a Unité INSERM 521, Institut Gustave Roussy, 39 rue Camille Desmoulins, 94805 Villejuif Cedex, France.
b MRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, University Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge CB2 2SR, UK.
c Cancer Epidemiology Unit, University of Toronto, 12 Queen's Park Crescent W, 3rd Floor, McMurrich Bldg, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1A8, Canada.
d Centre Alexis Vautrin, 54511 Vandoeuvre les Nancy Cedex, France.
e Groupe d'Epidémiologie Métabolique, INSERM-CRLC, Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie, Rue des Apothicaires, Parc Euromédecine, 34094 Montpellier Cedex 5, France.
f Department of Epidemiology, Cancer Research Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, 24 Kashirskoje Shosse, 115478 Moscow, Russia.
g Département de Gynécologie Obstétricale, Hospices civils, 67000 Strasbourg, France.
h Department of Community, Occupational and Family Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Reprint requests to: Dr Nadine Andrieu, Unité INSERM 521, Institut Gustave Roussy, 39 rue Camille Desmoulins, 94805 Villejuif Cedex, France. E-mail: nandrieu{at}igr.fr
![]() |
Abstract |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Methods The present analysis included 2948 cases and 4170 controls in seven case-control studies from four countries. The combined relative risks were estimated using a Bayesian random-effects logistic regression model.
Results The main effects of reproductive life factors on the risk of BC are in agreement with previous studies. Two-way interactions between subject's age or menopausal status and a family history of BC were not significant. Although the three-way interaction between age, familial risk and parity was not significant, familial risk seemed to be increased slightly for women with high parity compared with women with low parity in the older age group, and seemed to be slightly decreased for women with high parity compared with women with low parity in younger women. The subject's age also appeared to have an effect on the interaction between familial risk and the age at first childbirth (P = 0.1).
Conclusions A possible influence of reproductive and menstrual factors on familial risk of BC has been suggested previously and was also evident in the present study. Three-way interactions between age, family history and parity or age at first childbirth might exist and they merit further investigation.
Keywords Breast cancer, familial risk, reproductive factors, interactions
Accepted 15 October 1999
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
In previous work, we investigated two-way interactions between familial and reproductive factors by combining seven case-control studies from various countries. Our findings suggested synergism between familial factors and history of abortions,9 and a slightly increasing familial risk with increasing number of children, age at first childbirth and duration of breast cell mitotic activity (BCMA).10 However, a possible difference in the familial effect on BC risk according to age, menopause, and degree of familiality might have confounded the estimates and led to inaccurate inferences. The effect of those potential confounders was not presented in our previous paper10 due to space limitations. To date, interactions between the different possible causes of heterogeneity in BC risks have not been studied. Therefore, we performed a combined analysis to study the interaction between familial risk and reproductive factors according to type of relationship with affected relatives, age at interview and menopausal status. Despite the possible lack of power for such an analysis, the analysis had the potential to generate hypotheses on the interrelation between familial risk, reproductive factors, and potential confounders.
![]() |
Materials and Methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
In a case-control study from Singapore,12 BC patients were consecutive admissions to Singapore General Hospital and the National University Hospital between 1986 and 1988. Approximately twice as many hospital controls as cases were selected within 5-year age groups. Subjects were 2488 years. They were interviewed in hospital by experienced investigators. History of BC in the subject's mother, sisters, or maternal aunts was recorded.
Data were obtained from a case-control study performed in Moscow (Russia) (Lifanova et al., unpublished) where subjects were interviewed from 1992 to 1994. Cases were aged 2382 years with histologically confirmed primary carcinoma of the breast and were recruited from four Moscow hospitals. Controls were women with minor non-chronic complaints registered in primary care polyclinics in Moscow. Information was recorded on the occurrence of BC in the family (sisters, mother, aunts and grandmothers).
