4.7 Review

Light-at-night, circadian disruption and breast cancer: assessment of existing evidence

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 4, Pages 963-970

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyp178

Keywords

Breast cancer; circadian disruption; light-at-night; melatonin; clock

Funding

  1. National Institute of Environmental Health Science [ES11659]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Methods The theory is based on nocturnal light-induced disruption of circadian rhythms, notably reduction of melatonin synthesis. It has formed the basis for a series of predictions including that non-day shift work would increase risk, blind women would be at lower risk, long sleep duration would lower risk and community nighttime light level would co-distribute with breast cancer incidence on the population level. Results Accumulation of epidemiological evidence has accelerated in recent years, reflected in an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of shift work as a probable human carcinogen (2A). There is also a strong rodent model in support of the light-at-night (LAN) idea. Conclusion If a consensus eventually emerges that LAN does increase risk, then the mechanisms for the effect are important to elucidate for intervention and mitigation. The basic understanding of phototransduction for the circadian system, and of the molecular genetics of circadian rhythm generation are both advancing rapidly, and will provide for the development of lighting technologies at home and at work that minimize circadian disruption, while maintaining visual efficiency and aesthetics. In the interim, there are strategies now available to reduce the potential for circadian disruption, which include extending the daily dark period, appreciate nocturnal awakening in the dark, using dim red light for nighttime necessities, and unless recommended by a physician, not taking melatonin tablets.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available