Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Association between lifetime exposure to passive smoking and risk of breast cancer subtypes defined by hormone receptor status among non-smoking Caucasian women

  • Loreta Strumylaite ,

    loreta.strumylaite@lsmuni.lt

    Affiliation Neuroscience Institute, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania

  • Rima Kregzdyte,

    Affiliation Neuroscience Institute, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania

  • Lina Poskiene,

    Affiliation Department of Pathological Anatomy, Medical Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania

  • Algirdas Bogusevicius,

    Affiliation Department of Surgery, Medical Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania

  • Darius Pranys,

    Affiliation Department of Pathological Anatomy, Medical Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania

  • Roberta Norkute

    Affiliation Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania

Association between lifetime exposure to passive smoking and risk of breast cancer subtypes defined by hormone receptor status among non-smoking Caucasian women

  • Loreta Strumylaite, 
  • Rima Kregzdyte, 
  • Lina Poskiene, 
  • Algirdas Bogusevicius, 
  • Darius Pranys, 
  • Roberta Norkute
PLOS
x

Abstract

Tobacco smoking is inconsistently associated with breast cancer. Although some studies suggest that breast cancer risk is related to passive smoking, little is known about the association with breast cancer by tumor hormone receptor status. We aimed to explore the association between lifetime passive smoking and risk of breast cancer subtypes defined by estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor status among non-smoking Caucasian women. A hospital-based case-control study was performed in 585 cases and 1170 controls aged 28–90 years. Information on lifetime passive smoking and other factors was collected via a self-administered questionnaire. Logistic regression was used for analyses restricted to the 449 cases and 930 controls who had never smoked actively. All statistical tests were two-sided. Adjusted odds ratio of breast cancer was 1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72–1.41) in women who experienced exposure to passive smoking at work, 1.88 (95% CI: 1.38–2.55) in women who had exposure at home, and 2.80 (95% CI: 1.84–4.25) in women who were exposed at home and at work, all compared with never exposed regularly. Increased risk was associated with longer exposure: women exposed ≤ 20 years and > 20 years had 1.27 (95% CI: 0.97–1.66) and 2.64 (95% CI: 1.87–3.74) times higher risk of breast cancer compared with never exposed (Ptrend < 0.001). The association of passive smoking with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer did not differ from that with hormone receptor-negative breast cancer (Pheterogeneity > 0.05). There was evidence of interaction between passive smoking intensity and menopausal status in both overall group (P = 0.02) and hormone receptor-positive breast cancer group (P < 0.05). In Caucasian women, lifetime exposure to passive smoking is associated with the risk of breast cancer independent of tumor hormone receptor status with the strongest association in postmenopausal women.

Introduction

Tobacco smoking is defined as an agent with limited evidence in breast cancer by the International Agency for Research on Cancer [1]. This implication is related to the inconsistency of the results from numerous studies that investigated smoking and breast cancer association [2]. However, the most recent studies and meta-analyses concluded that an overall risk was plausible [35].

Lack of significant association in active smokers is followed by underestimation of passive smoking (mainstream smoke and sidestream smoke) as a risk factor for breast cancer. Relative to mainstream smoke, sidestream smoke contains a higher ratio of human carcinogens and some of them may induce mammary tumors [6, 7]. However, epidemiological findings on passive smoking and breast cancer association are not consistent. Some case-control [811] and cohort studies [1215], particularly those that have conducted a more detailed assessment of exposure to passive smoking, reported an increase in breast cancer risk. The association of passive smoking with breast cancer was found in younger, primarily premenopausal women, whereas the risk in older or postmenopausal women was inconclusive [8, 12, 16, 17]. Other studies found little evidence in risk of breast cancer [1821].

Experimental studies have shown that carcinogenic metals/metalloids, such as cadmium, chromium and arsenic determined in tobacco induce estrogen receptor (ER) α activation and indicate estrogen-like activity, that, in part, suggest smoking as a risk factor for breast cancer [22, 23]. This hypothesis was supported by some epidemiological studies reporting contribution of active smoking to an increased risk of ER+ breast cancer [13, 14, 24, 25]. However, the studies on passive smoking and breast cancer association in relation to hormone receptors, particularly among Caucasian women, are limited [2, 10, 26]. This study aimed to explore the association of passive smoking with risk of breast cancer subtypes defined by tumor hormone receptor status among Caucasian women.

