Fracture History and Risk of Breast and Endometrial Cancer

Polly A. Newcomb1,2, Amy Trentham-Dietz1, Kathleen M. Egan3, Linda Titus-Ernstoff4, John A. Baron4, Barry E. Storer2, Walter C. Willett3,5,6 and Meir J. Stampfer3,5,6

1 University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center, Madison, WI.
2 Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA.
3 Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
4 Department of Community Medicine, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH.
5 Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
6 Channing Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA.


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Fractures in postmenopausal women may serve as a surrogate measure of bone density, reflecting long-term lower estrogen levels, and lower estrogen levels appear to be inversely associated with breast and endometrial cancer. Breast cancer cases aged 50–79 years (n = 5,559) and endometrial cancer cases aged 40–79 years (n = 739) were enrolled in a US case-control study in 1992–1994 to evaluate the relation between fractures and risk of breast and endometrial cancer. Controls for the breast cancer analysis (n = 5,829) and the endometrial cancer analysis (n = 2,334) were randomly selected from population lists (driver's license and Medicare files). Information on fracture history and other risk factors was obtained by telephone interview. Compared with women without a fracture in the past 5 years, the odds ratios for women with a history of fracture were 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68, 0.94) for breast cancer and 0.59 (95% CI: 0.40, 0.89) for endometrial cancer. Height loss (>=2.5 cm) and recent fracture history were associated with the lowest risk of breast cancer (odds ratio = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.83) and endometrial cancer (odds ratio = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.05, 0.43). These data suggest that the endogenous hormonal factors associated with increased fracture risk are also related to decreased breast cancer risk and, more strongly, to endometrial cancer risk.

breast neoplasms; case-control studies; endometrial neoplasms; fractures; hormones; postmenopause

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; LCL, lower confidence limit; OR, odds ratio


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Low bone mass, breast cancer, and endometrial cancer are all influenced by endogenous and exogenous estrogens. These three conditions all occur in organs that are target tissues for estrogens and their neoplasms (1Go). In general, an excess of estrogen—such as that due to obesity (2Go, 3Go) and postmenopausal hormone therapy—is inversely related to risk of osteoporosis or fracture (4GoGoGo–7Go) and positively associated with risk of cancer of the breast (8Go) and endometrium (9Go). These observations all suggest that bone mass may be a marker of cumulative exposure to estrogen (10GoGoGo–13Go).

The possibility of common etiologic factors for these conditions has been evaluated in follow-up studies of fractures, focusing on breast cancer (12GoGoGo–15Go) and endometrial cancer (12Go, 13Go, 16Go). Inverse associations between fracture and cancer were observed in two (12Go, 13Go) of four breast cancer studies, and a similar pattern was suggested in two (12Go, 16Go) endometrial cancer studies. Most convincingly, two recent prospective studies reported that higher bone density was associated with two- to threefold increases in postmenopausal breast cancer risk (17Go, 18Go). In one of these studies, the association between bone mineral density and breast cancer was significantly stronger in women with a family history of breast cancer (19Go). In all previous studies of fracture, the small number of cancer cases has limited interpretation of the results. We had the opportunity to evaluate fracture history as a marker of underlying estrogen levels in our concurrent population-based case-control studies of breast and endometrial cancer.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Identification of cases
All female residents of Wisconsin, Massachusetts (excluding the Boston metropolitan area), and New Hampshire with a new diagnosis of breast cancer and aged 50–79 years were eligible for this study. Endometrial cancer cases aged 40–79 years were identified only in Wisconsin. Cases were ascertained by using each state's cancer registry from January 1992 through December 1994. From each state registry, information was available on cancer site, histology, extent of disease, demographics, and follow-up physician. According to an institutionally approved protocol at each study site, the physician of record for each eligible case was contacted by mail to obtain permission to approach the subject. Eligibility was limited to cases with listed telephone numbers, drivers' licenses verified by self-report (if the case was less than 65 years of age), and known dates of diagnosis.

