Evidence Hub

Distinct Reproductive Risk Profiles for Intrinsic-Like Breast Cancer Subtypes: Pooled Analysis of Population-Based Studies

Jung AY, Ahearn TU, Behrens S, Middha P, Bolla MK, Wang Q, Arndt V, Aronson KJ et al.

Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2022

46 participants · 35 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Reproductive factors have been shown to be differentially associated with risk of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive and ER-negative breast cancer. However, their associations with intrinsic-like subtypes are less clear.

METHODS: Analyses included up to 23 353 cases and 71 072 controls pooled from 31 population-based case-control or cohort studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium across 16 countries on 4 continents. Polytomous logistic regression was used to estimate the association between reproductive factors and risk of breast cancer by intrinsic-like subtypes (luminal A-like, luminal B-like, luminal B-HER2-like, HER2-enriched-like, and triple-negative breast cancer) and by invasiveness. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

RESULTS: Compared with nulliparous women, parous women had a lower risk of luminal A-like, luminal B-like, luminal B-HER2-like, and HER2-enriched-like disease. This association was apparent only after approximately 10 years since last birth and became stronger with increasing time (odds ratio [OR] = 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49 to 0.71; and OR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.28 to 0.46 for multiparous women with luminal A-like tumors 20 to less than 25 years after last birth and 45 to less than 50 years after last birth, respectively). In contrast, parous women had a higher risk of triple-negative breast cancer right after their last birth (for multiparous women: OR = 3.12, 95% CI = 2.02 to 4.83) that was attenuated with time but…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 46 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free