In a case-control study carried out in Montpellier13 (France), subjects were interviewed between 1983 and 1987. Cases were women aged 2666 years with histologically confirmed primary carcinoma of the breast who were hospitalized in the Montpellier Cancer Institute and had not previously undergone any therapy. Controls were women of the same age range admitted for the first time into three different wards: neurology, neurosurgery and general surgery. Information was recorded on the occurrence of BC in the family (sisters, mother and aunts) and the number of sisters and aunts.
A case-control study was carried out in the Nancy Cancer Institute14 (France) between 1985 and 1987 in which cases were aged 2483 years, with a histologically-confirmed infiltrating breast carcinoma. Controls were women admitted into general surgery or general medicine wards, and they were examined to eliminate a diagnosis of cancer. Controls were matched to cases by age at interview (±3 years), residential area and occupational status. Each case was matched to two controls. Information was recorded on the occurrence of BC in the family (sisters, mother, aunts and grandmothers) and the number of sisters and aunts.
In a multicentre case-control study performed in France15 between 1981 and 1984, cases were 46 years, with a histologically verified breast carcinoma diagnosed less than a year before the interview. Each case was matched with one control with respect to hospital, date of interview and age. The controls were chosen from patients with non-malignant diseases, excluding benign breast disease and severe or moderate cervical dysplasia. Information was recorded on the occurrence of BC in the family (sisters, mother, aunts and grandmothers) and the number of sisters and aunts.
Data were obtained from a case-control study in five French hospitals16 between 1983 and 1987 where cases were 2056 years and had a histologically confirmed infiltrating or in situ breast carcinoma. Three types of controls were eligible for each case: friends, colleagues or patients hospitalized for a non-malignant disease. Controls were matched to cases on centre, age at interview (±5 years) and year of interview (±14 months). Each case and her matched controls was interviewed by the same interviewer. Information was recorded on the occurrence of BC in the family (sisters, mother, aunts and grandmothers) and the number of sisters and aunts.
![]() |
Statistical methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The risk of BC associated with a family history of BC was estimated according to the type of relationship between the subject and her affected relative (first-degree or second-degree relative), the age at interview, and menopausal status. The risks associated with reproductive factors were also calculated for each subgroup with or without a family history of BC stratified according to age at interview or menopausal status. The presence of heterogeneity across studies and the significance of interaction effects were assessed using Wald test statistics.
The reproductive variables studied were age at menarche, age at first childbirth, number of children, number and type of abortions (spontaneous, induced or both), age at menopause, and estimated duration of ovarian activity as a measure of BCMA. Among nulliparous women, duration of BCMA until first childbirth (pre-first-childbirth BCMA) was calculated by totalling the years between menarche and interview for premenopausal women or menopause for post-menopausal women. Among parous women, pre-first-childbirth BCMA was calculated as the years between menarche and first childbirth. The pre-first-childbirth BCMA was categorized into four classes (Table 2). Lifetime BCMA was calculated by totalling the years of reproductive life between menarche and interview for premenopausal women, or between menarche and menopause for post-menopausal women, and then subtracting the estimated total years of full term pregnancy which is the number of children multiplied by 0.75 (0.75 years = average length of pregnancy) (lifetime BCMA is equal to pre-first-childbirth BCMA in nulliparous women). Then lifetime BCMA was categorized in four classes (Table 2
). Lifetime BCMA was not investigated stratified by age at interview because of its strong correlation with age at interview. Because detailed information on incomplete pregnancies was not available for most studies, a precise assessment of BCMA was not possible. However, analyses were performed adjusting for total number of abortions (both spontaneous and induced). Lee et al.'s data12 were excluded from analyses on the effect of abortions, and Rohan et al.'s and Lee et al.'s data11,12 were excluded from analyses on the familial effect of an affected second-degree relatives due to lack of such information in these studies.