Of the 6,839 eligible breast cancer cases, physicians refused contact for 158 (2.3 percent), 293 (4.3 percent) were deceased, 83 (1.2 percent) could not be located, and 620 (9.1 percent) refused to participate. Thus, data on 5,685 women with breast cancer were available for general analysis, for an overall response rate of 83.1 percent. Of the 856 eligible endometrial cancer cases, physicians denied contact for 6 (0.7 percent), 53 (6.2 percent) were deceased, 50 (5.8 percent) could not be located, and 2 (0.2 percent) refused to participate. Therefore, data on 745 women with endometrial cancer were available, for an overall response rate of 87.0 percent. Ninety-eight percent of the breast and endometrial cancer cases had histologically confirmed invasive carcinoma. Interviewers of 26 of the breast cancer cases and none of the endometrial cancer cases noted that the data were inconsistent or were unreliable according to standard protocol; fracture information was missing for 100 breast cancer cases and 6 endometrial cancer cases. These women were excluded; thus, information on 5,559 breast cancer cases and 739 endometrial cancer cases was retained for analysis.

Identification of controls
In each state, community controls were randomly selected by using two sampling frames: controls less than age 65 years were chosen from a list of licensed drivers; controls for subjects aged 65–79 years were selected from a roster of Medicare beneficiaries compiled by the Health Care Financing Administration. Computer files for potential controls were obtained annually. Controls were selected randomly to yield an age distribution similar to that of the cases, and they met the eligibility criteria of having a listed telephone number and a driver's license (if they were aged <65 years) or a Medicare card (if aged >=65 years). Controls were eligible for the breast cancer study if they reported no previous diagnosis of breast cancer and, similarly, for the endometrial cancer study if they reported no previous diagnosis of uterine cancer.

Of the 7,655 potential controls for the breast cancer analysis, 183 (2.4 percent) had died, 124 (1.6 percent) could not be located, and 1,397 (18.2 percent) refused to participate; 5,951 (77.7 percent) completed the study interview. For the endometrial cancer analysis, 88 women (2 percent) had died, 35 (0.8 percent) could not be located, and 521 (11.8 percent) refused to participate, for a response rate of 85.2 percent. After the interview, controls for the endometrial cancer analysis were excluded if they reported a history of hysterectomy (n = 1,304). The interviewers noted that, for 23 controls for the breast cancer analysis and 6 controls for the endometrial cancer analysis, the data were inconsistent or were unreliable; fracture information on 99 controls for the breast cancer analysis and 74 controls for the endometrial cancer analysis was missing. These women were also excluded, leaving 5,829 controls for the breast cancer analysis and 2,334 controls for the endometrial cancer analysis.

Data collection
A letter briefly introducing the study was mailed to cases and controls before they were contacted by telephone. To improve recall of postmenopausal hormone use, a pictorial display of commonly used preparations (20Go) was included with the letter. The 45-minute telephone interview elicited information on known or suspected risk factors for breast and endometrial cancer, including fracture history (as a surrogate for bone density). Information was collected on exposures occurring only prior to diagnosis for cases; for controls, a reference date was assigned based on the frequency of the dates of diagnosis of the cases (on average, this date was 1 year prior to interview and varied slightly between study sites). Women were asked whether they had a history of any broken bones ("Did a doctor ever tell you that you had a fracture?" If yes, "What was your age at the most recent fracture?"). The type of fracture was not assessed. The interview also covered reproductive experiences, complete history of exogenous hormone use, physical activity, selected dietary elements, height at age 20 years and height at the reference date, weight at the reference date, medical history, and demographic factors. Calcium intake from milk and selected diet items; alcohol intake from beer, wine, and liquor; and recent recreational, vigorous physical activity, such as basketball and lap swimming, were ascertained. Information about a woman's personal and family history of breast cancer was obtained at the end of the interview to maintain blinding. For 87 percent of the breast cancer cases and 82 percent of the endometrial cancer cases, and for 96 percent of the controls, the interviewers remained unaware of the case-control status of the subjects until the end of the interview.

