Birth Characteristics and Subsequent Risk for Breast Cancer in Very Young Women

Kim Innes1, Tim Byers1 and Maria Schymura2

1 Department of Preventive Medicine and Biometrics, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, CO.
2 New York State Cancer Registry, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY.


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
There is growing evidence that prenatal exposures may influence later breast cancer risk. This matched case-control study used linked New York State birth and tumor registry data to examine the association between birth characteristics and breast cancer risk among women aged 14–37 years. Cases were women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1978 and 1995 who were also born in New York after 1957 (n = 484). For each case, selected controls were the next six liveborn females with the same maternal county of residence. The authors found a J-shaped association between birth weight and breast cancer risk, and very high birth weight (>=4,500 g) was associated with the greatest elevation in risk (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 3.10, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.18, 7.97). The association of maternal age with breast cancer risk was also J-shaped, with maternal age of more than 24 years showing a positive, linear association (adjusted OR = 1.94, 95% CI: 1.18, 3.18 for maternal age >=35 vs. 20–24 years; p for trend = 0.02). In contrast, women born very preterm had a lower risk (adjusted OR = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.02, 0.79 for gestational age <33 vs. >=37 weeks). These findings support a role for early life factors in the development of breast cancer in very young women.

age factors; breast neoplasms; birth weight; infant, premature; prenatal exposure delayed effects; risk factors; women's health

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IGF-1, insulin-like growth factor-1; OR, odds ratio


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Epidemiologic research, particularly within the last decade, has suggested that pre- and perinatal factors may influence risk for breast cancer later in life. Recent studies have linked multiple birth (1Go, 2Go), neonatal jaundice (2Go), severe prematurity (2Go), high birth weight (3Go, 4Go), and older maternal (2Go, 5Go, 6Go) and paternal (5Go) age to increased breast cancer risk, and preeclampsia has been related to reduced risk for breast cancer (2Go, 7Go). These factors are hypothesized to affect breast cancer risk by altering the hormonal environment of the developing fetus (8GoGo–10Go), by affecting the cumulative frequency of germ cell mutations (11Go, 12Go), or operating through other immunogenetic mechanisms (13Go).

However, findings regarding the association of specific pre- and perinatal factors with breast cancer risk have been inconsistent (9Go), perhaps in part because of differences between studies in the ascertainment and definition of exposure. Differences in age at breast cancer diagnosis may also help explain some of the variation in results. Some evidence suggests that the influence of early life factors may vary by age at breast cancer onset. In particular, the relation of breast cancer risk to parental age (1Go, 14Go, 15Go), birth weight (3Go, 4Go), and other factors (3Go) may be more apparent in younger women. Few studies have specifically investigated the influence of perinatal factors on the development of early-onset breast cancer (1Go, 3Go, 4Go, 14GoGoGo–17Go), and even fewer have had sufficient power to assess this association in very young women (3Go, 16Go), in whom the relative influence of perinatal factors on breast cancer risk may be especially pronounced (3Go). In this population-based study of women born in New York State, we evaluated the relation between a woman's own birth characteristics and her risk for breast cancer before age 38 years.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
We investigated the relation between a woman's own birth characteristics and her subsequent risk for breast cancer by using a case-control design and linked, computerized vital record and cancer registry data from New York State. The anonymous, linked data set was supplied by the Bureau of Biometrics, New York State Department of Health, in collaboration with the New York State Cancer Registry (New York State Department of Health) and the New York City Health Department.

Cases were defined as all women who were diagnosed with breast cancer in New York State between 1978 and 1995 and who were also born in New York State after 1957. These dates correspond to the years for which computerized cancer and birth registry data were available from the New York State Department of Health; birth records from New York City were added to the computerized New York State Department of Health birth registry beginning in 1970. Tumor record information for each woman was then linked to that regarding her own birth by using a custom algorithm and a standard graduated scoring system. Matching variables included the woman's social security number (64 points), full maiden name (32 points), date of birth (24 points), race (2 points), and county of residence (1 point). Successfully matched records were also checked manually to ensure accuracy. A total of 484 cases were matched to their birth records, representing an estimated matching success rate of 38 percent overall after adjustment for absence of New York City birth records prior to 1970 (correction factor calculated by using birth record (1955–1980) and population (1978–1995) data from New York State (18Go)). Among matched cases, age at diagnosis ranged from 14 to 37 years and averaged 30.3 years (standard deviation, 4.4). The distribution of successfully matched cases was similar to that of unmatched cases with regard to age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, tumor stage at diagnosis, and marital status (table 1). A larger percentage of unmatched cases was categorized as non-White (table 1) because of the underrepresentation of New York City–born women among matched cases (18Go). Over 95 percent of eligible cases were born prior to 1970, when computerized birth data for New York City were not yet available.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 1. Distribution, by matching status,* of subject age and tumor stage at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, race, and marital status{dagger} for women born after 1957 and diagnosed with breast cancer in New York State between 1978 and 1995{ddagger}

