Evidence Hub

Active and passive smoking and breast cancer in Japan: a pooled analysis of nine population-based cohort studies

Keiko Wada, C. Nagata, M. Utada, R. Sakata, T. Kimura, A. Tamakoshi, Y. Sugawara, I. Tsuji et al.

International Journal of Epidemiology, 2024

166 participants · 8 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological studies have shown inconsistent results regarding the link between smoking and breast cancer risk, despite the biological plausibility of a positive association.

METHODS

Participants were 166 611 women from nine prospective cohort studies in Japan which launched in 1984-1994 and followed for 8-22 years. Information on smoking and secondhand smoke was obtained through self-administered baseline questionnaires. Breast cancer was defined as code C50 according to the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, 3rd Edition or the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision. After adjusting for several potential confounders, relative risks for breast cancer were calculated in the individual studies according to the current or previous status of active and passive smoking using Cox regression, followed by a summary estimate of hazard ratios using random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 60 441 participants who reported being premenopausal and 106 170 who reported being postmenopausal at baseline, 897 and 1168 developed breast cancer during follow-up, respectively. Compared with never smokers, current smokers had a higher risk of developing breast cancer before the age of 50 years. In addition, ever smokers who started smoking at 30 years of age or younger, or who started smoking before first childbirth, had a higher risk of developing breast cancer before the age of 50 years. No association between adulthood or childhood…

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: 166 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