Reliability substudy
After an average of 3.5 months (range, 2–6 months), we reinterviewed a sequential sample of 186 cases (response rate, 71 percent) and 190 controls (response rate, 71 percent) from Massachusetts and Wisconsin to assess reliability of the questionnaire. Cohen's kappa (and the 95 percent lower confidence limit (LCL)) (21Go) for reporting a recent history (within 5 years) of bone fracture was 0.63 (LCL: 0.44) for cases and 0.84 (LCL: 0.73) for controls. The intraclass correlation coefficient for age at most recent bone fracture was 0.98 (LCL: 0.96) for cases and 0.93 (LCL: 0.89) for controls.

Analyses
Age was defined as the age at diagnosis or at the reference date. Menopausal status was defined as "postmenopausal" if the subject reported a natural menopause or a bilateral oophorectomy prior to the diagnosis or to the reference date. An intact uterus as of the reference date was a requirement for all controls in the endometrial cancer analysis. Controls in the breast cancer analysis who reported hysterectomy alone were classified as postmenopausal if their age at surgery was more than or equal to the 90th percentile of age at natural menopause for the control group (age 55 years for both smokers and nonsmokers). Menopausal status was considered unknown for breast cancer controls who had had a hysterectomy without bilateral oophorectomy if they were younger than age 55 years.

Postmenopausal hormone therapy was defined as use of oral, injectable, or transdermal noncontraceptive hormones, including estrogens and/or progestins, for 6 cumulative months or more. Body mass index (BMI) was defined as weight (in kilograms) divided by height (in meters) squared at age 20 years. Quartiles of BMI were based on the distri-bution of values in the cancer-specific control series. Women were defined as having a positive history of breast or endometrial cancer if they reported a diagnosis for their mother, sister(s), or daughter(s).

Odds ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals obtained from logistic regression models were used to evaluate relative risks. Conditional models stratified by age and US state (age only for the endometrial cancer analysis) were used to accommodate the slightly different age distributions of the cases and controls in each state studied. Age at first full-term pregnancy (nulliparous; aged <20 years, 20–24 years, 25–29 years, >=30 years), age (<45, 45–49, 50–54, >=55 years) at and type (natural or surgical) of menopause, family history of breast cancer (present, absent), BMI (quartiles), and education (less than high school, high school graduate, some college, college graduate or higher) were included in all models as potential confounders for the breast cancer analysis. The endometrial cancer analyses included parity (continuous), smoking status (never, former, current), BMI (quartiles), and education in all models. In the breast and endometrial cancer analyses that included all women, odds ratios were also adjusted for use of postmenopausal hormone therapy (never, ever). Subjects with unknown values for any variables were incorporated as a separate category (as was true for family history of breast cancer, BMI, age at menopause, and hormone use). Effect modification was evaluated by including interaction terms in the model and computing likelihood ratio tests (22Go); continuous variables were used in the interaction tests when appropriate.


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Breast cancer
Overall, women with breast cancer were more likely than controls to be older when first giving birth, to be nulliparous, to be heavier, to consume alcohol once per day or more often on average, and to have a positive family history of breast cancer and a late age at menopause (23Go). The mean age of cases was 65.3 years and of controls was 64.1 years.

The age-adjusted prevalence of a history of fracture within the past 5 years was 6.3 percent for breast cancer cases and 8.3 percent for controls. Compared with women without a fracture, women reporting a fracture in the past 5 years had an adjusted odds ratio of breast cancer of 0.80 (95 percent confidence interval (CI): 0.68, 0.94). Fractures that occurred more than 5 years previously were not associated with risk. The odds ratio for breast cancer in women who reported a history of any fracture was 0.96 (95 percent CI: 0.88, 1.05) compared with women who reported no fractures (table 1). Limiting the analysis to women who reported never using postmenopausal hormone therapy did not substantially affect the risk estimates; among these women, recent fracture (within the past 5 years) was associated with an odds ratio of 0.79 (95 percent CI: 0.65, 0.95) compared with women without a fracture history. The association was slightly attenuated for women who had ever used postmenopausal hormone therapy (odds ratio (OR) = 0.82, 95 percent CI: 0.59, 1.13).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 1. Adjusted odds ratios of breast and endometrial cancer, by fracture history and postmenopausal hormone therapy, United States, 1992–1994