 
For each case matched to her own birth record, we selected as controls the next six liveborn females whose mothers resided in the same county at the time of delivery and who were not subsequently diagnosed with breast or endometrial cancer in New York State. To minimize the number of controls who would not have been at risk for very early onset breast cancer and to eliminate controls whose deaths may have been directly related to specific pregnancy complications of interest, we checked each control against the death index for 12 months from her date of birth. Controls who died during this period were removed from the study (n = 34). Although it is possible that some controls died between the ages of 1 and 37 years, such deaths are likely to be few and unrelated to the birth characteristics of interest. Some controls may also have been diagnosed with breast cancer outside New York State. However, there are likely to be very few such cases given that only 0.4 percent of women are expected to develop early-onset breast cancer prior to the age of 40 years (19Go). The low probability of both death and breast cancer between the ages of 1 and 37 years thus renders control selection bias unlikely.

By using information available in the upstate New York (1958 and later) and New York City birth (1970 and later) records, we investigated the relation of breast cancer risk to specific pre- and perinatal factors known or suspected to affect maternal-fetal hormone levels and/or germ cell mutations. These factors included birth weight (in increments of 1,000 g, as coded on the 1957–1968 birth records), gestational age (clinical estimate in weeks), multiple birth (yes vs. no), birth order, maternal marital status (married vs. unmarried), maternal age, paternal age, and maternal race. We also evaluated two complications of pregnancy for which data were sufficient for analysis: abruptio placentae (coded on the birth record as premature separation of the placenta) and preeclampsia/eclampsia (coded on the birth record as preeclampsia and/or eclampsia). During the time period in which the study subjects were born (1958–1976), these categories remained constant. From 1958 to 1967, an additional category for preeclampsia (unspecified toxemia) was also included, although none of the subjects in this study was coded positive for this diagnosis.

We used conditional logistic regression to evaluate the association between these factors and risk for breast cancer and to assess the influence of potential confounders (20Go). In addition, we conducted separate analyses stratified by factors shown in previous studies to modify the association between breast cancer risk and specific perinatal exposures (1Go, 3Go, 5Go, 21Go, 22Go). These factors included birth order (first or second vs. later born), age at diagnosis (<30 vs. >=30 years), and maternal age at delivery (<30 vs. >=30 years). Since breast cancer incidence and mortality patterns differ by race (23Go), and the association of adult risk factors with breast cancer has been reported to vary by stage at diagnosis (in situ or localized vs. regional or with distant metastases) (24Go), we also examined the potential modifying effects of race and disease stage.


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Birth weight showed a J-shaped relation to breast cancer risk, and very large size was associated with the highest risk (table 2). Relative to subjects born at 2,500–3,499 g, those born at 4,500 g or more were over three times as likely to develop breast cancer as a young adult (odds ratio (OR) = 3.3, 95 percent confidence interval (CI): 1.4, 7.9). Adjustment for gestational age and other factors slightly strengthened the association between birth weight and breast cancer risk (table 2). The association of maternal age with breast cancer risk also appeared J-shaped, with maternal age of more than 24 years showing a positive linear association with breast cancer risk (table 2). Relative to women born to mothers aged 20–24 years, those born to mothers aged 35 years or more were at a 90 percent increased risk after adjustment for other factors (OR = 1.9, 95 percent CI: 1.2, 3.2). Breast cancer risk also rose progressively with increasing paternal age (p for trend = 0.03). While controlling for variables other than maternal age did not appreciably alter the relation of paternal age to breast cancer risk (table 2), adjustment for maternal age reduced this association (age 30–34 years: OR = 1.3, 95 percent CI: 0.9, 1.7; age 35–39 years: OR = 1.2, 95 percent CI: 0.8, 1.7; age >=40 years: OR = 1.3, 95 percent CI: 0.8, 2.0).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 2. Distribution of birth characteristics of young New York State–born women diagnosed with breast cancer (1978–1995) and of female, age-matched controls{dagger}