|
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Variation in the familial risk of BC according to degree of familiality, age and menopausal status
The main effect of family history of BC according to the degree of relationship, age at interview and menopausal status is shown in Table 3. The OR estimated from the combined analysis associated with a history of BC among first-degree relatives was 2.34 (95% CI : 1.793.13), among second-degree relatives, 2.07 (95% CI : 1.223.60) and among either first- or second-degree relatives, 2.29 (95% CI : 1.603.18). Although the point estimate of the first-degree familial risk was higher, no significant difference was detected between the first- and the second-degree familial risk. For each different assessment of a family history of BC (i.e. a family history among first-, second- or either first- or second-degree relatives), the familial risk was estimated according to menopausal status and age at interview (for two different cutpoints: 40 or 50 years). Although the familial risk is slightly higher among younger and pre-menopausal women, no significant difference was detected at a significance level of 0.05.
|
|
The pattern of the ORFR across age at menarche levels is unclear. The point estimate of ORFR increased as age at first child increased among parous women, with an OR associated with an affected first-degree relative (OR1stFR) of 2.07 for women who were <25 years old at their first childbirth, 2.38 for those aged 2529 years and 2.68 for those who were >29 years.
Point estimates of ORFR were slightly higher for women having 3 children than for those having one or two with a OR1stFR of 2.18 for one or two children and of 2.30 for
3 children. Point estimates of ORFR increased as the number of abortions increased. For number of abortions equal to 0, 1 and >1, OR1stFR equals 2.11, 2.54, 2.66, respectively. No clear pattern of the familial risk according to type of abortion was apparent.
The analyses also yielded unclear patterns of the familial risk according to age at menopause and pre-first-childbirth BCMA. An increasing familial risk as lifetime BCMA increased was observed. For duration of BCMA <28 years, 2832 years, 3337 years and >37 years, OR1stFR were 2.15, 2.23, 2.52 and 2.58, respectively.
Variation in the interaction between familial and reproductive factors according to age at interview and menopausal status
Results for the effects of reproductive factors stratified by family history of BC and by age at interview (with cutpoint at 40 years) (Table 5) or by menopausal status (data not shown) and those for the effect of a family history stratified by different levels of the reproductive life factors and by age at interview (Table 5) or by menopausal status (data not shown) are presented. A family history of BC is defined here as at least one affected relative among either first- or second-degree relatives. Table 5a can be read in two different ways as described previously. None of the tests for three-way interaction between family history, reproductive life variables and either age at interview or menopausal status was statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.
|
When the effect of a family history of BC was estimated across reproductive life factors stratified by menopausal status (data not shown), the results were almost similar to those when stratified by age at interview. However, one difference was that the point estimates of ORFR for induced abortion were similar in the two subgroups pre-menopausal and post-menopausal women. Also the inverse pattern in the point estimates of ORFR for number of children observed when stratified by age at interview was less clear when stratified by menopausal status.
An increasing familial risk as lifetime BCMA increased was observed, except in the last category in which a slight decrease was seen in both pre- and post-menopausal women subgroups. For duration of BCMA <28 years, 2832 years, 3337 years and >37 years, ORFR equals 1.60, 1.97, 2.56 and 2.51 in the post-menopausal women subgroup and 2.14, 2.31, 3.03 and 2.22 in the pre-menopausal women subgroup.
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The findings of this study with regard to the main effects of reproductive life factors on the risk of BC are in agreement with those of previous studies.1 An increased risk of BC was found in association with an early age at menarche, a late age at first childbirth, nulliparity, premenopausal status and increasing durations of BCMA until the first childbirth and through life.
Exposure to menstrual activity has been used as a surrogate for assessing BCMA, which is mainly controlled by oestrogens. In assessing BCMA before first childbirth and over the entire reproductive life, we did not account for periods of oral contraceptive use. However, this may not lead to inaccurate measurement because an increase in BCMA has been found in the later weeks of the oral contraceptive cycle. Indeed, total BCMA may be very similar over an oral contraceptive cycle and a normal cycle.19
There was no association between the risk of BC and the total number of abortions, spontaneous abortions only and both spontaneous and induced abortions. However, a significant increase in risk of BC was found in association with induced abortions. Published results on the risk of BC associated with abortions are disparate and controversial.1,20 The bias caused by cases being more aware of, or more candid about abortions than controls might explain the increased risk of BC found for induced abortions.