 
The association between breast cancer and recent fracture was not significantly modified by age at diagnosis, family history of breast cancer, BMI, recent vigorous physical activity, recent calcium intake level, or alcohol intake (table 2). The lack of interaction was also observed for women who never used postmenopausal hormone therapy. There was a suggestion that the inverse relation between fracture and breast cancer risk was present only for sedentary women (p = 0.11).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 2. Adjusted odds ratios of breast cancer, by recent fracture history and selected characteristics, United States, 1992–1994

 
Recent height loss may indicate vertebral osteoporosis. Slightly more than half of the women reported no height loss since age 20 years (54 percent of cases, 57 percent of controls). The median height loss since age 20 years was 2.5 cm (range, 0.2–28 cm) for breast cancer cases and 2.5 cm (range, 0.5–39 cm) for controls. Although no association was found between height loss and breast cancer risk (adjusted OR per 1 cm loss = 1.01, 95 percent CI: 0.99, 1.03), the inverse association between recent fracture and breast cancer risk was strengthened for women with a height loss of >=2.5 cm (p = 0.05). A similar pattern was observed for women who never used postmenopausal hormones.

Endometrial cancer
Compared with controls, women who had endometrial cancer were more likely to be nulliparous, to have a high BMI, and to be nonsmokers (24Go). The mean age of cases and controls was 63 years.

The age-adjusted frequency of a recent fracture was 4.7 percent for endometrial cancer cases and 7.4 percent for controls. For women who had had a fracture within the 5-year period before the reference date, the odds ratio was 0.59 (95 percent CI: 0.40, 0.89) compared with women without a fracture history (table 1). Compared with women who never reported a fracture, a positive history of any bone fracture was not associated with risk of endometrial cancer (OR = 0.95, 95 percent CI: 0.77, 1.16). The association was similar for women who never used postmenopausal hormones (OR = 0.55, 95 percent CI: 0.33, 0.92 for a recent fracture). The association was attenuated for women who had ever used postmenopausal hormones (OR = 0.70, 95 percent CI: 0.32, 1.52).

The relation between endometrial cancer and recent bone fracture was not significantly modified by age at diagnosis, smoking status, recent vigorous physical activity, or BMI (table 3). However, there was a suggestion that, for women who consumed relatively large quantities of calcium-rich foods, fractures were associated with slightly lower risks of endometrial cancer than for women who consumed less calcium.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 3. Adjusted odds ratios of endometrial cancer, by recent fracture history and selected characteristics, United States, 1992–1994

 
Median height loss since age 20 years was 2.5 cm (range, 0.5–15 cm) for both endometrial cancer cases and controls. There was no association, after multivariate adjustment, between height loss since age 20 years and endometrial cancer risk (relative risk per 1-cm loss = 1.05, 95 percent CI: 1.00, 1.10). Height loss modified the association between recent fracture and endometrial cancer risk (p = 0.002, table 3), so that above-median height loss and recent fracture were associated with an odds ratio of 0.15 (95 percent CI: 0.05, 0.43) for endometrial cancer for all women and 0.18 (95 percent CI: 0.05, 0.63) for women who never used postmenopausal hormones.


    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Overall, we observed that recent fractures—presumably largely osteoporotic in this postmenopausal group—were inversely associated with both breast and endometrial cancer. There was some indication that the reduction in risk was stronger for endometrial cancer (about 40 percent) than for breast cancer (about 20 percent). Compared with women who reported neither height loss nor recent fracture, women who reported both factors had a substantially reduced risk of both breast and endometrial cancer.