 
Cases were more likely to be African American and to have been born to mothers of high parity (table 2). In contrast, women born to mothers with a record of abruptio placentae had a slightly decreased risk for breast cancer compared with those who were not born following this complication (OR = 0.3, 95 percent CI: 0.1, 1.2). Our data also suggested that severe prematurity may be associated with reduced breast cancer risk; adjustment for birth weight and other factors considerably strengthened this apparent protective effect (adjusted OR = 0.1, 95 percent CI: 0.0, 0.8). As indicated in table 2, adjustment for other perinatal factors also strengthened slightly the association of breast cancer risk with Black race (OR = 1.9, 95 percent CI: 0.1, 2.2) and abruptio placentae (OR = 0.2, 95 percent CI: 0.05, 1.1) but strongly reduced the association with high maternal parity (OR = 1.05, 95 percent CI: 0.7, 1.6). We found little evidence in either the crude or adjusted analyses of an overall association between breast cancer and prenatal exposure to preeclampsia, twinning, or maternal marital status.

Stratified analyses suggested that young African-American women were more likely than young White women to be diagnosed with advanced-stage disease (OR = 2.1, 95 percent CI: 1.3, 3.3) but not with in situ or localized tumors (OR = 1.0, 95 percent CI: 0.6, 1.7). The association of Black race with breast cancer risk also appeared stronger among first- or second-born women (OR = 3.6, 95 percent CI: 2.0, 6.5) than among those born later (OR = 1.1, 95 percent CI: 0.6, 1.9) and among those born to younger mothers (OR = 1.9, 95 percent CI: 1.3, 2.7 vs. OR = 1.0, 95 percent CI: 0.5, 2.1, respectively, for maternal ages <30 and >=30 years). In contrast, we found little evidence for a modifying influence of tumor stage, birth order, race, or maternal age on the association between breast cancer risk and other birth characteristics (i.e., maternal parity, multifetal gestation, and parental age) for which case numbers were sufficient for meaningful analysis. Likewise, our data did not support an interaction between age at diagnosis and any perinatal or demographic factors.


    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
There is growing evidence that perinatal factors may play an important role in determining breast cancer risk in adult life. The observed effects of early life exposures may be mediated in part by hormonal mechanisms operating directly on the fetal breast or indirectly through programming of the fetal neuroendocrine axis (9Go, 10Go). Inherited germ cell mutations may also be important, especially in regard to the influence of parental age.

In this population-based study of very young New York State–born women, risk for early-onset breast cancer was influenced by several perinatal factors, some of which may reflect hormonal or other exposures in utero. Our results suggest a J-shaped relation between a woman's own birth weight and her subsequent risk of developing breast cancer and that high birth weight carries an especially pronounced increase in risk. Birth weight is associated positively with circulating estrogen levels (25Go, 26Go) and, possibly, insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) activity (27Go); conversely, fetal weight is correlated negatively with both fetal and maternal levels of IGF-1 binding protein. Both estrogens and IGF-1 are thought to be important in fetal growth (27Go) and mammary gland development (28Go) and to play a central, synergistic role in the initiation and promotion of breast cancer (29GoGoGo–32Go). Recent work with rodent models has also shown that exposure to estrogens during fetal and early postnatal development can increase mammary tumorigenesis by altering both proliferation and differentiation of the mammary gland (28Go).

Two US studies have demonstrated strong positive links between higher birth weight and breast cancer risk (3Go, 4Go), while two Swedish studies reported weak or no associations (2Go, 7Go). However, stratified analyses from the US investigations suggest that birth weight is more strongly related to early than to later-onset breast cancer, perhaps helping to explain some of the inconsistencies among studies. In agreement with our findings, Sanderson et al. also reported a J-shaped association between birth weight and breast cancer risk among women aged 21–45 years; that association was especially pronounced among women aged 30 years or less at diagnosis (OR = 3.3, 95 percent CI: 1.0, 11.0 for a birth weight of >=4,000 g) (3Go). In contrast, these investigators observed no association among women aged 50 years or more. Similarly, Michels et al. found a stronger relation between high birth weight and breast cancer risk among women less than age 50 years than in those aged 50 years or more (4Go).