Materials and methods

Study design

We performed a hospital-based case–control study of breast cancer among Caucasian women in the Hospital of Lithuanian University of Health Sciences. The cases (n = 585, presenting 86.9% of eligible cases) were women aged 28–90 years with new histologically confirmed breast cancer (C50 and D05 according to ICD10) diagnosed between 1 March 2007 and 10 January 2011, who required surgical intervention at the Department of Surgery and were free from other cancer diagnosed in the past. The controls (n = 1170, presenting 84.1% of eligible women) were women without a personal history of cancer hospitalized to other departments (Ophthalmology, Otolaryngology, Neurology, and Cardiology) of the hospital within the study period. Controls presented with a wide spectrum of non-neoplastic disorders and diseases of (a) eye (cataract, glaucoma, optic neuritis, and keratitis), (b) ear-nose-throat (otitis, sinusitis, deviation of nasal septum, tonsillitis), (c) nervous (facial and trigeminal neuritis, radiculopathy and radiculitis, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, Parkinsonism, sleep disorders, and migraine), and (d) cardiovascular (arterial hypertension, ischemic disease, cardiomyopathy, different arrhythmias) systems. Controls were individually matched to cases by age (±5 years) in a 2:1 ratio. To assess passive smoking/breast cancer association analyses were restricted to the 449 cases and 930 controls (132, 101, 219, and 478 women from departments of Ophthalmology, Otolaryngology, Neurology, and Cardiology, respectively) who had never smoked actively. The study protocol was approved by the Kaunas Regional Biomedical Research Ethics Committee (10-01-2007 No.BE-2-1, Report No.5/2007). Written consent to complete the questionnaire and collect biological media specimens was received from each individual.

Questionnaire and exposure assessment

Both cases and controls completed a self-administered structured questionnaire previously demonstrated to be valid and reliable for collection of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, medical history, height and weight, family history of cancer, reproductive history, and lifestyle characteristics [27].

A woman was defined as being a passive smoker if she reported living/working with someone who smoked inside her home and/or in the workplace. Duration of exposure was assessed by the number of years of exposure at home and/or at work specified by every woman. In the case of exposure experienced both at home and at work, a longer duration reported was included in the analyses.

Measurements of hormone receptors

The ER and progesterone receptor (PR) levels were measured in specimens of breast tumor tissue by immunohistochemistry at the Department of Pathological Anatomy [28].

Statistical analysis

Baseline characteristics of cases and controls were summarized using means and standard deviations (SD) for continuous variables, and frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. Characteristics were compared between cases and controls using either unpaired t-test (for continuous variables) or chi-squared test (for categorical variables).

According to tumor hormone receptor status cases were stratified as follows: ER+, ER-, PR+, PR-, ER+/PR+, ER+/PR-, ER-/PR+, and ER-/PR- [29]; cases with ER-/PR+ breast cancer (n = 8) were excluded from the analyses because of insufficient statistical power.

According to the answers on the intensity of exposure to passive smoking women were grouped into 4 categories: never exposed, exposed at work only, exposed at home only, exposed at home and at work, and into 3 categories defined by duration of exposure: never exposed, ≤ 20 years, and > 20 years.

Unconditional logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between exposure to passive smoking and breast cancer subtypes calculating the odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The models were adjusted for (a) age and (b) age, number of births, estrogen-active (fertile) period, hormone therapy during menopause (never, estrogens and/or estrogens-progestin, other), family history of breast cancer in first and/or second degree of relatives (no, yes, unknown), alcohol use (never, ex-user, current), body mass index, education (specialized secondary or lower, some university or higher), marital status (single, married or living as married, separated or widowed), diabetes mellitus (absent, present), and thyroid diseases (absent, present). In these analyses, estimates of association per 1 category increase in exposure to passive smoking were obtained; for some analyses estimates for exposed at work only vs. never exposed, exposed at home only vs. never exposed, and exposed at home and at work vs. never exposed as well as for ≤ 20 years exposure vs. never exposed, and > 20 years exposure vs. never exposed were also reported.

The interaction between menopausal status and intensity or duration of exposure to passive smoking (per 1 category increase) was tested using a likelihood ratio test. Heterogeneity in the estimated associations of passive smoking with each breast cancer subtype was tested using a Cochran Q-test. The level of statistical significance was set at 0.05. All reported P-values are 2-sided. The analyses were performed using the software package Stata 10 (StataCorp LP, 2007).

