Open Access

Differential impact of body mass index and its change on the risk of breast cancer by molecular subtype: A case-control study in Japanese women

  • Aiko Sueta1, 2,
  • Hidemi Ito1,
  • Tania Islam1,
  • Satoyo Hosono1,
  • Miki Watanabe1,
  • Kaoru Hirose3,
  • Takashi Fujita4,
  • Yasushi Yatabe5,
  • Hiroji Iwata4,
  • Kazuo Tajima6,
  • Hideo Tanaka1, 7,
  • Hirotaka Iwase2 and
  • Keitaro Matsuo1, 7Email author
SpringerPlus20121:39

DOI: 10.1186/2193-1801-1-39

Received: 23 September 2012

Accepted: 26 September 2012

Published: 23 October 2012

Abstract

Body mass index (BMI) is an independent risk factor for luminal-type breast cancer in Western populations. However, it is unclear whether the impact of BMI differs according to breast cancer subtype in Japanese populations. We conducted a case–control study with 715 cases and 1430 age- and menopausal status-matched controls to evaluate the associations of BMI and its change (from age 20 years to the current age) with breast cancer risk. We applied conditional logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Tumor subtypes were divided into four subtypes, namely the luminal, luminal/HER2, HER2-rich, and triple-negative subtypes. Current BMI and BMI change were positively associated with postmenopausal breast cancer risk. On stratified analysis by tumor subtype, we observed associations between current BMI and BMI change and postmenopausal breast cancer risk for the luminal subtype, with OR for each 1 kg/m2 increase in current BMI of 1.14 (95% CI: 1.07 - 1.20) and the corresponding OR of BMI change of 1.16 (1.09 - 1.23) (each P trend < 0.001). Additionally, we found the same tendency for the triple-negative subtype, with the OR for a 1 kg/m2 increase in current BMI of 1.21 (1.05 - 1.39) and that for BMI change of 1.18 (1.02 - 1.36) (P trend was 0.008 and 0.024, respectively). In premenopausal women, a suggestive inverse association was observed between BMI change and breast cancer risk for the luminal subtype only, with OR of BMI change of 0.93 (0.87 - 1.00, Ptrend = 0.054). No association was seen between BMI at age 20 years and risk of any tumor subtype. In conclusion, BMI and its change are associated with the risk of both luminal and triple-negative breast cancer among postmenopausal Japanese women. These findings suggest the etiological heterogeneity of breast cancer among tumor subtypes.

Keywords

Body mass index Breast cancer risk Molecular subtype

Introduction

The rapid increase in the incidence rate of breast cancer over the last quarter of a century in Japan (Matsuda et al. 2011) can be related to changes in the prevalence of established risk factors, such as reproductive and anthropometric factors (Minami et al. 2004). Among these, obesity is an important and potentially modifiable risk factor for breast cancer, the incidence of which is increasing in most countries (World Health Organization 2011). In Japan also, body mass index (BMI) has consistently increased in older women, albeit that the prevalence of obesity remains lower than in Western countries (Funatogawa et al. 2009; OECD 2010).

The association between high BMI or adult weight gain and breast cancer risk for postmenopausal women has been established, and found to be partly attributable to an increase in circulating endogenous estrogen levels from adipose tissue, the primary source of estrogen in postmenopausal women (Han et al. 2006; Kawai et al. 2010; Eliassen et al. 2006). These findings are supported by the fact that the association between BMI and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer is stronger for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive than -negative tumors (Feigelson et al. 2006; Vrieling et al. 2010; Suzuki et al. 2011).

The clinical relevance of molecular subtypes of breast cancer has been demonstrated. These appear to include at least four major tumor subtypes defined by ER, progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status, (Perou et al. 2000; Sorlie et al. 2001). Although these distinct subtypes have been associated with different clinical outcomes (Sotiriou et al. 2003), evidence on etiologic differences among them is limited. Some epidemiological studies have shown that reproductive factors and BMI are associated with an increased risk of only ER- and/or PR-positive tumors (Phipps et al. 2011; Phipps et al. 2008), but others have suggested that ER- and PR-negative tumors are also positively associated with BMI (Yang et al. 2011; Yang et al. 2007). These studies were conducted mainly in Western populations, however, and the findings have not been entirely consistent. Additionally, potential biological differences among cancers may be present, and the prevalence of obesity differs between Western and Asian countries. These issues thus highlight the importance of evaluating the impact of BMI and its change on breast cancer risk by tumor subtype in Asian populations.

Here, we conducted a case–control study to evaluate associations between BMI and breast cancer risk by tumor subtype, defined by ER, PR, and HER2 status, in a Japanese population.

Material and methods

Subjects

Case subjects were 715 female cancer patients with no previous history of breast cancer who initially visited Aichi Cancer Center Hospital (ACCH) in Nagoya, Japan, between January 2001 and June 2005. Control subjects were 1430 age- and menopause-matched females without any history of cancer, giving a 1:2 case–control ratio. All subjects were selected from the database of the Hospital-based Epidemiologic Research Program at Aichi Cancer Center (HERPACC), the framework of which has been described elsewhere (Tajima et al. 2000; Hamajima et al. 2001). In brief, 23408 HERPACC-enrolled first-visit outpatients were asked to provide information on lifestyle factors and blood samples for genetic studies. Approximately 95% of eligible subjects completed a self-administered questionnaire, responses to which were checked by a trained interviewer, and 55% provided blood samples. We selected women as cases whose histological diagnosis was available and whose ER, PR and HER2 status results were confirmed. We used cancer-free patients at our hospital as controls given the likelihood that our case subjects arose within this population base. We previously showed that the general lifestyle of cancer-free outpatients at our hospital was in accord with that of a general population randomly selected from the electoral roll of Nagoya City, Aichi Prefecture, confirming the feasibility of their use as controls in epidemiological studies (Inoue et al. 1997). The present study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Review Board of ACC, and all participants gave written informed consent.