In our study, maternal placental abruption and severe prematurity appeared to reduce subsequent risk for very early onset breast cancer. To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the association between abruptio placentae and breast cancer risk. Of the two studies that have examined the influence of severe prematurity, one reported an increased risk for breast cancer among women born at less than 33 weeks (2Go), while another found no association (4Go). One population-based study of Swedish men, however, observed that birth at 35 weeks or less strongly reduced risk for another hormone-related neoplasm, prostate cancer (OR = 0.31, 95 percent CI: 0.09, 1.00) (33Go), although this finding was based on small numbers of cases. Both abruptio placentae and prematurity are associated with elevated levels of human chorionic gonadotropin (34GoGoGo–37Go) and alpha-fetoprotein (37GoGoGoGo–41Go). Thought to be important in differentiation of the human breast, human chorionic gonadotropin has been shown to inhibit growth of human breast cancer cell lines (42Go), to be a potent differentiating and apoptotic agent in rodent models of breast cancer (42GoGo–44Go), and to be associated with reduced breast cancer risk in premenopausal women (45Go). Likewise, alpha-fetoprotein has been shown to reduce growth of estrogen-responsive tissues and to cause regression of estrogen-dependent breast cancer in rodents (46Go, 47Go).

Our finding of a rising breast cancer risk with increasing maternal age is consistent with some (2Go, 5Go, 6Go, 15Go, 17Go, 48GoGo–50Go) but not all (3Go, 51Go) studies. A large cohort study reported an increased risk of breast cancer death for women born to very old mothers (age >=45 years) only, although the data were not stratified by patient age (52Go). Data from several investigations suggest that the relation between maternal age and breast cancer risk may be stronger in younger women (1Go, 14Go, 15Go, 22Go). For example, an earlier investigation reported an increasing case-control difference in mean maternal age with decreasing age at cancer onset (14Go). In a recent study of women aged 20–54 years, Weiss et al. reported no association between maternal age and breast cancer risk in the group overall but found evidence for a positive relation among women less than age 45 years (1Go). Data from Le Marchand et al. suggest a still stronger association between maternal age and breast cancer risk among women less than age 33 years (15Go).

In our study, older paternal age was also linked to increased breast cancer risk, although adjusting for maternal age substantially reduced this association. Some studies have suggested a positive link between paternal age and breast cancer risk (5Go, 14Go, 15Go, 53Go), while others have indicated no relation after controlling for maternal age and other risk factors (22Go, 48Go, 51Go, 52Go). Again, some of this variability in findings could in part reflect differences in age at diagnosis. Of the three studies that presented adequate age-stratified data (14Go, 51Go, 53Go), two suggested a stronger association between paternal age and breast cancer in very young women (14Go, 53Go).

Older parental age may be associated with elevated rates of germ cell mutations, rendering the offspring more susceptible to early-onset breast cancer, just as inherited germ-line mutations (e.g., BRCA1 and BRCA2) increase risk for breast cancer at young ages. Increasing paternal age, especially more than 40 years (54Go, 55Go), has been associated with an increased frequency of mutations in the offspring (11Go). The idea that older maternal age might also increase the rate of somatic mutations in ovarian germ cells is not new. The risk of fetal chromosomal abnormalities clearly increases with increasing maternal age (54Go, 55Go). Chromosomal disorders and genetic diseases of defective chromosome repair have been associated with a dramatically increased risk for several early-onset cancers (56Go). This elevated risk may reflect an impaired ability to repair DNA damage and correct mutagenic changes, as suggested by the marked radiosensitivity that characterizes several of these disorders (56Go). If maternal age influences not only the risk for congenital genetic disorders but also the ability to repair DNA damage, even the apparently genetically normal offspring of older mothers may be more vulnerable to mutagenic changes that lead ultimately to the initiation and promotion of breast cancer.

Factors other than genetic mutations may also explain the observed elevation in breast cancer risk among young women born to older mothers. The hormonal and nutritional environment characterizing the pregnant uterus changes as a woman ages. Older mothers are at increased risk for a host of adverse pregnancy outcomes unrelated to genetic defects (57Go). Evidence also exists that older mothers have altered hormonal profiles during pregnancy (58Go), including increased production of catecholestrogens (59Go), which have been implicated in the initiation and promotion of breast cancer (60Go, 61Go).

In our study, high birth rank was also associated with an increased risk for early-onset breast cancer, but this effect was substantially attenuated after adjustment for maternal age. Previous findings regarding birth rank and later breast cancer have been inconsistent. While some have suggested an increased risk among first-born women (21Go) that may be modified by maternal age (22Go), most studies have reported little or no association between birth rank and breast cancer risk (3Go, 5Go, 15Go, 17Go, 49Go).