Results

Of non-smoking cases, 77.3% had invasive ductal carcinoma, 8.7% invasive lobular carcinoma, 14.0% other histological types of breast cancer. The ER+ and PR+ were determined for 66.6% and 43.2% of the cases (Table 1). The ER and PR levels were not measured in the cases with ductal and lobular carcinomas in situ (2.4%), and myoepithelial carcinoma (0.2%).

thumbnail
Table 1. Characteristics of Breast Cancer Cases and Controls among Non-Smoking Women.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171198.t001

Cases and controls were non-smoking Caucasian women of the same age, similar with respect to marital status, family history of breast cancer, age at menarche, number of births, menopausal status, and body mass index (Table 1). However, cases had higher education and a longer estrogen-active (fertile) period, more often used alcohol and hormone therapy during the menopause. Diabetes mellitus and thyroid diseases were more prevalent among controls.

Exposure to passive smoking was more often experienced by cases than controls (Table 1). Mean duration of exposure among individuals ever exposed to passive smoking was also greater in cases than in controls: 20.48 (SD = 12.28) and 15.73 (SD = 10.40) years (P < 0.001).

After adjustment for age and other confounders, the OR of breast cancer was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.72–1.41) in women exposed at work only, 1.88 (95% CI: 1.38–2.55) in women who experienced exposure to passive smoking at home, and 2.80 (95% CI: 1.84–4.25) in women exposed at home and at work, all compared with never exposed (Table 2). A significant increase in risk of breast cancer associated with increased duration of exposure to passive smoking was found in the adjusted model. Compared with never exposed regularly, the OR for women exposed ≤ 20 years and > 20 years was 1.27 (95% CI: 0.97–1.66) and 2.64 (95% CI: 1.87–3.74) (Ptrend < 0.001). When stratified by menopausal status, the association appeared stronger among postmenopausal women. The interaction between menopausal status and exposure to passive smoking was significant (P = 0.02) when the intensity of exposure was analyzed (Table 2).

thumbnail
Table 2. Association between Passive Smoking and Breast Cancer among Non-Smoking Women.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171198.t002

After adjustment for age and other confounders, a significant positive association between passive smoking and breast cancer was identified independent of tumor ER and PR status (Table 3). The OR per 1 exposure (intensity and duration) category increase was 1.42 (95% CI: 1.25–1.62; Ptrend < 0.001) and 1.54 (95% CI: 1.28–1.86; Ptrend < 0.001), respectively, for ER+, 1.20 (95% CI: 1.00–1.43; Ptrend = 0.05) and 1.41 (95% CI: 1.10–1.83; Ptrend = 0.01), respectively, for ER-, 1.34 (95% CI: 1.15–1.56; Ptrend < 0.001) and 1.47 (95% CI: 1.18–1.83; Ptrend < 0.001), respectively, for PR+, and 1.36 (95% CI: 1.19–1.57; Ptrend < 0.001) and 1.53 (95% CI: 1.25–1.87; Ptrend < 0.001), respectively, for PR- breast cancer. Regardless of the exposure to passive smoking variable (intensity or duration) used in the analyses, there was no evidence of heterogeneity in the association comparing ER+ and ER- (P > 0.05) or PR+ and PR- breast cancer (P > 0.05). The association appeared stronger among postmenopausal women than premenopausal women. Significant interaction between menopausal status and intensity of exposure to passive smoking was found for both ER+ (P = 0.03) and PR+ (P = 0.02) breast cancer (Table 3).

thumbnail
Table 3. Association between Passive Smoking and Breast Cancer by Estrogen Receptor and Progesterone Receptor Status among Non-Smoking Women.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171198.t003

There were significant positive associations between passive smoking and (1) ER+/PR-, (2) ER+/PR+, and (3) ER-/PR- breast cancer (Table 4). A 1 category increase in passive smoking intensity was associated with an OR of 1.56 (95% CI: 1.28–1.89; Ptrend < 0.001) for ER+/PR- breast cancer, which was different from the passive smoking/ER-/PR- association (Pheterogeneity = 0.05), with an OR of 1.34 (95% CI: 1.15–1.57; Ptrend < 0.001) for ER+/PR+ breast cancer, not significantly different from the passive smoking/ER-/PR- association (pheterogeneity = 0.35), and with an OR of 1.20 (95% CI: 1.00–1.44; Ptrend = 0.05) for ER-/PR- breast cancer. Increased duration of exposure was related to higher risk of breast cancer independently of tumor hormone receptor status (Pheterogeneity > 0.05). When stratified by menopausal status, the association was stronger among postmenopausal women than premenopausal women; however, significant interaction between menopausal status and intensity of exposure to passive smoking was found only for ER+PR+ breast cancer (P = 0.02) (Table 4).