Evaluation of environmental factors

The HERPACC questionnaire included items on height and weight, weight at age 20 years, menopausal status, parity and lactation, drinking and smoking habits, exercise, hormone use, individual medical history, family history of cancer, and referral pattern to our hospital. Patients were asked to provide information on their lifestyle at one year before the onset of symptoms for those who were symptomatic, or at the time of interview for those who were asymptomatic.

BMI at current age and at age 20 years was calculated as the weight divided by the squared height (kg/m2) and divided into four groups, < 18.5, ≥ 18.5 to < 22, ≥ 22 to < 25, and ≥ 25. BMI at current age was referred to BMI at cancer diagnosis. Although the cut-off points of BMI for underweight/normal/overweight/obese under the World Health Organization (WHO) definition are < 18.5, ≥ 18.5 to < 25, ≥ 25 to < 30, and ≥ 30, respectively (World Health Organization 2012), we combined the overweight and obese groups and divided the normal group into two subgroups in consideration of the low prevalence of obesity in Japan. BMI change from age 20 years to the current age was calculated as the difference between current BMI and BMI at age 20, and was also categorized into six groups, with a BMI loss of < −4, or ≥ −4 to < −2; stable BMI of ≥ −2 to < +2; and BMI gain of ≥ +2 to < +5, ≥ +5 to < +8, and ≥ +8. Alcohol consumption was divided into never, light, moderate, and heavy drinking, with light drinking defined as consumption of less than 5 g of ethanol per day; moderate drinking as between 5 and less than 23 g per day; and heavy drinking as 23 g or more per day. Smoking habit was divided into never, former or current smoking of < 20, and ≥ 20 pack-years. Regular exercise was classified into no exercise, less than half an hour of exercise per day, and half an hour or more of exercise per day. Hormone use included all use for contraception, infertility, treatment or hormone replacement therapy. Family history was considered positive when a mother or sister had breast cancer.

Definition of tumor subtypes and their assessment

We performed a medical record review for all case subjects. ER, PR and HER2 expression was confirmed from the original pathological reports. ER and PR status was assessed according to the Allred system by combining frequency and intensity scores. Using the Allred score, tumors scoring 0 or 2 were regarded as negative, and 3 or more as positive. HER2 expression was determined by immunohistochemical (IHC) staining based on the Hercep test. Tumors that showed 2+ were definitively evaluated by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Tumors were considered HER2-positive if they were either scored 3+ by IHC staining, or 2+ by IHC and were also HER2 amplified on the basis of FISH. With regard to tumor subtypes, we adopted the IHC classification described by Carey et al. (Carey et al. 2006), which categorizes breast cancer according to the expression status of ER, PR and HER2 as follows: luminal (ER- and/or PR-positive and HER2-negative), luminal/HER2 (ER- and/or PR-positive and HER2-positive), HER2-rich (ER- and PR-negative and HER2-positive), and triple-negative (ER-, PR- and HER2-negative).

Statistical analysis

The significance of differences in categorized demographic variables between cases and controls was evaluated using the Chi-square test. Subjects with unknown data were excluded from the Chi-square test. Mean ages were compared using the Mann–Whitney test. The effect of each BMI indicator (current BMI, BMI at age 20 years, and BMI change) was estimated using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) by conditional logistic regression models adjusted for potential confounders, namely age, age at menarche (≤ 12, 13–14, ≥ 15), menopausal status (premenopause, postmenopause), parity (0, 1–2, ≥ 3), age at first live birth (nulliparous, 17–23, 24–27, ≥ 28), family history of breast cancer (yes, no), hormone use for contraception, infertility treatment or hormone replacement therapy (yes, no), total exercise (none, < 0.5 h/day, ≥ 0.5 h/day), and referral pattern to our hospital (patient discretion, recommendation by family or friend, referral from another clinic, secondary screening after primary screening, or other). We excluded 6 subjects (2 cases and 4 controls) with missing information on menopausal status, leaving 2139 subjects for stratified analysis by menopausal status.

Interactions between respective BMI and menopausal status were evaluated under the multiplicative model, and the cross-product terms of these factors were included in the multivariate conditional logistic regression models as interaction terms. The P value for interaction was calculated by a likelihood ratio test which compared models with and without the interaction terms.

All statistical analyses were carried out using STATA ver. 11 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX). All tests were two-sided and P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Table 1 shows the distribution of background characteristics of the 715 breast cancer cases and 1430 controls. Age and menopausal status were matched appropriately. Compared to control subjects, cases were more likely to have an early age at menarche (mean age ± SD: 13.3 ± 1.6 vs. 13.5 ± 1.7, P = 0.040), later first live birth among parous women (mean age ± SD: 26.2 ± 3.4 vs. 25.9 ± 3.6, P = 0.038), and a higher BMI (mean BMI ± SD: 22.5 ± 3.3 vs. 21.9 ± 3.2, P < 0.001). With regard to referral pattern, cases were more likely to have a family recommendation or referral from other clinics and less likely to refer at patient discretion or as part of secondary screening after primary screening. Unexpectedly, case subjects were more likely to do exercise for more than half an hour per day than controls (P = 0.029). In contrast, the other factors did not statistically significantly differ between the two groups.
Table 1

Characteristics of breast cancer cases and cancer-free controls

 

Cases (n = 715) (%)

Controls (n = 1430) (%)

P

Age (year)

   

  ≤29

10 (1.4)

25 (1.8)

 

  30-39

83 (11.6)

184 (12.9)

 

  40-49

195 (27.3)

387 (27.1)

 

  50-59

231 (32.3)

439 (30.7)

 

  60-69

147 (20.6)

295 (20.6)

 

  70-79

49 (6.9)

100 (7.0)

0.93

  Mean age ± SD

52.4 ± 11.1

52.0 ± 11.3

0.410

Menopausal status

   

  Premenopausal

340 (47.6)

680 (47.6)

 

  Postmenopausal

373 (52.2)

746 (52.2)

1.00

  Unknown

2 (0.3)

4 (0.3)

 

Age at menarche(year)

   

  ≤12

234 (32.7)

408 (28.5)

 

