Back

Risk factors for breast cancer subtypes by race and ethnicity: A scoping review of the literature

Hurson, A.; Ahearn, T.; Koka, H.; Jenkins, B.; Harris, A.; Roberts, S.; Fan, S.; Franklin, J.; Butera, G.; Keeman, R.; Jung, A.; Middha, P.; Gierach, G.; Yang, X.; Chang-Claude, J.; Tamimi, R.; Troester, M. A.; Bandera, E. V.; Abubakar, M.; Schmidt, M.; Garcia-Closas, M.

2024-03-19 epidemiology
10.1101/2024.03.18.24304210 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundBreast cancer is comprised of distinct molecular subtypes. Studies have reported differences in risk factor associations with breast cancer subtypes, especially by tumor estrogen receptor (ER) status, but their consistency across racial and ethnic populations has not been comprehensively evaluated. MethodsWe conducted a qualitative, scoping literature review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis, extension for Scoping Reviews to investigate consistencies in associations between 18 breast cancer risk factors (reproductive, anthropometric, lifestyle, and medical history) and risk of ER-defined subtypes in women who self-identify as Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latina, or White. We reviewed publications between January 1, 1990 and July 1, 2022. Etiologic heterogeneity evidence (convincing, suggestive, none, or inconclusive) was determined by expert consensus. ResultsPublications per risk factor ranged from 14 (benign breast disease history) to 66 (parity). Publications were most abundant for White women, followed by Asian, Black or African American, and Hispanic or Latina women. Etiologic heterogeneity evidence was strongest for parity, followed by age at first birth, post-menopausal BMI, oral contraceptive use, and estrogen-only and combined menopausal hormone therapy. Evidence was limited for other risk factors. Findings were consistent across racial and ethnic groups, although the strength of evidence varied. ConclusionThe literature supports etiologic heterogeneity by ER for some established risk factors that are consistent across race and ethnicity groups. However, in non-White populations evidence is limited. Larger, more comparable data in diverse populations is needed to better characterize breast cancer etiologic heterogeneity.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.6%
2
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.8%
3
Breast Cancer Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.5%
4
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.2%
50% of probability mass above
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 36%
4.0%
6
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.0%
7
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
8
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.4%
9
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.4%
10
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
11
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
12
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
13
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
14
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
15
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.2%
16
BMC Research Notes
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
17
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
18
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
19
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 73%
0.8%
20
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
21
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
22
Human Molecular Genetics
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
23
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
24
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
25
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
26
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 67%
0.5%