Non-homogeneity in the measurement of family history of BC across studies (four studies recorded information on first- and second-degree relatives1416 [Lifanova, unpublished], two in first- and second-degree relatives but not in grandmothers12,13 and one in first-degree relatives11) might have induced interference in the estimation of an interaction between familial risk and reproductive factors. Our results showed no significant difference in familial risk estimates according to the degree of relationship, with and without stratification on reproductive factors. This homogeneity in results may be partly due to the measure of a family history of BC remaining a measure of mixed genetic susceptibilities (and within-family correlated environmental factors) even after having attempted homogenization of the analysis groups by specifying the degree of relationship. Byrne et al.21 found that different factors could modify in different directions the effects of an affected mother and the effects of an affected sister. However, aside from the fact that dissociate mother and sisters will probably not define homogeneous groups of genetic susceptibility, the number of cases in our study was not large enough to subdivide subjects with a first-degree family history of BC according to affected mother or sister.
The category no family history in this study included those with an unknown family history. This could have biased the results if cases were more aware of such a history than controls. However, cases and controls had a similar proportion of relatives with an unknown cancer status and this proportion was small (about 2%). Also, although this bias might have affected the estimation of the relative risk for the main effect of family history, there is no reason to assume that it would have varied according to the reproductive factors.
The number of female relatives was available only in French data sets. In these data sets, no difference in family sizes between cases and controls was observed. Because this information was missing for three out of seven data sets, the study of potential bias in combined familial risk estimates was made impossible. The sensitivity and specificity of family history of BC as surrogate for genetic factors may be questioned because it may reflect either genetic factors or shared environmental factors or both. However, family history is easily measured and not expensive to obtain and is actually a genetic factors surrogate available in most epidemiological studies on BC. Thus, without a priori candidate genes, family history measurement as a surrogate for genetic factor may be useful to generate new hypotheses.
Some studies have investigated variations in familial risk, whereas other studies have investigated variations in reproductive risk factors. The tests performed to detect variations in risks were similar whichever of these approaches was used. We chose to present and comment on the results for family history, as we were interested in the modifications of the familial risk due to reproductive factors and age at interview or menopausal status. None of the interactions between familial factor, reproductive factors and age at interview or menopausal status was statistically significant. One possible explanation for this is a lack of power to detect interactions, even with large sample sizes.
Two-way interactions between age or menopausal status and a family history of BC were not significant in our study. Our results agree with those of a recent meta-analysis that showed a BC risk associated with a family history of BC in first-degree relatives of 1.8 in women 50 years and of 2.3 in women <50 years.22 The difference in familial risks did not appear large.
In previous studies, familial effects were observed to increase in younger or pre-menopausal women. Because a difference in familial effects on BC risk according to the age or menopausal status of subjects might introduce confounding, in the studied interactions (even with adjustment for age or menopause), three-way interactions (family historyreproductive factorage or menopausal status of subjects) were performed.