Our finding of an increased risk for breast cancer, and particularly for advanced-stage breast cancer, among young African-American women is consistent with those of previous studies (19Go, 23Go). The Black-White differences in breast cancer incidence and mortality remain largely unexplained (62Go), although socioeconomic, adult lifestyle, and genetic factors may all play a role (23Go). Intrauterine exposures, including maternal diet and circulating hormone levels during pregnancy, may also be important. Experimental work with rodent models has shown a high maternal fat intake during pregnancy to increase mammary tumorigenesis in female offspring, in part by increasing circulating estrogen levels (28Go). Black women are more likely than White women to report a diet high in fat (63Go), and Black women less than age 45 years appear particularly at risk for a higher dietary fat intake (64Go). In a matched cross-sectional study of 40 primiparous women, Henderson et al. found that first-trimester estrogen and testosterone levels were 30–37 and 48 percent higher, respectively, in Black than in White women (65Go), which may in part reflect this higher fat consumption.

The present study of very early onset breast cancer has several strengths, including its large size and its population-based design. Data on birth characteristics were derived from vital records and were thus gathered far in advance of breast cancer diagnosis. Hence, any bias in exposure ascertainment is unlikely to be related to subsequent diagnosis of breast cancer in this study. In particular, the influence of interviewer, recall, or diagnostic bias is likely to be nil.

Use of state vital record and tumor registry data as our information source had some inherent limitations. We were unable to adjust for adult risk factors, including the subject's own reproductive history, family history of breast cancer, or body mass index. However, it seems improbable that confounding by unmeasured variables could explain our findings. First, in several previous investigations, adjustment for reproductive and other potentially confounding factors did not appreciably alter the risk estimates associated with maternal age (48Go, 49Go), preterm birth (2Go, 4Go), high birth weight (3Go, 4Go), or other perinatal factors (1Go, 2Go). In addition, some established risk factors appear more weakly related to very early onset breast cancer. For example, the association between nulliparity and breast cancer risk is less apparent among women less than age 40 years (66Go, 67Go).

A potential source of bias is underreporting of certain pregnancy outcomes in the New York State vital records. In particular, the recorded incidence of preeclampsia (1.5 percent) was lower than would be expected given current incidence estimates of 4–6 percent of pregnancies in the general US population (68Go, 69Go). However, such reporting omissions are likely to be nondifferential with respect to later breast cancer diagnosis and thus would tend to reduce rather than inflate risk estimates. Since gestational age estimates were based on the last menstrual period, a method that tends to overestimate true gestational age (70Go, 71Go), preterm birth is also likely to have been underreported. In addition, the incidence of abruptio placentae in controls (1.4 percent) was consistent with incidence rates reported in several large, earlier studies (72Go) but was slightly higher than current estimates of 0.8–1.0 percent (73Go). However, any such misclassification is again unlikely to be differential with regard to subsequent breast cancer diagnosis. More importantly, vital record data on birth weight and maternal age, the two factors that showed the strongest associations with breast cancer risk in this study, are likely to be both complete and accurate.

The relatively low matching success rate among cases is also a potential source of bias. However, matching failure is unlikely to be related to the exposures of interest and thus to affect the observed associations. Demographically, matched cases were also similar to unmatched cases, which argues further against a differential bias in case selection. Some controls may have been diagnosed with breast cancer in another state, and some may also have died prior to the age at which the corresponding cases were diagnosed. However, both mortality and breast cancer are rare at the age of less than 38 years. Any mortality related to perinatal factors would be expected to occur primarily during the first year of life, and all controls who died during this period were removed from the study.

In brief, the results of this study offer further evidence that early life factors may be important determinants of early-onset breast cancer. In particular, our findings of increased breast cancer risk with high birth weight and older maternal age are consistent with a mediating influence of either intrauterine hormonal factors or germ cell mutations.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
This study was support by grant 1RO3CA78203-01 from the National Cancer Institute.

The authors acknowledge Gene Therriault, Director, and Peter Herzfeld, Research Scientist, of the Bureau of Biometrics, New York State Department of Health for their patience and persistence in creating the linked data set and for offering numerous helpful suggestions and comments during various stages of this project.


    NOTES
 
Correspondence to Dr. Kim Innes, Department of Preventive Medicine and Biometrics, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, 4200 East Ninth Avenue, Campus Box C245, Denver, CO 80262 (e-mail: Kim.Innes{at}UCHSC.edu).