  13-14

336 (47.0)

670 (46.9)

 

  ≥15

137 (19.2)

326 (22.8)

0.06

  Unknown

8 (1.1)

26 (1.8)

 

  Mean age ± SD

13.3 ± 1.6

13.5 ± 1.7

0.040

Parity

   

  0

103 (14.4)

216 (15.1)

 

  1-2

462 (64.6)

895 (62.6)

 

  ≥3

150 (21.0)

312 (21.8)

0.74

  Unknown

0 (0)

7 (0.5)

 

Age at first live birth (year)

   

  17-23

114 (15.9)

278 (19.4)

 

  24-27

302 (42.2)

614 (42.9)

 

  ≥28

191 (26.7)

304 (21.3)

 

  No birth

103 (14.4)

216 (15.1)

0.02

  Unknown

5 (0.7)

18 (1.3)

 

  Mean age ± SD

26.2 ± 3.4

25.9 ± 3.6

0.04

Age at menopause (year) (postmenopausal women only)

 

  ≤49

128 (34.4)

247 (33.1)

 

  ≥50

238 (63.8)

489 (65.6)

0.64

  Unknown

7 (1.9)

10 (1.3)

 

  Mean age ± SD

49.6 ± 5.0

49.4 ± 5.1

0.71

BMI (kg/m2)

   

  <18.5

59 (8.3)

150 (10.5)

 

  18.5-21.9

293 (41.0)

679 (47.5)

 

  22–24.9

210 (29.4)

379 (26.5)

 

  ≥25

148 (20.7)

210 (14.7)

< 0.001

  Unknown

5 (0.7)

12 (0.8)

 

  Mean BMI ± SD

22.5 ± 3.3

21.9 ± 3.2

< 0.001

Alcohol consumption (g/day)

   

  Never

444 (62.1)

900 (62.9)

 

  Lighta

124 (17.3)

277 (19.4)

 

  Moderateb

84 (11.8)

166 (11.6)

 

  Heavyc

56 (7.8)

81 (5.7)

0.2

  Unknown

7 (1.0)

6 (0.4)

 

Smoking (pack/year)

   

  Never

594 (83.1)

1173 (82.0)

 

  <20

79 (11.1)

162 (11.3)

 

  ≥20

34 (4.8)

84 (5.9)

0.560

  Unknown

8 (1.1)

11 (0.8)

 

Total exercise (hour/day)

   

  No

200 (28.0)

407 (28.5)

 

  <0.5

279 (39.0)

629 (44.0)

 

  ≥0.5

228 (31.9)

384 (26.9)

0.03

  Unknown

8 (1.1)

10 (0.7)

 

Family history of breast cancer

   

  Yes

59 (8.3)

94 (6.6)

 

  No

656 (91.8)

1336 (93.4)

0.16

Hormone use

   

  Yes

98 (13.7)

197 (13.8)

 

  No

604 (84.5)

1189 (83.2)

0.88

  Unknown

13 (1.8)

44 (3.1)

 

Referral pattern to our hospital

   

  Patient's discretion

205 (28.7)

496 (34.7)

 

  Family recommendation

154 (21.5)

244 (17.1)

 

  Referral from other clinics

206 (28.8)

251 (17.6)

 

  Secondary screening after primary screening

139 (19.4)

431 (30.1)

 

  Others

6 (0.8)

4 (0.3)

< 0.001

  Unknown

5 (0.7)

4 (0.3)

 

Tumor subtype

   

Luminal (ER and/or PR+ and HER2 -)

455 (63.6)

  

Luminal HER2 (ER and/or PR+ and HER2+)

108 (15.1)

  

HER2 rich (ER and PR- and HER2+)

84 (11.8)

  

Triple negative (ER and PR- and HER2-)

68 (9.5)

  

aLight drinker means consumption of < 5g ethanol/day. bModerate drinker means consumption of between 5 and 23 g ethanol/day. cHeavy drinker means consumption of >23 g ethanol/day.

Table 2 shows the association between current BMI, BMI at age 20 years, or BMI change and breast cancer risk. For all women, we observed strong positive associations between current BMI or BMI change and breast cancer risk, with ORs in the overweight group (current BMI ≥ 25) of 1.61 (95% CI : 1.23 - 2.11) compared to the normal group (BMI range from 18.5 to 22) (Ptrend < 0.001). Similarly, OR for women with the highest BMI change (BMI gain ≥ 8) was 2.56 (1.49 - 4.38) compared to those of women with stable BMI change (BMI change from −2 to +1.9) (Ptrend < 0.001). In contrast, no significant association was seen between BMI at age 20 years and breast cancer risk. On stratified analysis by menopausal status, current BMI and BMI change were positively associated with breast cancer risk only among postmenopausal women (each Ptrend < 0.001). We also observed statistically significant interactions between current BMI, BMI change, and menopausal status (Pinteraction = 0.0036 and Pinteraction < 0.001, respectively).
Table 2

Odds ratios (ORs) of breast cancer by the distribution of body mass index (BMI)

  

All (n=2145)

 

Premenopausal (n=1020)

 

Postmenopausal (n=1119)

 
 

Case / Control

  

Case / Control

  

Case / Control

   
 

(n=715 / 1430)

ORs

95% CI

(n=340 / 680)

ORs

95% CI

(n=373 / 746)

ORs

95% CI

P interaction

Current BMI (kg / m2)

 

  < 18.5

59 / 150

0.93

0.66 - 1.33

41 / 83

1.11

0.70 - 1.76

17 / 67

0.66

0.36 - 1.23

 

  18.5 - 21.9

293 / 679

1.00

(ref.)

175 / 377

1.00

(ref.)

118 / 299

1.00

(ref.)

