4.6 Article

Breast Cancer Among Nurses: Is the Intensity of Night Work Related to Hormone Receptor Status?

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 178, Issue 1, Pages 110-117

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kws428

Keywords

breast cancer; case-control studies; chronobiology phenomenon; estrogen; Norway; nurses; progesterone; receptors

Funding

  1. Research Council of Norway [185776/V50]
  2. South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority [3b-107]
  3. Norwegian Cancer Society [PK01-2009-0444]
  4. Raagholtstiftelsen foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to investigate whether night work is related to breast cancer receptor status. The effect of night work on the risk of estrogen receptor- and progesterone receptor-defined breast cancers was evaluated in 513 nurses diagnosed with breast cancer between 1996 and 2007 and in 757 frequency-matched controls, all of whom were selected from a cohort of Norwegian nurses. Odds ratios for the exposure duration of work with a minimum of 6 consecutive night shifts were compared for tumor subgroups with respect to the common control group through the use of polytomous logistic regression. Statistically significant associations were observed between breast cancer and work durations of >= 5 years with >= 6 consecutive night shifts, with the highest risk observed for progesterone receptor-positive tumors (odds ratio = 2.4, 95% confidence interval: 1.3, 4.3; P-trend = 0.01). When the exposure variable was dichotomized (ever/never worked >= 6 consecutive night shifts), a borderline statistically significant heterogeneity (P = 0.05) was seen between progesterone receptor-positive and progesterone receptor-negative tumors in postmenopausal women. The association observed between consecutive night shifts and progesterone receptor-positive cancers suggests that progesterone could play an important role in the detrimental effects of night work.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available