To our knowledge, this study is the largest to date to report an inverse association between recent fracture and breast and endometrial cancer risk. In previous studies, all prospective in design, the risk reduction ranged from 15 percent to 45 percent for breast cancer (12Go, 13Go) and from 13 percent to 40 percent for endometrial cancer (12Go, 16Go). Two other studies based on cohorts of cancer patients failed to find any association (14Go, 15Go). However, since these studies ascertained fractures subsequent to breast cancer diagnosis, the relevant hormonal milieu may have been perturbed by breast cancer and its treatments. Consistent with our results, recent cohort studies have shown that women with low bone density have a substantially decreased risk of breast cancer compared with women with high bone density (17Go, 18Go). In these studies, the magnitude of the association between bone density and breast cancer risk was considerably greater than in our evaluation. In our study, many of the women with low bone density may not have experienced fractures. This difference likely reflects some misclassification of our marker of bone density and a more precise measure of bone mass. However, dissimilarity in the study populations may also account for differences in effect, since the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures was limited to older women at high risk of fracture (17Go), while our population-based sample had no such constraints. Activity reduces the incidence of osteoporosis (25Go), so that a high-risk sedentary group represents those women for whom the estrogen effect is most likely to be manifest. In our study, there was no association between fracture and breast cancer risk for the more physically active women.

This study was not specifically designed to evaluate the relation between osteoporotic fracture history and cancer risk; therefore, our data are somewhat limited. First, all reported fractures, including both traumatic and osteoporotic, were necessarily considered in our evaluation. We reduced misclassification by focusing on recent fractures in this postmenopausal population. In older adults, the great majority of fractures are osteoporotic (26Go). However, many factors other than bone density can influence fractures, and fractures in certain sites, for example, the ankle, elbow, fingers, and face, tend not to be associated with bone mass (25GoGoGoGo–29Go). Inclusion of fractures unlikely to be osteoporotic (e.g., due to trauma) would lead to an underestimate of the true association. Similarly, we cannot rule out the possibility that some reported fractures in cancer cases were a result of metastatic disease, although the proportion of women initially diagnosed with advanced-stage cancer was low: 2.3 percent of breast cancer cases and 2.3 percent of endometrial cancer cases. Such misclassification, if any, might also lead to an underestimate of the true risk. Finally, women in our study were required to have a telephone number available from a publicly available source. Women with a history of disabling fractures may have been institutionalized (30Go) and therefore not included in our study. If loss of these women was more common among controls, it may have resulted in an underestimation of the true relative risk. Thus, these limitations all may have attenuated the relation between fracture and cancer risk.

It is possible that the observed association reflects other characteristics, including other hormonal factors, that also may increase the risk of breast cancer, endometrial cancer, or both. We found that the age- and multivariable-adjusted risk estimates were similar, suggesting that confounding was unlikely. Adjustment for other factors associated with fracture risk, including recent physical activity and calcium intake, also did not materially change the risk estimates for either breast or endometrial cancer. Osteoporosis is an indication for postmenopausal hormone use, and failure to adjust for such treatment might be expected to introduce bias (31Go). After adjustment, we observed only modest attenuation of the increase associated with recent fractures and an inverse relation in hormone users as well as never users. However, the possibility remains that factors other than estrogen could explain this association, such as insulin-like growth factors that stimulate cell division in the bone (32Go, 33Go) and are potent mitogens in breast tissue culture (34Go). Higher blood levels of insulin-like growth factor have been associated with breast cancer risk (35Go).

Additional evidence from several sources supports our assertion that fractures reflect estrogen status in women. Estrogen reduction at menopause is the major cause of age-related bone loss (25Go, 36Go, 37Go). Bone loss that occurs before menopause also appears related to low estrogen levels (38Go), such as those found in women who are amenorrheic (39Go). Among postmenopausal women, the prevalence of low bone mineral density is higher for those with oophorectomy or early menopause (40Go, 41Go) and with low body mass (25Go, 42Go, 43Go) as well as for smokers (42Go)—all conditions associated with low endogenous estrogens. Most definitively, there is a strong, positive correlation between serum or urinary estrogen levels and bone mineral density in pre- and postmenopausal women (44GoGo–46Go).

