David J. Hunter

OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of invasive breast cancer associated with total and beverage-specific alcohol consumption and to evaluate whether dietary and nondietary factors modify the association. DATA SOURCES: We included in these analyses 6 prospective studies that had at least 200 incident breast cancer cases, assessed long-term intake of food and nutrients, and used a validated diet assessment instrument. The studies were conducted in Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United States. Alcohol intake was estimated by food frequency questionnaires in each study. The studies included a total of 322647 women evaluated for up to 11 years, including 4335 participants with a diagnosis of incident invasive breast cancer. DATA EXTRACTION: Pooled analysis of primary data using analyses consistent with each study's original design and the random-effects model for the overall pooled analyses. DATA SYNTHESIS: For alcohol intakes less than 60 g/d (reported by >99% of participants), risk increased linearly with increasing intake; the pooled multivariate relative risk for an increment of 10 g/d of alcohol (about 0.75-1 drink) was 1.09 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.13; P for heterogeneity among studies, .71). The multivariate-adjusted relative risk for total alcohol intakes of 30 to less than 60 g/d (about 2-5 drinks) vs nondrinkers was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.18-1.69). Limited data suggested that alcohol intakes of at least 60 g/d were not associated with further increased risk. The specific type of alcoholic beverage did not strongly influence risk estimates. The association between alcohol intake and breast cancer was not modified by other factors. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol consumption is associated with a linear increase in breast cancer incidence in women over the range of consumption reported by most women. Among women who consume alcohol regularly, reducing alcohol consumption is a potential means to reduce breast cancer risk.

BACKGROUND: Studies in men suggest that light-to-moderate alcohol intake is associated with a reduction in overall mortality, due primarily to a reduced risk of coronary heart disease. Among women with similar levels of alcohol consumption, an increased risk of breast cancer has been noted that complicates the balance of risks and benefits. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study among 85,709 women, 34 to 59 years of age and without a history of myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, or cancer, who completed a dietary questionnaire in 1980. During the 12-year follow-up period, 2658 deaths were documented. RESULTS: The relative risks of death in drinkers as compared with nondrinkers were 0.83 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.74 to 0.93) for women who consumed 1.5 to 4.9 g of alcohol per day (one to three drinks per week), 0.88 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.80 to 0.98) for those who consumed 5.0 to 29.9 g per day, and 1.19 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.02 to 1.38) for those who consumed 30 g or more per day, after adjustment for other predictors of mortality. Light-to-moderate drinking (1.5 to 29.9 g per day) was associated with a decreased risk of death from cardiovascular disease; heavier drinking was associated with an increased risk of death from other causes, particularly breast cancer and cirrhosis. The benefit associated with light-to-moderate drinking was most apparent among women with risk factors for coronary heart disease and those 50 years of age or older. CONCLUSIONS: Among women, light-to-moderate alcohol consumption is associated with a reduced mortality rate, but this apparent survival benefit appears largely confined to women at greater risk for coronary heart disease.

BACKGROUND: A positive relationship has generally been observed between plasma estrogen levels and breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women, but most of these studies have been small and few have evaluated specific estrogen fractions (such as percent bioavailable estradiol). In addition, few studies have evaluated plasma androgen levels in relation to breast cancer risk, and their results have been inconsistent. We prospectively evaluated relationships between sex steroid hormone levels in plasma and risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women by use of a case-control study nested within the Nurses' Health Study. METHODS: Blood samples were collected during the period from 1989 through 1990. Among postmenopausal women not using hormone replacement therapy at blood collection (n = 11,169 women), 156 women were diagnosed with breast cancer after blood collection but before June 1, 1994. Two control subjects were selected per case subject and matched with respect to age, menopausal status, month and time of day of blood collection, and fasting status at the time of blood collection. RESULTS: From comparisons of highest and lowest (reference) quartiles, we observed statistically significant positive associations with risk of breast cancer for circulating levels of estradiol (multivariate relative risk [RR] = 1.91; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.06-3.46), estrone (multivariate RR = 1.96; 95% CI = 1.05-3.65), estrone sulfate (multivariate RR = 2.25; 95% CI = 1.23-4.12), and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (multivariate RR = 2.15; 95% CI = 1.11-4.17). We found no substantial associations with percent free or percent bioavailable estradiol, androstenedione, testosterone, or dehydroepiandrosterone. The positive relationships were substantially stronger among women with no previous hormone replacement therapy. CONCLUSION: Our data, in conjunction with past epidemiologic and animal studies, provide strong evidence for a causal relationship between postmenopausal estrogen levels and the risk of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Women and their clinicians are increasingly encouraged to use risk estimates derived from statistical models, primarily that of Gail et al., to aid decision making regarding potential prevention options for breast cancer, including chemoprevention with tamoxifen. METHODS: We evaluated both the goodness of fit of the Gail et al. model 2 that predicts the risk of developing invasive breast cancer specifically and its discriminatory accuracy at the individual level in the Nurses' Health Study. We began with a cohort of 82 109 white women aged 45-71 years in 1992 and applied the model of Gail et al. to these women over a 5-year follow-up period to estimate a 5-year risk of invasive breast cancer. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: The model fit well in the total sample (ratio of expected [E] to observed [O] numbers of cases = 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.89 to 0.99). Underprediction was slightly greater for younger women (<60 years), but in most age and risk factor strata, E/O ratios were close to 1.0. The model fit equally well (E/O ratio = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.87 to 0.99) in a subset of women reporting recent screening (i.e., within 1 year before the baseline); among women with an estimated 5-year risk of developing invasive breast cancer of 1.67% or greater, the E/O ratio was 1.04 (95% CI = 0.96 to 1.12). The concordance statistic, which indicates discriminatory accuracy, for the Gail et al. model 2 when used to estimate 5-year risk was 0.58 (95% CI = 0.56 to 0.60). Only 3.3% of the 1354 cases of breast cancer observed in the cohort arose among women who fell into age-risk strata expected to have statistically significant net health benefits from prophylactic tamoxifen use. CONCLUSIONS: The Gail et al. model 2 fit well in this sample in terms of predicting numbers of breast cancer cases in specific risk factor strata but had modest discriminatory accuracy at the individual level. This finding has implications for use of the model in clinical counseling of individual women.