symptoms was inconsistent. Results were largely robust to sensitivity analyses accounting for horizontal pleiotropy. Conclusions Findings showed consistent evidence for a protective effect of morning preference and suggestive evidence for an adverse effect of increased sleep duration on breast cancer risk.


2020 ◽  
Vol 122 (5) ◽  
pp. 726-732 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenji Guo ◽  
Georgina K. Fensom ◽  
Gillian K. Reeves ◽  
Timothy J. Key

Abstract Background Previous studies suggest a protective role of physical activity in breast cancer risk, largely based on self-reported activity. We aimed to clarify this association by examining breast cancer risk in relation to self-reported physical activity, informed by accelerometer-based measures in a large subset of participants. Methods We analysed data from 47,456 premenopausal and 126,704 postmenopausal women in UK Biobank followed from 2006 to 2014. Physical activity was self-reported at baseline, and at resurvey in a subsample of 6443 participants. Accelerometer data, measured from 2013 to 2015, were available in 20,785 women. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by using multivariable-adjusted Cox regression. Results A total of 3189 cases were diagnosed during follow-up (mean = 5.7 years). Women in the top compared with the bottom quartile of self-reported physical activity had a reduced risk of both premenopausal (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.60–0.93) and postmenopausal breast cancer (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.78–0.98), after adjusting for adiposity. In analyses utilising physical activity values assigned from accelerometer measurements, an increase of 5 milli-gravity was associated with a 21% (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.66–0.95) reduction in premenopausal and a 16% (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73–0.96) reduction in postmenopausal breast cancer risk. Conclusions Greater physical activity is associated with a reduction in breast cancer risk, which appears to be independent of any association it may have on risk through its effects on adiposity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document