Lower estrogen levels are also associated with lower breast and endometrial cancer risk. Breast cancer incidence continues to increase with age, but at menopause there is a distinct slowing of the rate of increase (47Go). A similar change in endometrial cancer rates occurs at menopause (48Go). Characteristics that reduce endogenous estrogen levels, such as low body mass (45Go, 49Go, 50Go), are associated with a decreased risk of postmenopausal breast (51Go, 52Go) and endometrial (9Go) cancer. Most directly, women with low estradiol (or estrone) levels tend to have a lower risk for breast cancer than women with higher levels (50Go). Prospective data are lacking on the relation between circulating estrogens and endometrial cancer, but, in postmenopausal women, low estrogen levels also appear to be associated with a reduced incidence of endometrial cancer (53Go, 54Go).

Exogenous estrogen reduces bone mineral loss and lowers the risk of vertebral and extremity fractures (4Go, 6Go, 7Go, 55Go). However, it also increases both breast (8Go) and endometrial (9Go) cancer risk through the direct stimulation of these tissues. The effect of recent unopposed estrogen use on cancer risk is considerably less strong in the breast (relative risk ~ 1.3) than in the endometrium (relative risk ~ 6.0), supporting the view that endometrial cancer is more estrogen dependent (although other hormones or aspects of susceptibility are also likely important). This view is consistent with our finding that fractures are associated with a greater reduction in the risk of endometrial cancer than in breast cancer.

This study supports an association between fracture and both breast and endometrial cancer. The etiologies of these two tumors share many similarities; however, the relative differences in the magnitude of their association with bone fracture and potential modification by other factors suggest that the relevant characteristics of estrogen exposure may differ in the breast and endometrium.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
Supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health (CA47147, CA47305) and the American Cancer Society (PDT446).

The authors are indebted to the tumor registrars, study managers, interviewers, and programmers who worked on this study. They are also grateful to Drs. Barry E. Storer, Patrick L. Remington, and E. Robert Greenberg for their advice and consultation at various stages of this project and to Mary Pankratz for technical support.


    NOTES
 
Presented in part at the 29th Annual Meeting of the Society for Epidemiologic Research, Boston, Massachusetts, June 1996.

Reprint requests to Dr. Polly A. Newcomb, University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center, Room 4760 Medical Science Center, 1300 University Avenue, Madison, WI 53706 (e-mail: pnewcomb{at}fhcrc.org).