Age and menopausal status had no effect on the interaction between familial risk and age at menarche in our study. The protective effect of late menarche has been shown only for premenopausal women in some studies4,23 and for women at all ages in others.24,25
Among eight studies which have investigated the variation in BC risk associated with age at menarche by family history, three found such a variation.37,2628 The variation always reflected the same trend, namely an increased risk associated with a late age at menarche for women with a family history of BC and a decreased risk associated with a late age at menarche for women without family history.5,26,27 All others studies found no increased risk associated with a late age at menarche among women with a family history and they failed to observe a decreasing risk among women without a family history.3,4,6,7,28
A similar increasing familial risk of BC associated with an increasing number of abortions was shown whatever the subgroups, with a slightly higher familial risk associated with 2 abortions and with induced abortions in the subgroup of younger women. A possible explanation for these increased familial risks is that recall and/or reporting of abortions is more difficult for older women because of the elapse of time and the past illegality of induced abortion, thereby smoothing the tendency of increasing familial risk with the number of abortions among older women. Previous findings have suggested a synergism between familial factors and abortions and a plausible biological mechanism has been proposed.9
Across pre-first-childbirth BCMA levels, the patterns of the familial risk are similarly unclear for all subgroups. Familial risk variation across lifetime BCMA levels was investigated according to menopausal status and similar patterns were found. That is, an increasing familial risk associated with an increasing lifetime BCMA. To our knowledge, only two studies have examined the interaction between familial risk and BCMA.26,29 These two analyses were performed on the Nurses' Health Study and used the interval between menarche and menopause, or age at interview if women were premenopausal, as BCMA. In agreement with the trend of our results, they showed an increased familial risk among women who menstruated for 35 years in the first report based on prevalent BC cases26 but not in the prospective data.29 The potential importance of mitotic activity on genetically susceptible cells has been discussed elsewhere10 and further studies including a very large number of cases may verify the existence of a plausible effect.
On the other hand, age might have an effect on the interaction between familial risk and the number of children. Indeed familial risk seemed to increase slightly for women with a high parity (3 children) compared with women with a low parity (12 children) in the older women group and seems to decrease slightly for women with a high parity compared with women with a low parity in younger women group. This could explain the discrepancy between epidemiological studies that have researched an interaction between parity and family history of BC without stratifying on age at interview. Four out of seven studies did not observe a variation in familial risk according to number of children.6,26,29,30 In the three others, no protection from multiple births was observed when compared with nulliparity among women with a family history of BC.4,5,7 This may also explain the discrepancy between family studies. Indeed, a study on linked-to-BRCA1 families found an increased risk for BC associated with low parity (<3) among susceptible related women from highly selected pedigrees where the mean age of BC diagnosis was about 41 years.31 Another family study on non-selected pedigrees where the mean age of BC diagnosis was about 51 years did not find a decreased risk for BC associated with high parity (
3) among susceptible women.32 Moreover, epidemiological studies that considered the two-way interaction between age at diagnosis and parity have reported a crossover effect of parity on BC risk; i.e. increasing parity was associated with an increased risk of BC in women <40 years, whereas in older women increasing parity appeared to be protective.8 Further studies are needed to clarify the interrelationship between age, parity and family history of BC.
Our results showed that age might modify the interaction between familial risk and the age at first childbirth. Indeed familial risk seems to increase slightly as age at first childbirth increases only in the older group (P = 0.1). The two-way interaction between age at first full-term pregnancy and family history has been studied in eight published studies. No evident increase in risks according to age at first childbirth was observed among women with a family history of BC in three studies.4,21,29 In two others, a similar increase in risk with age at first child was observed.3,5 In the three remaining studies, in agreement with our finding, particularly in the subgroup of older women, an increase in risk was described which was stronger among women with a family history than among women without a family history.7,30,33 Again, among epidemiological studies considering the two-way interaction between age at diagnosis and age at first childbirth, some have reported that a positive association of age at first birth and BC risk was restricted to younger women,34,35 and others found that it was restricted to older women.36 An interrelationship between age, age at first childbirth, and family history might also exist.
A possible influence of reproductive and menstrual factors on familial risk has been suggested previously and emerges from the present study. Three-way interactions between age, family history and parity or age at first childbirth might exist and merit further investigation. However, interaction studies, especially those involving multi-way interactions, are rapidly limited by power. The necessary number of subjects to detect a moderate interaction effect may be prohibitive.3739 Indeed, Smith and Day37 showed that detecting interactions of the same magnitude as postulated main effects always required increases in the study sizes by at least a factor of four. Methods to detect interaction have been reviewed4042 and most methods may not be appropriate for the study of interaction involving uncommon exposures or moderate interaction effects. This approach is also limited by multiple testing which weakens the potential discovery of interactions and requires confirmation by other investigations (as generally recommended for any new observation). For now, such studies may be the only way to detect interactions and generate new hypotheses concerning the aetiology of complex diseases such as BC. Thus, further studies with increased power achieved either by using larger pooled data sets, and/or by using more homogeneous methods for the assessment of genetic factors than a family history of BC and/or by selecting a sub-population according to one of the factors involved in the multi-way interaction, are needed to confirm our findings.
