Search

Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation face a high lifetime risk of breast cancer.1 It is important to identify risk factors for breast cancer among genetically predisposed women, to devise strategies to minimize the risk. Several lines of evidence link diabetes and breast cancer.2,3 Insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia, which predispose to diabetes, may increase the risk of breast cancer in the general population,4 and hyperinsulinemia may promote the growth of pre-existing breast neoplasms.5 Furthermore, a high body mass index (BMI) is a risk factor for both breast cancer recurrence and for insulin resistance.6–8 It is also of interest to establish whether diabetes (or any of the drugs used to treat diabetes) influences the risk of breast cancer in BRCA carriers. The risk of future diabetes may also be increased in women after a diagnosis of breast cancer.9 This risk may be mediated by common risk factors, such as high BMI or insulin resistance, or diabetes may be a late effect of breast cancer treatment. It is important to explore the impact of these factors on the risk of diabetes in women with BRCA mutations. In this cohort of BRCA carriers, we sought to determine whether diabetes increases the risk of breast cancer in BRCA carriers, and to identify risk factors for diabetes in this high-risk population.

Background: Germline mutation screening of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes is performed in suspected familial breast cancer cases, but a causative mutation is found in only 30% of patients. The development of additional methods to identify good candidates for BRCA1 and BRCA2 analysis would therefore increase the efficacy of diagnostic mutation screening. With this in mind, we developed a study to determine molecular signatures of BRCA1—or BRCA2—mutated breast cancers. Materials and Methods: Array-cgh (comparative genomic hybridization) and transcriptomic analysis were performed on a series of 103 familial breast cancers. The series included 7 breast cancers with a BRCA1 mutation and 5 breast cancers with a BRCA2 mutation. The remaining 91 cases were obtained from 73 families selected on the basis of at least 3 affected first-degree relatives or at least 2 affected first-degree relatives with breast cancer at an average age of 45 years. Array-cgh analyses were performed on a 4407 BAC-array (CIT-V8) manufactured by IntegraGen. Transcriptomic analyses were performed using an Affymetrix Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 chip. Results: Using supervised clustering analyses we identified two transcriptomic signatures: one for BRCA1-mutated breast cancers consisting of 600 probe sets and another for BRCA2-mutated breast cancers also consisting of 600 probes sets. We also defined cgh-array signatures, based on the presence of specific genomic rearrangements, one for BRCA1-mutated breast cancers and one for BRCA2-mutated breast cancers. Conclusions: This study identified molecular signatures of breast cancers with BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations. Genes present in these signatures could be exploited to find new markers for such breast cancers. We also identified specific genomic rearrangements in these breast cancers, which could be screened for in a diagnostic setting using fluorescence in situ hybridization, thus improving patient selection for BRCA1 and BRCA2 molecular genetic analysis.

Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus has been associated with an excess risk of pancreatic cancer, but the magnitude of the risk and the time–risk relationship are unclear, and there is limited information on the role of antidiabetic medications. Patients and methods: We analyzed individual-level data from 15 case–control studies within the Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium, including 8305 cases and 13 987 controls. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were estimated from multiple logistic regression models, adjusted for relevant covariates. Results: Overall, 1155 (15%) cases and 1087 (8%) controls reported a diagnosis of diabetes 2 or more years before cancer diagnosis (or interview, for controls), corresponding to an OR of 1.90 (95% confidence interval, CI, 1.72–2.09). Consistent risk estimates were observed across strata of selected covariates, including body mass index and tobacco smoking. Pancreatic cancer risk decreased with duration of diabetes, but a significant excess risk was still evident 20 or more years after diabetes diagnosis (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.03–1.63). Among diabetics, long duration of oral antidiabetic use was associated with a decreased pancreatic cancer risk (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14–0.69, for ≥15 years). Conversely, insulin use was associated with a pancreatic cancer risk in the short term (OR 5.60, 95% CI 3.75–8.35, for

It is not clear if early oral contraceptive use increases the risk of breast cancer among young women with a breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 (BRCA1) mutation. Given the benefit of oral contraceptives for the prevention of ovarian cancer, estimating age-specific risk ratios for oral contraceptive use and breast cancer is important. We conducted a case-control study of 2,492 matched pairs of women with a deleterious BRCA1 mutation. Breast cancer cases and unaffected controls were matched on year of birth and country of residence. Detailed information about oral contraceptive use was collected from a routinely administered questionnaire. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for the association between oral contraceptive and breast cancer, by age at first use and by age at diagnosis. Among BRCA1 mutation carriers, oral contraceptive use was significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer for women who started the pill prior to age 20 (OR 1.45; 95 % CI 1.20-1.75; P = 0.0001) and possibly between ages 20 and 25 as well (OR 1.19; 95 % CI 0.99-1.42; P = 0.06). The effect was limited to breast cancers diagnosed before age 40 (OR 1.40; 95 % CI 1.14-1.70; P = 0.001); the risk of early-onset breast cancer increased by 11 % with each additional year of pill use when initiated prior to age 20 (OR 1.11; 95 % CI 1.03-1.20; P = 0.008). There was no observed increase for women diagnosed at or after the age of 40 (OR 0.97; 95 % CI 0.79-1.20; P = 0.81). Oral contraceptive use before age 25 increases the risk of early-onset breast cancer among women with a BRCA1 mutation and the risk increases with duration of use. Caution should be taken when advising women with a BRCA1 mutation to take an oral contraceptive prior to age 25.