 

  22–24.9

210 / 379

1.26

0.99 - 1.59

84 / 144

1.08

0.75 - 1.55

125 / 234

1.38

0.99 - 1.93

 

  ≥ 25

148 / 210

1.61

0.99 - 1.59

36 / 74

0.88

0.55 - 1.41

112 / 136

1.98

1.39 - 2.82

 

  Unknown

5 / 12

  

4 / 2

  

1 / 10

   

  per1 kg / m2 increase

 

1.06

1.02 - 1.09

 

0.98

0.93 - 1.03

 

1.11

1.06 - 1.15

 

  Ptrend

  

< 0.001

  

0.373

  

< 0.001

0

BMI at age 20 years

 

  < 18.5

120 / 295

0.79

0.61 - 1.01

72 / 174

0.81

0.57 - 1.14

47 / 119

0.74

0.50 - 1.09

 

  18.5 - 21.9

452 / 842

1.00

(ref.)

221 / 412

1.00

(ref.)

230 / 429

1.00

(ref.)

 

  22–24.9

116 / 229

0.91

0.70 - 1.19

39 / 75

0.88

0.55 - 1.39

77 / 153

0.95

0.67 - 1.33

 

  ≥ 25

17 / 35

0.81

0.43 - 1.51

5 / 12

0.77

0.25 - 2.39

12 / 23

0.88

0.40 - 1.92

 

  Unknown

10 / 29

  

3 / 7

  

7 / 22

   

  per1 kg / m2 increase

 

1.02

0.98 - 1.07

 

1.03

0.96 - 1.11

 

1.02

0.96 - 1.08

 

  Ptrend

  

0.346

  

0.359

  

0.601

0.88

BMI change (from age 20 to the current age)

 

  < −4

9 / 24

0.72

0.31 - 1.65

5 / 5

1.88

0.49 - 7.19

4 / 19

0.40

0.12 - 1.33

 

  -4 to −2.1

30 / 83

0.80

0.51 - 1.26

16 / 27

1.22

0.62 - 2.42

14 / 56

0.58

0.30 - 1.14

 

  -2 to +1.9

335 / 717

1.00

(ref.)

199 / 402

1.00

(ref.)

135 / 314

1.00

(ref.)

 

  +2 to +4.9

221 / 421

1.05

0.84 - 1.32

86 / 185

0.86

0.61 - 1.22

134 / 233

1.15

0.83 - 1.58

 

  +5 to +7.9

72 / 122

1.30

0.92 - 1.86

20 / 39

1.07

0.56 - 2.05

52 / 83

1.42

0.91 - 2.20

 

  ≥ +8

34 / 28

2.56

1.49 - 4.38

8 / 15

0.96

0.37 - 2.46

26 / 13

4.42

2.10 - 9.28

 

  Unknown

14 / 35

  

6 / 7

  

8 / 28

   

  per1 kg / m2 increase

 

1.06

1.03 - 1.10

 

0.95

0.90 - 1.01

 

1.12

1.07 - 1.17

 

  Ptrend

  

< 0.001

  

0.102

  

< 0.001

< 0.001

ORs were adjusted for age, age at menarche, menopause, parity, age at first live birth, family history of breast cancer, total exercise, hormone use, and referral pattern to our hospital.

aAnalysis of the likelihood test for equality between BMI and menopausal status.

Furthermore, we also evaluated the association between BMI and breast cancer risk by tumor subtype (Table 3). As the effect of BMI by menopausal status showed heterogeneity, we obtained stratified results by menopausal status. Current BMI and BMI change were positively associated with breast cancer risk for both luminal and triple-negative subtypes among postmenopausal women only, with ORs for each 1 kg/m2 increase in current BMI of 1.14 (1.07 - 1.20) for the luminal subtype (Ptrend < 0.001) and 1.21 (1.05 - 1.39, Ptrend = 0.008) for the triple-negative subtype. Similarly, the effect of BMI change was statistically significant for the luminal and triple-negative subtypes among postmenopausal women (Ptrend < 0.001 and Ptrend = 0.024, respectively). Further, we also found the same tendency for increased risk with BMI change after adjustment for BMI at age 20 years (data was not shown). No significant associations between current BMI, BMI change and breast cancer risk were seen for the other subtypes.
Table 3

Associations between BMI and breast cancer risk by tumor subtype and menopausal status

 

Luminal (n=455)

Luminal / HER2 (n=108)

HER2 (n=84)

Triple negative (n=68)

 

Premenopausal

Postmenopausal

Premenopausal

Postmenopausal

Premenopausal

Postmenopausal

Premenopausal

Postmenopausal

 

Case

  

Case

  

Case

  

Case

  

Case

  

Case

  

Case

  

Case

  
 

(n=236)

ORs

95% CI

(n=218)

ORs

95% CI

(n=56)

ORs

95% CI

(n=52)

ORs

95% CI

(n=29)

ORs

95% CI

(n=55)

ORs

95% CI

(n=19)

ORs

95% CI

(n=48)

ORs

95% CI

Current BMI (kg / m2)

  < 18.5

30

1.23

0.70 - 2.15

9

0.65

0.28 - 1.50

5

0.63

0.16 - 2.56

2

0.66

0.09 - 4.83

3

0.48

0.04 - 5.64

4

0.34

0.06 - 1.82

3

-

 

2

0.43

0.04 - 4.12

  18.5 - 21.9

123

1.00

(ref.)

61

1.00

(ref.)

31

1.00

(ref.)

23

1.00

(ref.)

10

1.00

(ref.)

22

1.00

(ref.)

11

1.00

(ref.)

12

1.00

(ref.)