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Eriksen EF, Colvard DS, Berg NJ, et al. Evidence of estrogen receptors in normal human osteoblast-like cells. Science 1988;241:84–6.[ISI][Medline]
  2. Siiteri PK. Adipose tissue as a source of hormones. Am J Clin Nutr 1987;45:277–82.[Abstract]
  3. Enriori CL, Reforzo-Membrives J. Peripheral aromatization as a risk factor for breast and endometrial cancer in postmenopausal women: a review. Gynecol Oncol 1984;17:1–21.[ISI][Medline]
  4. Cauley JA, Seeley DG, Ensrud K, et al. Estrogen replacement therapy and fractures in older women. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. Ann Intern Med 1995;122:9–16.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Longcope C, Baker RS, Hui SL, et al. Androgen and estrogen dynamics in women with vertebral crush fractures. Maturitas 1984;6:309–18.[ISI][Medline]
  6. Effects of hormone therapy on bone mineral density: results from the postmenopausal estrogen/progestin interventions (PEPI) trial. The Writing Group for the PEPI. JAMA 1996;276:1389–96.[Abstract]
  7. Ettinger B, Genant HK, Cann CE. Long-term estrogen replacement therapy prevents bone loss and fractures. Ann Intern Med 1985;102:319–24.[ISI][Medline]
  8. Breast cancer and hormone replacement therapy: collaborative reanalysis of data from 51 epidemiological studies of 52,705 women with breast cancer and 108,411 women without breast cancer. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Lancet 1997;350:1047–59.[ISI][Medline]
  9. Grady D, Gebretsadik T, Kerlikowske K, et al. Hormone replacement therapy and endometrial cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1995;85:304–13.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Browner WS, Seeley DG, Vogt TM, et al. Non-trauma mortality in elderly women with low bone mineral density. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. Lancet 1991;338:355–8.[ISI][Medline]
  11. Browner WS, Pressman AR, Nevitt MC, et al. Association between low bone density and stroke in elderly women: the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. Stroke 1993;24:940–6.[Abstract]
  12. Persson I, Adami HO, McLaughlin JK, et al. Reduced risk of breast and endometrial cancer among women with hip fractures (Sweden). Cancer Causes Control 1994;5:523–8.[ISI][Medline]
  13. Olsson H, Hägglund G. Reduced cancer morbidity and mortality in a prospective cohort of women with distal forearm fractures. Am J Epidemiol 1992;136:422–7.[Abstract]
  14. Utz JP, Melton LJ, Kan SH, et al. Risk of osteoporotic fractures in women with breast cancer: a population-based cohort study. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:105–13.[ISI][Medline]
  15. Adami HO, Zack M, Kressner U, et al. Hip fractures in women with breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1990;132:877–83.[Abstract]
  16. Persson I, Naessen T, Adami HO, et al. Reduced risk of hip fracture in women with endometrial cancer. Int J Epidemiol 1992;21:636–42.[Abstract]
  17. Cauley JA, Lucas FL, Kuller LH, et al. Bone mineral density and risk of breast cancer in older women: the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. JAMA 1996;276:1404–8.[Abstract]
  18. Zhang Y, Kiel DP, Kreger BE, et al. Bone mass and the risk of breast cancer among postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med 1997;336:611–17.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Lucas FL, Cauley JA, Stone RA, et al. Bone mineral density and risk of breast cancer: differences by family history of breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1998;148:22–9.[Abstract]
  20. Beresford SA, Coker AL. Pictorially assisted recall of past hormone use in case-control studies. Am J Epidemiol 1989;130:202–5.[Abstract]
  21. Armstrong BK, White E, Saracci R. Principles of exposure measurement in epidemiology. Vol 21. Monographs in epidemiology and biostatistics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1995.
  22. 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. (IARC scientific publication no. 32).
  23. Newcomb PA, Egan KM, Titus-Ernstoff L, et al. Lactation in relation to postmenopausal breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1999;150:174–82.[Abstract]
  24. Newcomb PA, Trentham-Dietz A, Storer BE. Alcohol consumption in relation to endometrial cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1997;6:775–8.[Abstract]
  25. Cummings SR, Kelsey JL, Nevitt MC, et al. Epidemiology of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures. Epidemiol Rev 1985;7:178–208.[ISI][Medline]
  26. Seeley DG, Browner WS, Nevitt MC, et al. Which fractures are associated with low appendicular bone mass in elderly women? The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. Ann Intern Med 1991;115:837–42.[ISI][Medline]
  27. Rosenthal DI, Tosteson AN. Bone mass measurement, fracture risk, and screening for osteoporosis. Public Health Rep 1989;104(suppl):31–3.[Medline]