thumbnail
Table 4. Association between Passive Smoking and Breast Cancer Defined by Joint Hormone Receptor Status among Non-Smoking Women.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171198.t004

Discussion

In this hospital-based case-control study of breast cancer among non-smoking Caucasian women, we observed a 1.9-fold increase in breast cancer risk for women exposed to passive smoking at home, a 2.8-fold increase for those exposed at home and at work, and a 2.6-fold increase in breast cancer risk for women experienced passive smoking > 20 years. Two large prospective studies completed in Europe and the US observed greater risk of developing breast cancer in women exposed to passive smoking [14, 25]. Increased risk has been seen in some other studies [813, 15, 26, 30], but not in all [1821, 31, 32]. Higher risk of breast cancer related to increasing duration of exposure to passive smoking was observed in a Canadian case-control study [16] and in two most recently published studies [10, 26]. However, other studies failed to find the association [8, 9, 31]. Some meta-analyses included the latest surveys have shown significant passive smoking/breast cancer association with risk varying from 1.2 to 2.2 [5, 3335], but those included only cohort studies [19, 36] have found little evidence on passive smoking and breast cancer association. Significant risk of breast cancer was not identified in the previous meta-analyses of both cohort studies and case-control studies with missing information on important passive exposure sources [37].

As breast cancer has different subtypes according to hormone receptor status, their etiological and risk factors may vary [2]. Our results showed that passive smoking/breast cancer association was independent of tumor hormone receptor, although suggestive heterogeneity in the association comparing ER+/PR- and ER-/PR- breast cancer (P = 0.05) was found. Just as we, Li et al [26] also observed increased risk of breast cancer independent of tumor hormone receptor status. Other two studies (cohort and case-control) showed an elevated risk of ER+/PR+ breast for women who had been exposed to passive smoking, however, heterogeneity of the association was not reported [10, 14]. No significant association between passive smoking and breast cancer hormone receptor status was found by other authors [21, 25].

Until now epidemiological studies provided little evidence for passive smoking and breast cancer association in postmenopausal women [12, 13, 19, 33]. However, some authors, just as we, identified greater risk of breast cancer among postmenopausal women [26]. A positive association of passive smoking with postmenopausal breast cancer was found in two cohort studies [25, 30]. Luo et al [25] reported a 32% excess risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women who had never smoked but had the most extensive exposure to passive smoking (≥ 30 years’ exposure at home and ≥ 10 years’ exposure at work) compared with those who had never been exposed to passive smoking (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.67) [25]. An elevated risk at the highest level of exposure for women exposed in the adulthood, mainly among postmenopausal women (hazard ratio = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.56), was found in the California Teachers Study [30]. But the Million Women Study did not show any association [19]. Some studies found passive smoking to be associated with increased risk of premenopausal breast cancer, but not in postmenopausal [8, 12, 13]; other studies found limited evidence on the association in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women [15, 38, 39]. We also observed potential interaction of passive smoking with menopausal status in both overall group and hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

Inconsistency of reported findings could be related to some issues such as the relatively small number of cases in subgroup analyses [12, 13] or limited and underestimated information on lifetime exposure to passive smoking [8, 12, 13, 15, 19]. As a consequence, if passive smoking increases the risk of breast cancer, inclusion of women experienced exposure in the reference category might have diluted association. Some cohort studies made exposure assessment and collected information on menopausal status only at baseline [12, 15, 25]. Therefore, possible changes of exposure and menopausal status during the follow-up period could give misclassification of individuals by these factors.