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Weiss HA, Potischman NA, Brinton LA, et al. Prenatal and perinatal risk factors for breast cancer in young women. Epidemiology 1997;8:181–7.[ISI][Medline]
  2. Ekbom A, Hsieh CC, Lipworth L, et al. Intrauterine environment and breast cancer risk in women: a population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:71–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Sanderson M, Williams M, Malone K, et al. Perinatal factors and risk of breast cancer. Epidemiology 1995;7:34–7.[ISI]
  4. Michels K, Trichopoulos D, Robins J, et al. Birthweight as a risk factor for breast cancer. Lancet 1996;348:1542–6.[ISI][Medline]
  5. Janerich DT, Hayden CL, Thompson WD, et al. Epidemiologic evidence of perinatal influence in the etiology of adult cancers. J Clin Epidemiol 1989;42:151–7.[ISI][Medline]
  6. Thompson WD, Janerich DT. Maternal age at birth and risk of breast cancer in daughters. Epidemiology 1990;1:101–6. (Comments published in Epidemiology 1990;1:95–6).[Medline]
  7. Ekbom A, Trichopoulos D, Adami HO, et al. Evidence of prenatal influences on breast cancer risk. Lancet 1992;340:1015–18.[ISI][Medline]
  8. Trichopoulos D. Hypothesis: does breast cancer originate in utero? Lancet 1990;335:939–40.[ISI][Medline]
  9. Innes K, Byers T. Preeclampsia and breast cancer risk. Epidemiology 1999;10:723–32.
  10. Anbazhagan R, Gusterson B. Prenatal factors may influence the predisposition to breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 1994;30A:1–3.
  11. Wilcox AJ, Sandler DP, Everson RB. Using father's age to explore the role of germ cell mutation as a cause of human cancer. Int J Epidemiol 1988;17:469–71.[Abstract]
  12. Miller W. Hormonal factors and risk of breast cancer. Lancet 1993;341:25–6.[ISI][Medline]
  13. Janerich DT. The fetal antigen hypothesis for breast cancer, revisited. Med Hypotheses 1994;43:105–10.[ISI][Medline]
  14. Henderson BE, Powell D, Rosario I, et al. An epidemiologic study of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1974;53:609–14.[ISI][Medline]
  15. Le Marchand L, Kolonel L, Myers B, et al. Birth characteristics of premenopausal women with breast cancer. Br J Cancer 1988;57:437–9.[ISI][Medline]
  16. Sanderson M, Williams M, Daling J, et al. Maternal factors and breast cancer risk among young women. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1998;12:397–407.[ISI][Medline]
  17. Standfast SJ. Birth characteristics of women dying from breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1967;39:33–42.[ISI][Medline]
  18. Bureau of Biometrics, New York State Department of Health. Vital statistics of New York State, 1995. Albany, NY: New York State Department of Health, 1996.
  19. Ries LAG, Kosary CL, Hankey BF, et al, eds. SEER cancer statistics review, 1973–1994: tables and graphs. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 1997:449. (NIH publication no. 97-2789).
  20. Breslow NE, Day NE, eds. Statistical methods in cancer research. Vol 1. The analysis of case-control studies. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1980:5–338. (IARC scientific publication no. 82).
  21. Hsieh CC, Tzonou CC, Trichopoulos D. Birth order and breast cancer risk. Cancer Causes Control 1991;2:31–6.[ISI][Medline]
  22. Janerich DT, Thompson WD, Mineau GP. Maternal pattern of reproduction and risk of breast cancer in daughters: results from the Utah Population Database. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:1634–9. (Comments published in J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:144–5).[Abstract]
  23. Walker B, Figgs L, Zahm S. Differences in cancer incidence, mortality, and survival between African Americans and whites. Environ Health Perspect 1995;103:275–81.[Medline]
  24. Weiss H, Brinton L, Brogan D, et al. Epidemiology of in situ and invasive breast cancer in women aged under 45. Br J Cancer 1996;73:1298–305.[ISI][Medline]
  25. Petridou E, Panagiotopoulou K, Katsouyanni K, et al. Tobacco smoking, pregnancy estrogens, and birth weight. Epidemiology 1990;1:247–50.[Medline]
  26. McFadyen I, Worth H, Wright D, et al. High oestrogen excretion in pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1982;89:994–9.[ISI][Medline]
  27. Wang HS, Chard T. The role of insulin-like growth factor-I and insulin-like growth factor-binding protein-1 in the control of human fetal growth. J Endocrinol 1992;132:11–19.[ISI][Medline]