  28. Cummings SR, Black DM, Nevitt MC, et al. Appendicular bone density and age predict hip fracture in women. Study of Osteo-porotic Fractures Research Group. JAMA 1990;263:665–8.[Abstract]
  29. Chrischilles EA, Butler CD, Davis CS, et al. A model of lifetime osteoporosis impact. Arch Intern Med 1991;151:2026–32.[Abstract]
  30. Grisso JA, Kelsey JL, Strom BL, et al. Risk factors for falls as a cause for hip fractures in women. The Northeast Hip Fracture Study Group. N Engl J Med 1991;324:1326–31.[Abstract]
  31. Cauley JA, Cummings SR, Black DM, et al. Prevalence and determinants of estrogen replacement therapy in elderly women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;163:1438–44.[ISI][Medline]
  32. Schmid C. The regulation of osteoblast function by hormones and cytokines with special reference by insulin-like growth factors and their binding proteins. J Intern Med 1993;234:535–42.[ISI][Medline]
  33. Rosen CJ, Donahue LR, Hunter SJ. Insulin-like growth fractures and bone: the osteoporosis connection. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1994;206:83–102.[Abstract]
  34. Yee D. The insulin-like growth factor system as a target in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1994;32:85–95.[ISI][Medline]
  35. Hankinson SE, Willett WC, Colditz GA, et al. Circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I and risk of breast cancer. Lancet 1998;351:1373–5.[ISI][Medline]
  36. Nilas L, Christiansen C. Bone mass and its relationship to age and the menopause. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1987;65:697–702.[Abstract]
  37. Richelson LS, Wahner HW, Melton LJ, et al. Relative contributions of aging and estrogen deficiency to postmenopausal bone loss. N Engl J Med 1984;311:1273–5.[Abstract]
  38. Sowers MFR, Galuska DA. Epidemiology of bone mass in premenopausal women. Epidemiol Rev 1993;15:374–98.[ISI][Medline]
  39. Drinkwater BL, Nilson K, Chesnut CH, et al. Bone mineral content of amenorrheic and eumenorrheic athletes. N Engl J Med 1984;311:277–81.[Abstract]
  40. Mazzuoli G, Minisola S, Bianchi G, et al. The effects of oophorectomy on skeletal metabolism. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 1990;37:457–9.[ISI][Medline]
  41. Bauer DC, Browner WS, Cauley JA, et al. Factors associated with appendicular bone mass in older women. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. Ann Intern Med 1993;118:657–65.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Franceschi S, Schinella D, Bidoli E, et al. The influence of body size, smoking, and diet on bone density in pre- and postmenopausal women. Epidemiology 1996;7:411–14.[ISI][Medline]
  43. Edelstein SL, Barrett-Connor E. Relation between body size and bone mineral density in elderly men and women. Am J Epidemiol 1993;138:160–9.[Abstract]
  44. Cauley JA, Gutai JP, Kuller LH, et al. Endogenous estrogen levels and calcium intake in postmenopausal women. Relationships with cortical bone measurements. JAMA 1988;260:3150–5.[Abstract]
  45. Cauley JA, Gutai JP, Kuller LH, et al. The epidemiology of serum sex hormones in postmenopausal women. Am J Epidemiol 1989;129:1120–31.[Abstract]
  46. Cauley JA, Gutai JP, Kuller LH, et al. Black-white differences in serum sex hormones and bone mineral density. Am J Epidemiol 1994;139:1035–46.[Abstract]
  47. Pike MC, Spicer DV, Dahmousch L, et al. Estrogens, progestogens, normal breast cell proliferation, and breast cancer risk. Epidemiol Rev 1993;15:17–35.[ISI][Medline]
  48. Pike MC. Reducing cancer risk in women through lifestyle mediated changes in hormone levels. Cancer Detect Prev 1990;14:595–607.[ISI][Medline]
  49. Potischman N, Swanson CA, Siiteri P, et al. Reversal of relation between body mass and endogenous estrogen concentrations with menopausal status. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:756–8.[Free Full Text]
  50. Thomas HV, Reeves GK, Key TJA. Endogenous estrogen and postmenopausal breast cancer: a quantitative review. Cancer Causes Control 1997;8:922–8.[ISI][Medline]
  51. Bernstein L, Ross RK. Endogenous hormones and breast cancer risk. Epidemiol Rev 1993;15:48–65.[ISI][Medline]
  52. Colditz GA. Relationship between estrogen levels, use of hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:814–23.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Nyholm HC, Nielsen AL, Lyndrup J, et al. Plasma oestrogens in postmenopausal women with endometrial cancer. Br J Obstet Gyneacol 1993;100:1115–19.[ISI][Medline]
  54. Potischman N, Hoover RN, Brinton LA, et al. Case-control study of endogenous steroid hormones and endometrial cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:1127–35.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  55. Weiss NS, Ure CL, Ballard JH, et al. Decreased risk of fractures of the hip and lower forearm with postmenopausal use of estrogen. N Engl J Med 1980;303:1195–8.[Abstract]
Received for publication January 31, 2000. Accepted for publication September 29, 2000.