  22–24.9

51

0.92

0.59 - 1.45

76

1.46

0.94 - 2.29

17

1.95

0.64 - 5.99

13

0.81

0.27 - 2.42

12

3.67

0.69 - 19.5

18

0.80

0.26 - 2.47

4

-

 

18

2.74

0.81 - 9.22

  ≥ 25

28

0.96

0.55 - 1.68

71

2.13

1.33 - 3.42

3

0.17

0.03 - 1.03

14

2.38

0.75 - 7.58

4

2.66

0.13 - 52.8

11

1.04

0.33 - 3.30

1

-

 

16

7.51

1.84 - 9.22

  Unknown

4

  

1

  

0

  

0

  

0

  

0

  

0

  

0

  

  per1 kg / m2 increase

 

0.97

0.92 - 1.03

 

1.14

1.07 - 1.20

 

0.96

0.81 - 1.13

 

1.14

0.99 - 1.30

 

1.18

0.91 - 1.53

 

1.05

0.93 - 1.18

 

-

  

1.21

1.05 - 1.39

  Ptrend

  

0.363

  

<0.001

  

0.620

  

0.071

  

0.222

  

0.452

     

0.008

BMI at age 20 years

  < 18.5

45

0.72

0.46 - 1.11

29

0.81

0.48 - 1.36

10

0.36

0.12 - 1.10

7

0.53

0.17 - 1.65

11

4.32

0.63 - 29.7

8

0.75

0.22 - 2.55

6

-

 

3

0.57

0.13 - 2.50

  18.5 - 21.9

154

1.00

(ref.)

127

1.00

(ref.)

41

1.00

(ref.)

34

1.00

(ref.)

15

1.00

(ref.)

35

1.00

(ref.)

11

1.00

(ref.)

34

1.00

(ref.)

  22 - 24.9

33

0.98

0.58 - 1.64

51

0.98

0.63 - 1.51

2

0.08

0.01 -0.56

9

1.71

0.40 - 7.37

3

20.9

1.03 - 421.7

9

2.23

0.63 - 7.91

1

-

 

8

0.79

0.26 - 2.35

  ≥ 25

2

0.40

0.07 - 2.16

6

0.97

0.32 - 3.00

2

0.58

0.01 - 23.7

2

1.10

0.07 - 17.5

0

-

 

2

2.99

0.17 - 53.9

1

-

 

2

0.54

0.06 - 4.96

  Unknown

2

  

5

  

1

  

0

  

0

  

1

  

0

  

1

  

  per1 kg / m2 increase

 

1.06

0.97 - 1.15

 

1.02

0.94 - 1.11

 

0.98

0.79 - 1.23

 

1.13

0.89 - 1.42

 

1.04

0.90 - 2.04

 

1.13

0.91 - 1.41

 

-

   

0.98

  Ptrend

  

0.235

  

0.617

  

0.876

  

0.314

  

0.852

  

0.264

     

0.838

BMI change (from age 20 to the current age)

  < −4

3

1.27

0.25 - 6.38

4

0.81

0.21 - 3.16

1

0.47

0.01 - 19.5

0

-

 

0

-

 

0

-

 

1

-

 

0

-

 

  -4 to −2.1

14

1.18

0.56 - 2.48

8

0.71

0.30 - 1.70

2

1.09

0.14 - 8.64

0

-

 

0

-

 

4

0.74

0.06 - 8.53

0

-

 

2

0.62

0.08 - 4.87

  −2 to +1.9

141

1.00

(ref.)

64

1.00

(ref.)

32

1.00

(ref.)

26

1.00

(ref)

15

1.00

(ref.)

27

1.00

(ref.)

11

1.00

(ref.)

18

1.00

(ref.)

  +2 to +4.9

58

0.79

0.52 - 1.20

84

1.41

0.91 - 2.18

17

1.02

0.37 - 2.81

18

0.89

0.33 - 2.39

6

0.60

0.07 - 5.25

13

0.34

0.11 - 0.99

5

-

 

19

2.33

0.70 - 7.76

  +5 to +7.9

9

0.55

0.22 - 1.38

34

1.90

1.05 - 3.41

3

1.05

0.17 - 6.54

5

0.44

0.10 - 1.91

6

12.1

0.75 - 195.9

8

0.85

0.21 - 3.36

2

-

 

5

3.13

0.45 - 21.7

  ≥ +8

6

0.98

0.33 - 2.96

18

5.50

2.14 - 14.1

0

-

 

3

5.66

0.31 - 102.3

2

-

 

2

2.40

0.17 - 33.3

0

-

 

3

4.41

0.31 - 61.9

  Unknown

5

  

6

  

1

  

0

  

0

  

1

  

0

  

1

  

per1 kg / m2 increase

 

0.93

0.87 - 1.00

 

1.16

1.09 - 1.23

 

0.96

0.80 - 1.16

 

1.10

0.95 - 1.27

 

1.35

0.94 - 1.95

 

1.00

0.88 - 1.14

    

1.18

1.02 - 1.36

  Ptrend

  

0.054

  

<0.001

  

0.670

  

0.197

  

0.108

  

0.982

     

0.024

ORs were adjusted for age, age at menarche, menopause, parity, age at first live birth, family history of breast cancer, total exercise, hormone use, and referral pattern to our hospital.

In premenopausal women, the suggestive inverse association of BMI change and breast cancer risk was observed only for the luminal subtype, with an OR for each 1 kg/m2 increase in BMI change of 0.93 (95% CI = 0.87 - 1.00, Ptrend = 0.054). We were unable to assess ORs adequately among premenopausal women, particularly for the triple-negative subtype, because of the paucity of subjects. To guess the associations among them, we also showed an overall impact of BMI on risk (Additional file 1: Table S1). The results were similar to those when only postmenopausal women were included, but the magnitude of association of current BMI and BMI change with risk of the triple-negative subtype was greater among postmenopausal women only than in all women. This might suggest there were no trends of an increased risk for the triple negative subtype among premenopausal women.

We observed no association between BMI at age 20 years and risk for any tumor subtype.

Discussion

In this study, we evaluated the associations between current BMI, BMI at age 20 years, BMI change and breast cancer risk. We showed the possibility that heterogeneity may be present in the association between adult weight gain and breast cancer risk by tumor subtype. Postmenopausal women with luminal and triple-negative breast cancers showed the same impact of BMI on breast cancer risk, despite the molecular and clinical differences between these two subtypes. These findings are consistent with those of several (Phipps et al. 2011; Phipps et al. 2008) but not all previous studies (Yang et al. 2007; Yang et al. 2011; Tamimi et al. 2011).