An increased risk of postmenopausal cancer determined in the studies, including the present one, opposes anti-estrogenic effects of tobacco smoke [2]. Although passive smoking can be related to decreased levels of estrogens [40], some constituents of tobacco smoke (metals, metalloids and etc.) that tend to accumulate in the human body have estrogen-like activity [23]. This implication is based on experimental studies demonstrating the ability of some metals and metalloids to mimic estradiol and activate the ER. Therefore, environmental exposure to metallo-estrogens may increase the risk of breast cancer [4143]. Moreover, higher levels of some metals such as cadmium, chromium, and nickel have been reported in breast tumor of cancer patients [4446]. ER+ cases also demonstrated higher content of cadmium in breast tumor compared to ER- cases [46]. Epidemiological studies showed an increased risk of breast cancer in relation to increasing urinary cadmium [4750] that is long-term exposure biomarker [51]. In addition, many of the metals can initiate carcinogenesis inducing oxidative stress [23, 52].

Epidemiological findings on breast cancer risk related to passive smoking at work are not consistent. We, as well as other authors [12, 14, 26, 30], found little evidence of association between passive smoking at work and breast cancer. Policies banning smoking in the workplaces and, consequently, decreased number of women exposed to passive smoking at work can be one of the explanations. Positive passive smoking/breast cancer association was found in two Chinese studies [39, 53]. However, the authors of Shanghai Breast Cancer Study could not disprove other exposures in the workplace possibly related to greater risk of breast cancer [39].

We assessed lifetime exposure to passive smoking at home, without distinction the exposure experienced in childhood. The studies published previously showed inconclusive results on passive smoking during childhood and breast cancer association where some authors [53, 54] but not all [14, 19, 25, 32, 38] found the association. Inconsistent results could be related to exposure assessment. To obtain detailed and correct information on passive smoking exposure, particularly during childhood, using indirect measures (questionnaires) is very difficult, because most of the individuals do not calculate and/or can not remember how many cigarettes were smoked by their parents or family members at home, how many hours they experienced such exposure every day and etc. Furthermore, this information could vary over time. Consequently, not accurate information obtained can lead to false classification of the individuals due to exposure.

In this study, in which controls were individually matched to cases by age, to estimate the association we used unconditional logistic regression (adjusted for age and other risk factors) rather than conditional logistic regression. Conditional logistic regression was more powerful and showed stronger effects in the overall sample; however, when considering different breast cancer subtypes defined by hormone receptors and, especially, by menopausal status, the small number of individuals with certain breast cancer subtypes led to wide CIs around the estimated associations, especially for premenopausal women.

One of the main limitations of this case-control is using hospital’s patients free of cancer as controls, but not randomly recruited controls, i.e. representatives of the general population in terms of health. This recruitment of controls is prone to selection bias because the controls are different from the population they are meant to represent. However, in this study, cases and controls were elderly (age mean 60.34 ± 12.18 of the cases and 59.31 ± 12.30 of the controls) and postmenopausal women (75% of cases and controls) that begin to have health related issues represented by the general population. Therefore recruitment of controls from different departments of the hospital may reflect health issues in this population. Some authors reported that hospital controls were comparable with population controls for most demographic and lifestyle characteristics [55].

Another limitation of case-control studies is that information on exposure is subject to recall bias that deals with the systematic difference between cases and controls in the accuracy of the information reported, because cases are more likely to recall their exposure to potential risk factors. To avoid recall bias in the assessment of lifetime exposure to passive smoking, firstly, we did not disclose study hypothesis. Secondly, in hospital-based case-control all women were with “a disease” and, therefore, had the same attitude to report information on potential risk factors. Thirdly, we did not ask women for very detailed information (a number of cigarettes smoked by parents or other family members, passive smoking exposure in hours, and etc.) that is difficult to recollect.

We also had relatively small numbers of individuals, mainly cases, in subgroups by menopausal status and tumor hormone receptor status that limited our analyses.

However, an increase in risk of breast cancer related to passive smoking that we observed in this study could not be explained by biases and confounding factors common in case-control studies or by chance because, firstly, we invited all the patients that met selection criteria within the study period at the departments of the hospital selected randomly and did not disclose the hypothesis. Both cases and controls were representative of patients in a hospital which provides medical services for the population, and had equal conditions and presumptions answering to the same questions. Therefore, the probability of systematic differences in reporting between cases and controls was low. Secondly, we collected data on all aspects of lifetime exposure to passive smoking (anytime residential in childhood or later and occupational) and its duration which enabled us to establish a reference group that had been unexposed to either active or passive smoking. Thirdly, we adjusted for all known confounders for breast cancer.