  28. Hilakivi-Clarke L. Mechanisms by which high maternal fat intake during pregnancy increases breast cancer risk in female rodent offspring. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1997;46:199–214.[ISI][Medline]
  29. Kazer R. Insulin resistance, insulin-like growth factor I and breast cancer. Int J Cancer 1995;62:403–6.[ISI][Medline]
  30. Pike MC, Spicer DV, Dahmoush L, et al. Estrogens, progestogens, normal breast cell proliferation, and breast cancer risk. Epidemiol Rev 1993;15:17–35.[ISI][Medline]
  31. Key T. Hormones and cancer in humans. Mutat Res 1995;333:59–67.[ISI][Medline]
  32. Pezzino V, Papa V, Milazzo G, et al. Insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) receptors in breast cancer. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1996;784:189–201.[ISI][Medline]
  33. Ekbom A, Hsieh CC, Lipworth L, et al. Perinatal characteristics in relation to incidence of and mortality from prostate cancer. BMJ 1996;313:337–41.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Liu DF, Dickerman LH, Redline RW. Pathologic findings in pregnancies with unexplained increases in midtrimester maternal serum human chorionic gonadotropin levels. Am J Clin Pathol 1999;111:209–15.[ISI][Medline]
  35. Onderoglu LS, Kabukcu A. Elevated second trimester human chorionic gonadotropin level associated with adverse pregnancy outcome. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1997;56:245–9.[ISI][Medline]
  36. Benn PA, Horne D, Briganti S, et al. Elevated second-trimester maternal serum hCG alone or in combination with elevated alpha-fetoprotein. Obstet Gynecol 1996;87:217–22.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Jauniaux E, Gulbis B, Tunkel S, et al. Maternal serum testing for alpha-fetoprotein and human chorionic gonadotropin in high-risk pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 1996;16:1129–35.[ISI][Medline]
  38. Crandall BF, Robinson L, Grau P. Risks associated with an elevated maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein level. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;165:581–6.[ISI][Medline]
  39. Hurley TJ, Miller C, O'Brien TJ, et al. Maternal serum human chorionic gonadotropin as a marker for the delivery of low-birth-weight infants in women with unexplained elevations in maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein. J Matern Fetal Med 1996;5:340–4.[Medline]
  40. Wenstrom KD, Owen J, Davis RO, et al. Prognostic significance of unexplained elevated amniotic fluid alpha-fetoprotein. Obstet Gynecol 1996;87:213–16.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Williams MA, Hickok DE, Zingheim RW, et al. Elevated maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein levels and midtrimester placental abnormalities in relation to subsequent adverse pregnancy outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;167:1032–7.[ISI][Medline]
  42. Meduri G, Charnaux N, Loosfelt H, et al. Luteinizing hormone/human chorionic gonadotropin receptors in breast cancer. Cancer Res 1997;57:857–64.[Abstract]
  43. Russo IH, Russo J. Physiological bases of breast cancer prevention. Eur J Cancer Prev 1993;2:101–11.[Medline]
  44. Russo J, Russo IH. The etiopathogenesis of breast cancer prevention. Cancer Lett 1995;90:81–9.[ISI][Medline]
  45. Bernstein L, Hanisch R, Sullivan-Halley J, et al. Treatment with human chorionic gonadotropin and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1995;4:437–40.[Abstract]
  46. Mizejewski G, Jacobson H. Alpha-fetoprotein is a dual regulator of growth in estrogen-responsive tissues. In: Mizejewski G, Jacobson H, eds. Biological activities of alpha-fetoprotein. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1987:71–82.
  47. Jacobson H, Mizejewski G. Estrogen-supported growth of MTW9A breast tumors in rats is blocked by minute amounts of AFP. In: Mizejewski G, Porter I, eds. Alpha-fetoprotein and congenital disorders. New York, NY: Academic Press, 1985:337–8.
  48. Zhang Y, Cupples LA, Rosenberg L, et al. Parental ages at birth in relation to a daughter's risk of breast cancer among female participants in the Framingham Study (United States). Cancer Causes Control 1995;6:23–9.[ISI][Medline]
  49. Rothman KJ, MacMahon B, Lin TM, et al. Maternal age and birth rank of women with breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1980;65:719–22.[ISI][Medline]
