OUP accepted manuscript

Non-genetic factors and breast cancer: an umbrella review of meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Previous research has found associations between various non-genetic factors and breast cancer (BrCa) risk. This study summarises and appraises the credibility of the available evidence on the association between non-genetic factors and BrCa risk.

METHODS

We conducted an umbrella review of meta-analyses. Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane databases were systematically searched for meta-analyses examining non-genetic factors and BrCa incidence or mortality. The strength of the evidence was graded in four categories (i.e., weak, suggestive, highly suggestive, convincing).

RESULTS

A total of 781 meta-analyses from 280 publications were evaluated and graded. We included exposures related to anthropometric measurements, biomarkers, breast characteristics and diseases, diet and supplements, environment, exogenous hormones, lifestyle and social factors, medical history, medication, reproductive history, and pregnancy. The largest number of examined associations was found for the category of diet and supplements and for exposures such as aspirin use and active smoking. The statistically significant (P-value < 0.05) meta-analyses were 382 (49%), of which 204 (53.4%) reported factors associated with increased BrCa risk. Most of the statistically significant evidence (n = 224, 58.6%) was graded as weak. Convincing harmful associations with heightened BrCa risk were found for increased body mass index (BMI), BMI and weight gain in postmenopausal women, oral contraceptive use in premenopausal women, increased androstenedione, estradiol, estrone, and testosterone concentrations, high Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) classification, and increased breast density. Convincing protective factors associated with lower BrCa risk included high fiber intake and high sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) levels while highly suggestive protective factors included high 25 hydroxy vitamin D [25(OH)D] levels, adherence to healthy lifestyle, and moderate-vigorous physical activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest some highly modifiable factors that protect from BrCa. Interestingly, while diet was the most studied exposure category, the related associations failed to reach higher levels of evidence, indicating the methodological limitations in the field. To improve the validity of these associations, future research should utilise more robust study designs and better exposure assessment techniques. Overall, our study provides knowledge that supports the development of evidence-based BrCa prevention recommendations and guidance, both at an individual level and for public health initiatives.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022370675.

Contemporary Review of the Management and Treatment of Young Breast Cancer Patients

Approximately 11% of all new breast cancer cases annually are diagnosed in young women, and this continues to be the leading cause of death in women age 20 to 49. Young, premenopausal breast cancer patients present with more advanced stages and with a higher proportion of aggressive subtypes such as triple negative and HER2-enriched tumors. Recently, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the age threshold to initiate screening mammograms to age 40 to aid in earlier detection. Young age at diagnosis increases the likelihood for a pathogenic mutation, and genetic testing is recommended for all patients age 50 and younger. This population is often underrepresented in landmark clinical trials, and data is extrapolated for the treatment of young women with breast cancer. Despite there being no survival benefit to more extensive surgical treatments, such as mastectomy or contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, many patients opt against breast conservation. Young patients with breast cancer face issues related to treatment toxicities, potential overtreatment of their disease, mental health, sexual health, and fertility preservation. This unique population requires a multidisciplinary care team of physicians, surgeons, genetic counselors, fertility specialists, mental health professionals, physical therapists, and dieticians to provide individualized, comprehensive care. Our aim is to (1) provide a narrative review of retrospective studies, relevant society guidelines, and clinical trials focused on the contemporary treatment and management of YBC patients and (2) discuss important nuances in their care as a guide for members of their multidisciplinary treatment team.

Estimating the impact of bias in causal epidemiological studies: the case of health outcomes following assisted reproduction

Researchers interested in causal questions must deal with two sources of error: random error (random deviation from the true mean value of a distribution), and bias (systematic deviance from the true mean value due to extraneous factors). For some causal questions, randomization is not feasible, and observational studies are necessary. Bias poses a substantial threat to the validity of observational research and can have important consequences for health policy developed from the findings. The current piece describes bias and its sources, outlines proposed methods to estimate its impacts in an observational study, and demonstrates how these methods may be used to inform debate on the causal relationship between medically assisted reproduction (MAR) and health outcomes, using cancer as an example. In doing so, we aim to enlighten researchers who work with observational data, especially regarding the health effects of MAR and infertility, on the pitfalls of bias, and how to address them. We hope that, in combination with the provided example, we can convince readers that estimating the impact of bias in causal epidemiologic research is not only important but necessary to inform the development of robust health policy and clinical practice recommendations.

BRCA, infertility, and fertility preservation: a review for counseling

BRCA mutations as a triggering factor in breast cancer have been reported to result in fertility problems and oocyte aging in young patients with cancer diagnosis. These patients are concerned about fertility problems and family planning before undergoing treatment modalities that may result in infertility. In this review, we conducted analysis of the literature on the association between BRCA mutations and infertility, possible fertility preservation options, and their safety and tried to gather results from different disciplines and points of view on the matter. Our aim is to provide a general summary of recent studies to provide further insight on the matter for counseling BRCA mutation carriers on fertility preservation methods and their implications.

Association between fertility treatments and breast cancer risk in women with a family history or BRCA mutations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Women with hereditary breast cancer factors are more likely to be infertile and tend to receive fertility treatments. The safety of fertility treatments that contain hormone-related medications for ovarian stimulation has gained wide attention; however, evidence of the safety of fertility treatments is limited. This study aims to assess the association between fertility treatments and the incidence rate of breast cancer in women with a family history of breast cancer or BRCA mutations. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Studies concerning the effect of fertility treatments on breast cancer risk in genetically susceptible women were included. The fixed and random effects models were used to estimate the summary effects. Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions instrument was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. A total of 5,282 studies were screened. Five cohort studies and three case-control studies were included. Breast cancer risk was not significantly increased by fertility treatments in general genetically susceptible women [pooled odds ratio (OR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96-1.45], women with a family history of breast cancer (pooled OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.97-1.89), or women with BRCA mutations (pooled OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.74-1.4). In subgroup analyses, there was no significant increase in breast cancer risk whether in BRCA1 mutation carriers (pooled OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.81-1.72), BRCA2 mutation carriers (pooled OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.09-3.34), or in the women treated with in vitro fertilization (pooled OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.51-1.1), clomiphene citrate (pooled OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.78-1.45) or gonadotropins (pooled OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.8-2.18). This is the first meta-analysis concerning the impact of fertility treatments on breast cancer risk in genetically susceptible women. Despite the finding that fertility treatment did not significantly increase breast cancer risk in genetically susceptible women, large prospective cohorts with more detailed information are required. Further investigations are needed to explore subtypes of breast cancer, genetic background of hormone-related breast cancer, and the association between BRCA mutations and the incidence of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO(CRD42021281336).