In conclusion, the study among Caucasian women provides evidence on the association between lifetime exposure to passive smoking and risk of breast cancer independent of tumor hormone receptor status with a stronger risk demonstrated among postmenopausal women. Further studies are necessary to define whether the association with passive smoking varies by menopausal status independently of other risk factors. Since passive smoking is a modifiable factor, the findings are very important to public health and primary health care workers that could inform and advise women to avoid this exposure.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

The authors are very thankful to the participants, the managerial staff, and nurses who contributed to this study.

Author Contributions

  1. Conceptualization: LS RK AB.
  2. Data curation: RK LS.
  3. Formal analysis: LS RK.
  4. Investigation: LS AB LP DP RN.
  5. Methodology: LS RK LP DP.
  6. Project administration: LS.
  7. Resources: LS AB LP DP.
  8. Software: RK.
  9. Supervision: LS.
  10. Validation: LS RK.
  11. Visualization: LS RN.
  12. Writing – original draft: LS RK.
  13. Writing – review & editing: LS RK LP AB DP RN.

References

  1. 1. IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). List of classifications by cancer site with sufficient or limited evidence in humans. Vol 1–116. Last update: 24 June 2016. Available: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/Table4.pdf
  2. 2. IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). A review of human carcinogens: Personal habits and indoor combustions. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Lyon: IARC; 2012.
  3. 3. Bjerkaas E, Parajuli R, Engeland A, Maskarinec G, Weiderpass E, Gram IT. Social inequalities and smoking-associated breast cancer—results from a prospective cohort study. Prev Med. 2015;73: 125–129. pmid:25620729
  4. 4. Gram IT, Park SY, Kolonel LN, Maskarinec G, Wilkens LR, Henderson BE, et al. Smoking and risk of breast cancer in a racially/ethnically diverse population of mainly women who do not drink alcohol: The MEC Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;182: 917–925. pmid:26493265
  5. 5. Macacu A, Autier P, Boniol M, Boyle P. Active and passive smoking and risk of breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;154: 213–224. pmid:26546245
  6. 6. Borgerding MF, Bodnar JA, Wingate DE. The 1999 Massachusetts Benchmark study. Final report. A research study conducted after consultation with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Department of Health. Massachusetts; 2000.
  7. 7. IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Lyon: IARC; 2004.
  8. 8. Slattery ML, Curtin K, Giuliano AR, Sweeney C, Baumgartner R, Edwards S, et al. Active and passive smoking, IL6, ESR1, and breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;109: 101–111. pmid:17594514
  9. 9. Conlon MS, Johnson KC, Bewick MA, Bewick MA, Lafrenie RM, Donner A. Smoking (active and passive), N-acetyltransferase 2, and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. 2010;34: 142–149. pmid:20197243
  10. 10. Tong JH, Li Z, Shi J, Li HM, Wang Y, Fu LY, et al. Passive smoking exposure from partners as a risk factor for ER+/PR+ double positive breast cancer in never-smoking Chinese urban women: a hospital-based matched case control study. PLoS One. 2014 May 27.
  11. 11. Gao CM, Ding JH, Li SP, Liu YT, Qian Y, Chang J, et al. Active and passive smoking, and alcohol drinking and breast cancer risk in Chinese women. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14: 993–996. pmid:23621274
  12. 12. Hanaoka T, Yamamoto S, Sobue T, Sasaki S, Tsugane S, Japan Public Health Center-Based Prospective Study on Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. Active and passive smoking and breast cancer risk in middle-aged Japanese women. Int J Cancer. 2005;114: 317–322. pmid:15540214
  13. 13. Rosenberg L, Boggs DA, Bethea TN, Wise LA, Adams-Campbell LL, Palmer JR. A prospective study of smoking and breast cancer risk among African-American women. Cancer Cause Control. 2013;24: 2207–2215.
  14. 14. Dossus L, Boutron-Ruault MC, Kaaks R, Gram IT, Vilier A, Fervers B, et al. Active and passive cigarette smoking and breast cancer risk: results from the EPIC cohort. Int J Cancer. 2014;134: 1871–1888. pmid:24590452