  50. Henderson BE, Bernstein L. The international variation in breast cancer rates: an epidemiological assessment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1991;18:S11–17.[ISI][Medline]
  51. Colditz GA, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, et al. Parental age at birth and risk of breast cancer in daughters: a prospective study among US women. Cancer Causes Control 1991;2:31–6.[ISI][Medline]
  52. Holmberg L, Ekbom A, Calle E, et al. Parental age and breast cancer mortality. Epidemiology 1995;6:425–7. (Comments published in Epidemiology 1996;7:330–1.[ISI][Medline]
  53. Newcomb PA, Trentham-Dietz A, Storer BE. Parental age in relation to risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1997;6:151–4.[Abstract]
  54. Simpson J, Elias S. Prenatal diagnosis of genetic disorders. In: Creasy R, Resnik R, eds. Maternal-fetal medicine: principles and practice. Philadelphia, PA: W B Saunders Company, 1989:78–107.
  55. Jobe A. Habitual abortion. In: Creasy R, Resnik R, eds. Maternal-fetal medicine: principles and practice. Philadelphia, PA: W B Saunders Company, 1989:426–46.
  56. Samouhos E. Chromosomes, cancer and radiosensitivity. Am J Clin Oncol 1983;6:503–6.[ISI][Medline]
  57. Hansen JP. Older maternal age and pregnancy outcome: a review of the literature. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1986;41:726–42.[Medline]
  58. Gosden RG, Faddy MJ. Ovarian aging, follicular depletion, and steroidogenesis. Exp Gerontol 1994;29:265–74.[ISI][Medline]
  59. Ball P, Knuppen R. Formation, metabolism, and physiologic importance of catecholestrogens. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;163:2163–70.[ISI][Medline]
  60. Lemon H, Heidel J, Rodriguez-Sierra J. Increased catechol estrogen metabolism as a risk factor for nonfamilial breast cancer. Cancer 1992;69:457–65.[ISI][Medline]
  61. Stack DE, Cavalieri EL, Rogan EG. Catecholestrogens as procarcinogens: depurinating adducts and tumor initiation. Adv Pharmacol 1998;42:833–6.[Medline]
  62. Kelsey JL, Gammon MD, John EM. Reproductive factors and breast cancer. Epidemiol Rev 1993;15:36–47.[ISI][Medline]
  63. Hargreaves MK, Buchowski MS, Hardy RE, et al. Dietary factors and cancers of breast, endometrium, and ovary: strategies for modifying fat intake in African American women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;176:S255–64.[ISI][Medline]
  64. Kayrooz K, Moy TF, Yanek LR, et al. Dietary fat patterns in urban African American women. J Community Health 1998;23:453–69.[ISI][Medline]
  65. Henderson BE, Bernstein L, Ross R, et al. The early in utero oestrogen and testosterone environment of blacks and whites: potential effects on male offspring. Br J Cancer 1988;57:216–18.[ISI][Medline]
  66. Velentgas P, Daling JR. Risk factors for breast cancer in younger women. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1994;16:15–24.[Medline]
  67. Janerich DT, Hoff MB. Evidence for a crossover in breast cancer risk factors. Am J Epidemiol 1982;116:737–42.[ISI][Medline]
  68. Saftlas AF, Olson DR, Franks AL, et al. Epidemiology of preeclampsia and eclampsia in the United States, 1979–1986. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;163:460–5.[ISI][Medline]
  69. Zhang J, Zeisler J, Hatch MC, et al. Epidemiology of pregnancy-induced hypertension. Epidemiol Rev 1997;19:218–32.[ISI][Medline]
  70. Emery ER, Eaton A, Grether J, et al. Assessment of gestational age using birth certificate data compared with medical record data. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1997;11:313–21.[ISI][Medline]
  71. Nguyen TH, Larsen T, Engholm G, et al. Evaluation of ultrasound-estimated date of delivery in 17,450 spontaneous singleton births: do we need to modify Naegele's rule? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999;14:23–8. (Comments published in Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999;14:9–11).[ISI][Medline]
  72. Ananth C, Savitz D, Williams M. Placental abruption and its association with hypertension and prolonged rupture of membranes: a methodologic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88:309–18.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  73. Ananth C, Smulian J, Vintzileos A. Incidence of placental abruption in relation to cigarette smoking and hypertensive disorders during pregnancy: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:622–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Received for publication October 28, 1999. Accepted for publication April 4, 2000.