|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
2 Adami HO, Hansen J, Jung B, Rimsten A. Familiality in breast cancer: a case-control study in a Swedish population. Br J Cancer 1980; 42:7177.[ISI][Medline]
3 Brinton L, Hoover R, Fraumeni J. Interaction of familial and hormonal risk factors for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1982;69:81722.[ISI][Medline]
4 Negri E, La Vecchia C, Bruzzi P et al. Risk factors for breast cancer: pooled results from three Italian case-control studies. Am J Epidemiol 1988;128:120715.[Abstract]
5 Parazzini F, La Vecchia C, Negri E, Franceschi S, Bocciolone L. Menstrual and reproductive factors and breast cancer in women with family history of the disease. Int J Cancer 1992;51:67781.[ISI][Medline]
6 Sellers TA, Potter JD, Severson RK et al. Difficulty becoming pregnant and family history as interactive risk factors for postmenopausal breast cancer: the Iowa Women's Health Study. Cancer Cause Control 1993;4:2128.[ISI][Medline]
7
Colditz GA, Rosner BA, Speizer FE. Risk factors for breast cancer according to family history of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88: 36571.
8 Lipworth L. Epidemiology of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer Prev 1995;4: 730.[ISI][Medline]
9 Andrieu N, Duffy S, Rohan T et al. Familial risk, abortion and interactive effect on the risk of breast cancera combined analysis of six case-control studies. Br J Cancer 1995;72:74451.[ISI][Medline]
10 Andrieu N, Smith T, Duffy S et al. The effects of interaction between familial and reproductive factors on breast cancer riska combined analysis of seven case-control studies. Br J Cancer 1998;77:152536.[ISI][Medline]
11 Rohan T, McMichael AJ, Baghurst PA. A population-based case-control study of diet and breast cancer in Australia. Am J Epidemiol 1988;128:47889.[Abstract]
12 Lee HP, Gourley L, Duffy SW, Estève J, Lee J, Day NE. Risk factors for breast cancer by age and menopausal status: a case-control study in Singapore. Cancer Cause Control 1992;3:31322.[ISI][Medline]
13 Richardson S, Gerber M, Cenee S. The role of fat, animal protein and vitamin consumption in breast cancer. A case-control study in Southern France. Int J Cancer 1991;48:19.[ISI][Medline]
14 Luporsi E. Breast Cancer and Alcohol. PhD thesis, University of Paris-Sud, 1988.
15 Lê MG, Bachelot A, Doyon F, Kramar A, Hill C. Oral contraceptive use and breast cancer or cervical cancer: preliminary results of a French case-control study. In: Wolff J-P, Scott JD (eds). Hormones and Sexual Factors in Human Cancer Aetiology. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, pp.13947.
16 Clavel F, Andrieu N, Gairard B et al. Oral contraception and breast cancer: a French case-control study. Int J Epidemiol 1991;20:3238.[Abstract]
17 Gelfand AE, Smith AFM. Sampling-based approaches to calculating marginal densities. J Am Statist Ass 1990;85:398409.[ISI]
18 Thomas A, Spiegelhalter DJ, Gilks WR. BUGS: a program to perform Bayesian inference using Gibbs sampling. In: Bernardo JM, Berger JO, Davis AP et al. (eds). Bayesian Statistics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992, pp.83742.
