4.3 Article

Breast cancer risk and the combined effect of environmental estrogens

期刊

CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL
卷 15, 期 6, 页码 591-600

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/B:CACO.0000036167.51236.86

关键词

breast cancer; environmental estrogens; epidemiology; organochlorine pesticides; risk factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The present study aimed to determine whether the combined effects of environmental estrogens measured as the total effective xenoestrogen burden (TEXB-alpha) are a risk factor for breast cancer over and above the risk potentially linked to specific pesticides. Methods: We measured the levels of 16 organochlorine pesticides as well as TEXB in adipose tissue of 198 women at the time of breast cancer diagnosis. These were compared with findings in 260 age and hospital matched control women without breast cancer. Results: The median levels of p,p'-DDE (1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene), aldrin, endosulfan ether and lindane (the pesticides detected in >40% of the study population) were higher in cases than controls, although the differences did not reach statistical significance. After adjusting for potential confounders, the odds ratio (OR) for breast cancer in women with detectable levels of aldrin was 1.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00-2.40). Among the postmenopausal women, the OR for aldrin and lindane was 1.84 (95% CI 1.06-3.18) and 1.76 (95% CI 1.04-2.98), respectively. Among cases with body mass index (BMI) below the median (28.6 kg/m(2)), the OR was 3.42 (95% CI 1.22-9.58) for women in the highest quartile of TEXB-alpha versus those in the lowest. The subgroup of leaner postmenopausal women showed an increased risk (OR: 5.67; 95% CI 1.59-20.21) for those in the highest tertile versus those in the lowest. Conclusions: We found an increased risk for breast cancer in the leaner women, especially in the leaner postmenopausal subgroup, related to the TEXB-alpha. The pesticides aldrin and lindane are also individually associated with risk.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据