4.7 Article

Breast cancer risk following Hodgkin lymphoma radiotherapy in relation to menstrual and reproductive factors

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 108, 期 11, 页码 2399-2406

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2013.219

关键词

Hodgkin lymphoma; breast cancer; supradiaphragmatic radiotherapy

类别

资金

  1. Breakthrough Breast Cancer [BR 02/04]
  2. European Commission [223497]
  3. National Institute for Health Research
  4. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0507-10370] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Women treated with supradiaphragmatic radiotherapy (sRT) for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) at young ages have a substantially increased breast cancer risk. Little is known about how menarcheal and reproductive factors modify this risk. Methods: We examined the effects of menarcheal age, pregnancy, and menopausal age on breast cancer risk following sRT in case-control data from questionnaires completed by 2497 women from a cohort of 5002 treated with sRT for HL at ages <36 during 1956-2003. Results: Two-hundred and sixty women had been diagnosed with breast cancer. Breast cancer risk was significantly increased in patients treated within 6 months of menarche (odds ratio (OR) 5.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.97-15.46)), and increased significantly with proximity of sRT to menarche (P-trend<0.001). It was greatest when sRT was close to a late menarche, but based on small numbers and needing reexamination elsewhere. Risk was not significantly affected by full-term pregnancies before or after treatment. Risk was significantly reduced by early menopause (OR 0.55, 95% CI (0.35-0.85)), and increased with number of premenopausal years after treatment (P-trend = 0.003). Conclusion: In summary, this paper shows for the first time that sRT close to menarche substantially increases breast cancer risk. Careful consideration should be given to follow-up of these women, and to measures that might reduce their future breast cancer 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

4.7
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