The biological mechanisms underlying these associations are unclear, but it is assumed that obesity influences breast cancer risk through multiple mechanisms. One is a classic estrogen-dependent mechanism, in which obesity contributes to lower serum levels of sex hormone-binding globulin and higher circulating levels of endogenous estrogen (Potischman et al. 1996). Almost all reproductive factors that influence estrogen levels are primarily associated with luminal-type tumors, but there is also some evidence related to risk for non-luminal-type tumors (Yang et al. 2007; Yang et al. 2011; Tamimi et al. 2011; Islam et al. 2012). For example, our recent study in Japanese suggested that age at menarche was inversely associated with the risk of both luminal and triple-negative breast cancer (Islam et al. 2012). Similarly, the Polish Breast Cancer Study showed an association of earlier age at menarche with basal-like tumors only (Yang et al. 2007). Other mechanisms might relate to non-hormonal factors, such as an insulin-related mechanism involving insulin, insulin resistance and insulin-like growth factors (IGFs), or an inflammation-related mechanism (Stoll 2002; Kern et al. 2001). IGFs, which stimulate mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) or Akt and increase cell survival, proliferation, and migration through signaling cascades, are also considered to be risk factors for breast cancer (Hankinson et al. 1998; Schernhammer et al. 2005). Davison et al. (Davison et al. 2011) reported that IGFs promote cell survival in triple-negative breast cancer cells. Further, Maiti et al. (Maiti et al. 2010) suggested that metabolic syndrome, characterized by high BMI and insulin resistance, is significantly more prevalent in triple-negative than non-triple-negative patients. On the basis of these findings, we hypothesize that the combination of these complex mechanisms contributes to an increased risk of breast cancer, particularly of triple-negative subtypes. An understanding of the etiology of less common subtypes such as triple-negative tumors, which are the most clinically aggressive, may be useful in the development of prevention strategies.

Our observation of an inverse association between BMI gain and the risk of premenopausal luminal breast cancer is to our knowledge the first description in an Asian population. A number of studies have evaluate the effect of weight change on the risk of premenopausal breast cancer, but most evidence to date is from studies of ER and PR rather than HER2 disease, and the results are inconsistent (Huang et al. 1997; Michels et al. 2012; John et al. 2010; Weiderpass et al. 2004; Lahmann et al. 2005). In the Nurses’ Health Study, weight loss since age 18 years was inversely related to both ER+/PR+ and ER-/PR- tumors (Michels et al. 2012). In contrast, a case–control study in the San Francisco Bay Area reported that inverse associations between obesity and premenopausal breast cancer risk were limited to ER+/PR+ tumors (John et al. 2010), which is consistent with our present findings. The mechanisms underlying this inverse association remain to be elucidated. Several studies have suggested that women who are obese prior to menopause are likely to have ovulatory insufficiency or anovulatory cycles, resulting in decreased estrogen and progesterone levels (Suzuki et al. 2011; Baer et al. 2010; Kawai et al. 2010; Key & Pike 1988), and we accept this theory in interpreting our present result. However, given our limited number of subgroup subjects and the inconsistent results across studies, additional studies with sufficient numbers of subjects of various ethnicities are needed.

With regard to BMI at age 20 years, we found no statistically significant association, but rather a slightly inverse association when underweight women (BMI < 18.5) were excluded (Table 2). Several studies have suggested an inverse association between body weight in early adulthood and the risk of breast cancer (Suzuki et al. 2011; Baer et al. 2010; Kawai et al. 2010), but others have found no significant association (Sanderson et al. 2002; Okasha et al. 2003). A conclusive answer to this issue awaits further study.

Our study had several methodological strengths. First, it was conducted within the framework of the HERPACC study, which has a substantial number of subjects and a high response rate to completion of the questionnaire (95%). Second, the potential confounding factors of age and menopausal status were adjusted for by matching. Finally, the single-institution design of the study obviated the possibility of hormonal receptor or HER2 status misclassification resulting from different assay methods.

Since the present study was based on a hospital-based case–control study, several methodological limitations exist. First, the values for self-reported life-style factors considered as potential confounding factors might have been inaccurate. In particular, information about body weight at age 20 years was collected retrospectively. Second, the classification of tumor subtypes as defined in our study is not identical to other published data due to the lack of information on other tumor markers, such as cytokeratin (CK) 5/6 expression, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), and Ki67. We were therefore unable to precisely distinguish between basal-like and triple-negative tumors, or between luminal A and luminal B tumors. Finally, subject numbers in our subgroup analyses were limited.

In conclusion, we found that current BMI and adult weight gain are associated with the risk of luminal and triple-negative breast cancer among postmenopausal women only. Our results provide additional evidence for these associations and suggest further etiological heterogeneity among tumor subtypes.

Abbreviations

BMI: 

Body mass index

OR: 

Odds ratio

95%CI: 

95% confidence interval

ER: 

Estrogen receptor

PR: 

Progesterone receptor

HER2: 

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2

ACCH: 

Aichi Cancer Center Hospital

HERPACC: 

Hospital-based epidemiologic research program at aichi cancer center

WHO: 

World health organization

IHC: 

Immunohistochemistry

FISH: 

Fluorescence in situ hybridization

IGF: 

Insulin growth factor

CK: 

Cytokeratin

EGFR: 

Epidermal growth factor receptor.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the efforts and contribution of the doctors, nurses, technical staff, and hospital administration staff of Aichi Cancer Hospital for their daily management of the HERPACC study. The grantors were not involved in the study design, subject enrollment, study analysis or interpretation, or submission of the manuscript. This study was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, Culture and Technology of Japan and by a Grant-in-Aid for the Third Term Comprehensive 10-Year Strategy for Cancer Control from Ministry Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Division of Epidemiology and Prevention, Aichi Cancer Center Research Institute
(2)
Department of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Kumamoto University Graduate School of Medical Science
(3)
Department of Planning and Information, Aichi Prefectural Institute of Public Health
(4)
Department of Breast Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Central Hospital
(5)
Department of Pathology and Molecular Diagnostics, Aichi Cancer Center Central Hospital
(6)
Aichi Cancer Center Research Institute
(7)
Department of Epidemiology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine

References

  1. Matsuda T, Marugame T, Kamo K, Katanoda K, Ajiki W, Sobue T: Cancer incidence and incidence rates in Japan in 2005: based on data from 12 population-based cancer registries in the Monitoring of Cancer Incidence in Japan (MCIJ) project.Jpn J Clin Oncol 2011,41(1):139-147. hyq169 [pii] 10.1093/jjco/hyq169View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Minami Y, Tsubono Y, Nishino Y, Ohuchi N, Shibuya D, Hisamichi S: The increase of female breast cancer incidence in Japan: emergence of birth cohort effect.Int J Cancer 2004,108(6):901-906. 10.1002/ijc.11661View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. World Health Organization: Obesity and overweight. 2011. Available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/Google Scholar
  4. Funatogawa I, Funatogawa T, Nakao M, Karita K, Yano E: Changes in body mass index by birth cohort in Japanese adults: results from the National Nutrition Survey of Japan 1956–2005.Int J Epidemiol 2009,38(1):83-92. dyn182 [pii] 10.1093/ije/dyn182View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. OECD: Health data. 2010. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/health/healthdata/Google Scholar
  6. Han D, Nie J, Bonner MR, McCann SE, Muti P, Trevisan M, Ramirez-Marrero FA, Vito D, Freudenheim JL: Lifetime adult weight gain, central adiposity, and the risk of pre- and postmenopausal breast cancer in the Western New York exposures and breast cancer study.Int J Cancer 2006,119(12):2931-2937. 10.1002/ijc.22236View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Kawai M, Minami Y, Kuriyama S, Kakizaki M, Kakugawa Y, Nishino Y, Ishida T, Fukao A, Tsuji I, Ohuchi N: Adiposity, adult weight change and breast cancer risk in postmenopausal Japanese women: the Miyagi Cohort Study.Br J Cancer 2010,103(9):1443-1447. 6605885 [pii] 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605885View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Eliassen AH, Colditz GA, Rosner B, Willett WC, Hankinson SE: Adult weight change and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer.JAMA 2006,296(2):193-201. 296/2/193 [pii] 10.1001/jama.296.2.193View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Feigelson HS, Patel AV, Teras LR, Gansler T, Thun MJ, Calle EE: Adult weight gain and histopathologic characteristics of breast cancer among postmenopausal women.Cancer 2006,107(1):12-21. 10.1002/cncr.21965View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Vrieling A, Buck K, Kaaks R, Chang-Claude J: Adult weight gain in relation to breast cancer risk by estrogen and progesterone receptor status: a meta-analysis.Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010,123(3):641-649. 10.1007/s10549-010-1116-4View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Suzuki R, Iwasaki M, Inoue M, Sasazuki S, Sawada N, Yamaji T, Shimazu T, Tsugane S: Body weight at age 20 years, subsequent weight change and breast cancer risk defined by estrogen and progesterone receptor status-the Japan Public Health Center-based prospective study.Int J Cancer 2011. 10.1002/ijc.25744Google Scholar
  12. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, Pollack JR, Ross DT, Johnsen H, Akslen LA, Fluge O, Pergamenschikov A, Williams C, Zhu SX, Lonning PE, Borresen-Dale AL, Brown PO, Botstein D: Molecular portraits of human breast tumours.Nature 2000,406(6797):747-752. 10.1038/35021093View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H, Hastie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Thorsen T, Quist H, Matese JC, Brown PO, Botstein D, Eystein Lonning P, Borresen-Dale AL: Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001,98(19):10869-10874. 10.1073/pnas.191367098 98/19/10869 [pii]View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Sotiriou C, Neo SY, McShane LM, Korn EL, Long PM, Jazaeri A, Martiat P, Fox SB, Harris AL, Liu ET: Breast cancer classification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a population-based study.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003,100(18):10393-10398. 10.1073/pnas.1732912100 1732912100 [pii]View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Phipps AI, Chlebowski RT, Prentice R, McTiernan A, Stefanick ML, Wactawski-Wende J, Kuller LH, Adams-Campbell LL, Lane D, Vitolins M, Kabat GC, Rohan TE, Li CI: Body size, physical activity, and risk of triple-negative and estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011,20(3):454-463. 1055-9965.EPI-10-0974 [pii] 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0974View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Phipps AI, Malone KE, Porter PL, Daling JR, Li CI: Body size and risk of luminal, HER2-overexpressing, and triple-negative breast cancer in postmenopausal women.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008,17(8):2078-2086. 1055-9965.EPI-08-0206 [pii] 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0206View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Yang XR, Chang-Claude J, Goode EL, Couch FJ, Nevanlinna H, Milne RL, Gaudet M, Schmidt MK, Broeks A, Cox A, Fasching PA, Hein R, Spurdle AB, Blows F, Driver K, Flesch-Janys D, Heinz J, Sinn P, Vrieling A, Heikkinen T, Aittomaki K, Heikkila P, Blomqvist C, Lissowska J, Peplonska B, Chanock S, Figueroa J, Brinton L, Hall P, Czene K, et al.: Associations of breast cancer risk factors with tumor subtypes: a pooled analysis from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium studies.J Natl Cancer Inst 2011,103(3):250-263. doi:djq526 [pii] 10.1093/jnci/djq526View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Yang XR, Sherman ME, Rimm DL, Lissowska J, Brinton LA, Peplonska B, Hewitt SM, Anderson WF, Szeszenia-Dabrowska N, Bardin-Mikolajczak A, Zatonski W, Cartun R, Mandich D, Rymkiewicz G, Ligaj M, Lukaszek S, Kordek R, Garcia-Closas M: Differences in risk factors for breast cancer molecular subtypes in a population-based study.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007,16(3):439-443. 16/3/439 [pii] 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0806View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Tajima K, Hirose K, Inoue M, Takezaki T, Hamajima N, Kuroishi T: A model of practical cancer prevention for out-patients visiting a hospital: the hospital-based epidemiologic research program at aichi cancer center (HERPACC).Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2000,1(1):35-47.Google Scholar