  15. 15. Wada K, Kawachi T, Hori A, Takeyama N, Tanabashi S, Matsushita S, et al. Husband's smoking status and breast cancer risk in Japan: From the Takayama study. Cancer Sci. 2015;106: 455–460. pmid:25645582
  16. 16. Johnson KC, Hu J, Mao Y, Canadian Cancer Registries Epidemiology Research Group. Passive and active smoking and breast cancer risk in Canada, 1994–97. Cancer Cause Control. 2000;11: 211–221.
  17. 17. Kropp S, Chang-Claude J. Active and passive smoking and risk of breast cancer by age 50 years among German women. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;156: 616–626. pmid:12244030
  18. 18. Roddam AW, Pirie K, Pike MC, Chilvers C, Crossley B, Hermon C, et al. Active and passive smoking and the risk of breast cancer in women aged 36–45 years: a population based case-control study in the UK. Br J Cancer. 2007;97: 434–439. pmid:17579618
  19. 19. Pirie K, Beral V, Peto R, Roddam A, Reeves G, Green J, et al. Passive smoking and breast cancer in never smokers: prospective study and meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37: 1069–1079. pmid:18544575
  20. 20. Ahern TP, Lash TL, Egan KM, Baron JA. Lifetime tobacco smoke exposure and breast cancer incidence. Cancer Cause Control. 2009;20: 1837–1844.
  21. 21. Nishino Y, Minami Y, Kawai M, Fukamachi K, Sato I, Ohuchi N, et al. Cigarette smoking and breast cancer risk in relation to joint estrogen and progesterone receptor status: a case-control study in Japan. Springerplus. 2014 Feb 3.
  22. 22. IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). Agents classified by the IARC Monographs. Vol 1–116. Last update: 24 June 2016. Available: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/ClassificationsAlphaOrder.pdf
  23. 23. Martin MB, Reiter R, Johnson M, Shah MS, Iann MC, Singh B, et al. Effects of tobacco smoke condensate on estrogen receptor-alpha gene expression and activity. Endocrinology. 2007;148: 4676–4686. pmid:17640996
  24. 24. Kabat GC, Kim M, Phipps AI, Li CI, Messina CR, Wactawski-Wende J, et al. Smoking and alcohol consumption in relation to risk of triple-negative breast cancer in a cohort of postmenopausal women. Cancer Cause Control. 2011;22: 775–783.
  25. 25. Luo J, Margolis KL, Wactawski-Wende J, Horn K, Messina C, Stefanick ML, et al. Association of active and passive smoking with risk of breast cancer among postmenopausal women: a prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2011 Mar 1.
  26. 26. Li B, Wang L, Lu MS, Mo XF, Lin FY, Ho SC, et al. Passive smoking and breast cancer risk among non-smoking women: a case-control study in China. PLoS One. 2015 Apr 27.
  27. 27. Strumylaite L, Kregzdyte R, Rugyte DC, Bogusevicius A, Mechonosina K. Assessment of a questionnaire for breast cancer case-control studies. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14: 2777–2782. pmid:23803031
  28. 28. DAKO. Reference in Immunohistochemistry. Breast cancer diagnosis, therapy and prognosis, 3rd ed. 00079b/10000. Glostrup: DAKo A/S, 1996. p.9.
  29. 29. Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Wolff AC, Mangu PB, Temin S. American society of clinical oncology/college of American pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2010;6: 195–197. pmid:21037871
  30. 30. Reynolds P, Goldberg D, Hurley S, Nelson DO, Largent J, Henderson KD, et al. Passive smoking and risk of breast cancer in the California teachers study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18: 3389–3398. pmid:19959687
  31. 31. Anderson LN, Cotterchio M, Mirea L, Ozcelik H, Kreiger N. Passive cigarette smoke exposure during various periods of life, genetic variants, and breast cancer risk among never smokers. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175: 289–301. pmid:22247046
  32. 32. Lin Y, Kikuchi S, Tamakoshi K, Wakai K, Kondo T, Niwa Y, et al. Active smoking, passive smoking, and breast cancer risk: findings from the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study for Evaluation of Cancer Risk. J Epidemiol. 2008;18: 77–83. pmid:18403857
  33. 33. Miller MD, Marty MA, Broadwin R, Johnson KC, Salmon AG, Winder B, et al. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and breast cancer: a review by the California Environmental Protection Agency. Prev Med. 2007;44: 93–106. pmid:17027075
  34. 34. Chen Z, Shao J, Gao X, Li X. Effect of passive smoking on female breast cancer in China: a meta-analysis. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2015;27: NP58–64. pmid:23572370