19 Pike MC, Spicer DV, Dahmoush L, Press MF. Cell proliferation and Breast Cancer. Epidemiol Rev 1993;15:1735.[ISI][Medline]
20 Rosenberg L. Induced abortion and breast cancer: more scientific data are needed. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:156970.[ISI][Medline]
21 Byrne C, Brinton LA, Haile RW, Schairer C. Heterogeneity of the effect of family history on breast cancer risk. Epidemiology 1991;2: 27684.[Medline]
22 Pharoah P, Day N, Easton D, Duffy S, Ponder B. Family history and the risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cancer 1997;71:80009.[ISI][Medline]
23 Kampert JB, Whittmore AS, Paffenbarger RS. Combined effect of childbearing, menstrual events, and body size on age-specific breast cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol 1988;128:96279.[Abstract]
24 Brinton LA, Schairer C, Hoover RN, Fraumeni JF. Menstrual factors and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Invest 1988;6:24554.[ISI][Medline]
25 Hsieh C-C, Trichopoulos D, Katsouyanni K et al. Age at menarche, age at menopause, height and obesity as risk factors for breast cancer: associations and interactions in an international case-control study. Int J Cancer 1990;46:796800.[ISI][Medline]
26 Bain C, Speizer FE, Rosner B, Belanger C, Hennekens CH. Family history of breast cancer as a risk indicator for the disease. Am J Epidemiol 1980;111:30108.[Abstract]
27 Malone KE, Daling JR. Family history as a modifier of breast cancer risk factors. Am J Epidemiol 1992;136:964.
28 Andrieu N, Clavel F, Auquier A et al. Variations in the risk of breast cancer associated with a family history of breast cancer according to age at onset and reproductive factors. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46:97380.[ISI][Medline]
29 Colditz GA, Willett WC, Hunter DJ et al. Family history, age, and risk of breast cancer. JAMA 1993;270:33843.[Abstract]
30 Sellers TA, Kushi LH, Potter JD et al. Effect of family history, body-fat distribution, and reproductive factors on the risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1992;326:132329.[Abstract]
31 Narod SA, Goldgar D, Cannon-Albright L et al. Risk modifiers in carriers of BRCA1 mutations. Int J Cancer 1995;64:39498.[ISI][Medline]
32 Andrieu N, Demenais F. Interactions between genetic and reproductive factors in breast cancer risk in a French family sample. Am J Hum Genet 1997;61:67890.[ISI][Medline]
33 Dupont WD, Page DL. Breast cancer risk associated with proliferative disease, age at first birth, and a family history of breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1987;125:76979.[Abstract]
34 Ewertz M, Duffy SW. Risk of breast cancer in relation to reproductive factors in Denmark. Br J Cancer 1988;58:99104.[ISI][Medline]
35 Leon DA. A prospective study of the independent effects of parity and age at first birth on breast cancer incidence in England and Wales. Int J Cancer 1989;43:98691.[ISI][Medline]
36 Lubin JH, Burns PE, Blot WJ et al. Risk factors for breast cancer in women in northern Alberta, Canada, as related to age at diagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 1982;68:21117.[ISI][Medline]
37 Smith PG, Day NE. The design of case-control studies: the influence of confounding and interaction effects. Int J Epidemiol 1984;13:35665.[Abstract]
38 Hwang SJ, Beaty TH, Liang KY, Coresh J, Khoury MJ. Minimum sample size estimation to detect gene-environment interaction in case-control designs. Am J Epidemiol 1994;140:102937.[Abstract]
39 Goldstein AM, Falk RT, Korczak JF, Lubin JH. Detecting gene-environment interactions using a case-control design. Genet Epidemiol 1997;14:108589.[ISI][Medline]
40 Khoury MJ, Flanders WD. Nontraditional epidemiologic approaches in the analysis of gene-environment interaction: case-control studies with no controls. Am J Epidemiol 1996;144:20713.[Abstract]
41 Yang Q, Khoury MJ. Evolving methods in genetic epidemiology.III. Gene-environment interaction in epidemiologic research. Epidemiol Rev 1997;19:3343.[ISI][Medline]
42 Andrieu N, Goldstein A. Epidemiological and genetic approaches in the study of gene-environment interaction: An overview of available methods. Epidemiol Rev 1998;20:13747.[ISI][Medline]