  20. Hamajima N, Matsuo K, Saito T, Hirose K, Inoue M, Takezaki T, Kuroishi T, Tajima K: Gene-environment interactions and polymorphism studies of cancer risk in the hospital-based epidemiologic research program at aichi cancer center II (HERPACC-II).Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2001,2(2):99-107.Google Scholar
  21. Inoue M, Tajima K, Hirose K, Hamajima N, Takezaki T, Kuroishi T, Tominaga S: Epidemiological features of first-visit outpatients in Japan: comparison with general population and variation by sex, age, and season.J Clin Epidemiol 1997,50(1):69-77. S0895435696002971 [pii]View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. World Health Organization: Global Database on Body Mass Index. 2012. Available at: http://apps.who.int/bmi/index.jspGoogle Scholar
  23. Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA, Dressler LG, Cowan D, Conway K, Karaca G, Troester MA, Tse CK, Edmiston S, Deming SL, Geradts J, Cheang MC, Nielsen TO, Moorman PG, Earp HS, Millikan RC: Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study.JAMA 2006,295(21):2492-2502. 295/21/2492 [pii] 10.1001/jama.295.21.2492View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Tamimi RM, Colditz GA, Hazra A, Baer HJ, Hankinson SE, Rosner B, Marotti J, Connolly JL, Schnitt SJ, Collins LC: Traditional breast cancer risk factors in relation to molecular subtypes of breast cancer.Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011,131(1):159-167. 10.1007/s10549-011-1702-0View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Potischman N, Swanson CA, Siiteri P, Hoover RN: Reversal of relation between body mass and endogenous estrogen concentrations with menopausal status.J Natl Cancer Inst 1996,88(11):756-758. 10.1093/jnci/88.11.756View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Islam T, Matsuo K, Ito H, Hosono S, Watanabe M, Iwata H, Tajima K, Tanaka H: Reproductive and hormonal risk factors for luminal, HER2-overexpressing, and triple-negative breast cancer in Japanese women.Ann Oncol 2012. mdr613 [pii] 10.1093/annonc/mdr613Google Scholar
  27. Stoll BA: Upper abdominal obesity, insulin resistance and breast cancer risk.Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2002,26(6):747-753. 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801998View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Kern PA, Ranganathan S, Li C, Wood L, Ranganathan G: Adipose tissue tumor necrosis factor and interleukin-6 expression in human obesity and insulin resistance.Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2001,280(5):E745-751.Google Scholar
  29. Hankinson SE, Willett WC, Colditz GA, Hunter DJ, Michaud DS, Deroo B, Rosner B, Speizer FE, Pollak M: Circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I and risk of breast cancer.Lancet 1998,351(9113):1393-1396. S0140-6736(97)10384-1 [pii] 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)10384-1View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Schernhammer ES, Holly JM, Pollak MN, Hankinson SE: Circulating levels of insulin-like growth factors, their binding proteins, and breast cancer risk.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005,14(3):699-704. 14/3/699 [pii] 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-04-0561View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Davison Z, de Blacquiere GE, Westley BR, May FE: Insulin-like growth factor-dependent proliferation and survival of triple-negative breast cancer cells: implications for therapy.Neoplasia 2011,13(6):504-515.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Maiti B, Kundranda MN, Spiro TP, Daw HA: The association of metabolic syndrome with triple-negative breast cancer.Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010,121(2):479-483. 10.1007/s10549-009-0591-yView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Huang Z, Hankinson SE, Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ, Hunter DJ, Manson JE, Hennekens CH, Rosner B, Speizer FE, Willett WC: Dual effects of weight and weight gain on breast cancer risk.JAMA 1997,278(17):1407-1411. 10.1001/jama.1997.03550170037029View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Michels KB, Terry KL, Eliassen AH, Hankinson SE, Willett WC: Adult weight change and incidence of premenopausal breast cancer.Int J Cancer 2012,130(4):902-909. 10.1002/ijc.26069View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. John EM, Sangaramoorthy M, Phipps AI, Koo J, Horn-Ross PL: Adult body size, hormone receptor status, and premenopausal breast cancer risk in a multiethnic population: the San Francisco Bay Area breast cancer study.Am J Epidemiol 2010,173(2):201-216. kwq345 [pii] 10.1093/aje/kwq345View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Weiderpass E, Braaten T, Magnusson C, Kumle M, Vainio H, Lund E, Adami HO: A prospective study of body size in different periods of life and risk of premenopausal breast cancer.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004,13(7):1121-1127. 13/7/1121 [pii]Google Scholar
  37. Lahmann PH, Schulz M, Hoffmann K, Boeing H, Tjonneland A, Olsen A, Overvad K, Key TJ, Allen NE, Khaw KT, Bingham S, Berglund G, Wirfalt E, Berrino F, Krogh V, Trichopoulou A, Lagiou P, Trichopoulos D, Kaaks R, Riboli E: Long-term weight change and breast cancer risk: the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition (EPIC).Br J Cancer 2005,93(5):582-589. 6602763 [pii] 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602763View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Baer HJ, Tworoger SS, Hankinson SE, Willett WC: Body fatness at young ages and risk of breast cancer throughout life.Am J Epidemiol 2010,171(11):1183-1194. kwq045[pii]10.1093/aje/kwq045View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Key TJ, Pike MC: The role of oestrogens and progestagens in the epidemiology and prevention of breast cancer.Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1988,24(1):29-43. 10.1016/0277-5379(88)90173-3View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Sanderson M, Shu XO, Jin F, Dai Q, Ruan Z, Gao YT, Zheng W: Weight at birth and adolescence and premenopausal breast cancer risk in a low-risk population.Br J Cancer 2002,86(1):84-88. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600009View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Okasha M, McCarron P, Gunnell D, Smith GD: Exposures in childhood, adolescence and early adulthood and breast cancer risk: a systematic review of the literature.Breast Cancer Res Treat 2003,78(2):223-276. 10.1023/A:1022988918755View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Sueta et al.; licensee Springer. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.