  35. 35. Chen C, Huang YB, Liu XO, Gao Y, Dai HJ, Song FJ, et al. Active and passive smoking with breast cancer risk for Chinese females: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chin J Cancer 2014;33: 306–316. pmid:24823992
  36. 36. Yang Y, Zhang F, Skrip L, Wang Y, Liu S. Lack of an association between passive smoking and incidence of female breast cancer in non-smokers: evidence from 10 prospective cohort studies. PLoS One. 2013 Oct 18.
  37. 37. Johnson KC. Accumulating evidence on passive and active smoking and breast cancer risk. Int J Cancer. 2005;117: 619–628. pmid:15929073
  38. 38. Reynolds P, Hurley S, Goldberg DE, Anton-Culver H, Bernstein L, Deapen D, et al. Active smoking, household passive smoking, and breast cancer: evidence from the California Teachers Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96: 29–37. pmid:14709736
  39. 39. Shrubsole MJ, Gao YT, Dai Q, Shu XO, Ruan ZX, Jin F, et al. Passive smoking and breast cancer risk among non-smoking Chinese women. Int J Cancer. 2004;110: 605–609. pmid:15122595
  40. 40. Chen C, Wang X, Wang L, Yang F, Tang G, Xing H, et al. Effect of environmental tobacco smoke on levels of urinary hormone markers. Environ Health Perspect. 2005;113: 412–417. pmid:15811831
  41. 41. Stoica A, Katzenellenbogen BS, Martin MB. Activation of estrogen receptor-α by the heavy metal cadmium. Mol Endocrinol. 2000;14: 545–553. pmid:10770491
  42. 42. Stoica A, Pentecost E, Martin MB. Effects of arsenite on estrogen receptor-α expression and activity in MCF-7 breast cancer cells. Endocrinology. 2000;141: 3595–3602. pmid:11014213
  43. 43. Martin MB, Reiter R, Pham T, Avellanet YR, Camara J, Lahm M, et al. Estrogen like activity of metals in MCF-7 breast cancer cells. Endocrinology. 2003;144: 2425–2436. pmid:12746304
  44. 44. Ionescu JG, Novotny J, Stejskal V, Lätsch A, Blaurock-Busch E, Eisenmann-Klein M. Increased levels of transition metals in breast cancer tissue. Neuroendocrinol Lett. 2006;27(suppl.1): 36S–39S.
  45. 45. Strumylaite L, Bogusevicius A, Ryselis S, Pranys D, Poskiene L, Kregzdyte R, et al. Association between cadmium and breast cancer. Medicina (Kaunas). 2008;44: 415–420.
  46. 46. Strumylaite L, Bogusevicius A, Abdrachmanovas O, Baranauskiene D, Kregzdyte R, Pranys D, et al. Cadmium concentration in biological media of breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;125: 511–517. pmid:20607602
  47. 47. McElroy JA, Shafer MM, Trentham-Dietz A, Hampton JM, Newcomb PA. Cadmium exposure and breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98: 869–872. pmid:16788160
  48. 48. Nagata C, Nagao Y, Nakamura K, Wada K, Tamai Y, Tsuji M, et al. Cadmium exposure and the risk of breast cancer in Japanese women. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;138: 235–239. pmid:23358902
  49. 49. Strumylaite L, Kregzdyte R, Bogusevicius A, Poskiene L, Baranauskiene D, Pranys D. Association between cadmium and breast cancer risk according to estrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2: epidemiological evidence. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;145: 225–232. pmid:24692081
  50. 50. Larsson SC, Orsini N, Wolk A. Urinary cadmium concentration and risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;182: 375–380. pmid:26254432
  51. 51. Nordberg GF, Nogawa K, Nordberg M, Friedmann JM. Cadmium. In: Nordberg GF, Fowler BA, Nordberg M, Friberg L, editors. Handbook on the toxicology of metals. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2007. pp. 445–486.
  52. 52. Joseph P. Mechanisms of cadmium carcinogenesis. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2009;238: 272–279. pmid:19371617
  53. 53. Liu L, Wu K, Lin X, Yin W, Zheng X, Tang X, et al. Passive smoking and other factors at different periods of life and breast cancer risk in Chinese women who have never smoked—a case-control study in Chongqing, People's Republic of China. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2000;1: 131–137. pmid:12718680
  54. 54. Lash TL, Aschengrau A. Active and passive cigarette smoking and the occurrence of breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;149: 5–12. pmid:9883788
  55. 55. Li L, Zhang M, Holman D. Population versus hospital controls for case-control studies on cancers in Chinese hospitals. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 Dec 15.