Physicians are often approached by young women with a BRCA mutation and a recent history of breast cancer who wish to have a baby. They wish to know if pregnancy impacts upon their future risks of cancer recurrence and survival. To date, there is little information on the survival experience of women who carry a mutation in one of the BRCA genes and who become pregnant. From an international multi-center cohort study of 12,084 women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, we identified 128 case subjects who were diagnosed with breast cancer while pregnant or who became pregnant after a diagnosis of breast cancer. These women were age-matched to 269 mutation carriers with breast cancer who did not become pregnant (controls). Subjects were followed from the date of breast cancer diagnosis until the date of last follow-up or death from breast cancer. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate 15-year survival rates. The hazard ratio for survival associated with pregnancy was calculated using a left-truncated Cox proportional hazard model, adjusting for other prognostic factors. Among women who were diagnosed with breast cancer when pregnant or who became pregnant thereafter, the 15-year survival rate was 91.5 %, compared to a survival of 88.6 % for women who did not become pregnant (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.76; 95 % CI 0.31–1.91; p = 0.56). Pregnancy concurrent with or after a diagnosis of breast cancer does not appear to adversely affect survival among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

PURPOSE: To determine the likelihood of long-term amenorrhea after treatment with chemotherapy in women with breast cancer who carry a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter survey of 1,954 young women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation who were treated for breast cancer. We included premenopausal women who were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 26 and 47 years of age. We determined the age of onset of amenorrhea after breast cancer for women who were and were not treated with chemotherapy, alone or with tamoxifen. We considered chemotherapy-induced amenorrhea to have occurred when the patient experienced ≥ 2 years of amenorrhea, commencing within 2 years of initiating chemotherapy, with no resumption of menses. RESULTS: Of the 1,426 women who received chemotherapy, 35% experienced long-term amenorrhea. Of the 528 women who did not receive chemotherapy, 5.3% developed long-term amenorrhea. The probabilities of chemotherapy-induced amenorrhea were 7.2% for women diagnosed before age 30 years, 33% for women age 31 to 44 years, and 79% for women diagnosed after age 45 years (P trend < .001). The probability of induced amenorrhea was higher for women who received tamoxifen than for those who did not (52% v 29%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Age at treatment and use of tamoxifen are important predictors of chemotherapy-induced amenorrhea in women who carry a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. The risk of induced long-term amenorrhea does not seem to be greater among mutation carriers than among women who do not carry a mutation., published_or_final_version

The objective is to estimate the risk of breast cancer in women who carry a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, according to parental origin of mutation. We conducted a cohort study of women with a BRCA1 mutation (n = 1523) or BRCA2 mutation (n = 369) who had not been diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer. For each woman, the pedigree was reviewed and the origin of the mutation was assigned as probable paternal or maternal. The hazard ratio (HR) for developing breast cancer in the follow-up period was estimated for women with a paternal mutation compared to a maternal mutation. The risk of breast cancer was modestly higher in women with a paternal BRCA1 mutation compared to women with a maternal BRCA1 mutation (HR = 1.46; 95% CI = 0.99-2.16) but the difference was not significant (p = 0.06). The parental mutation origin did not affect the risk in women with a BRCA2 mutation. Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that there is an increased risk of breast cancer among women with a paternally inherited BRCA1 mutation compared to a maternally inherited mutation. However, the data are not sufficiently compelling to justify different screening recommendations for the two subgroups.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have elevated risks of breast and ovarian cancers. The risks for cancers at other sites remain unclear. Melanoma has been associated with BRCA2 mutations in some studies, however, few surveys have included non-melanoma skin cancer. We followed 2729 women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation for an average of 5.0 years. These women were asked to report new cases of cancer diagnosed in themselves or in their family. The risks of skin cancer were compared for probands with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Of 1779 women with a BRCA1 mutation, 29 developed skin cancer in the follow-up period (1.6%). Of the 950 women with a BRCA2 mutation, 28 developed skin cancer (3.0%) (OR = 1.83 for BRCA2 versus BRCA1; 95% CI 1.08-3.10; P = 0.02). The odds ratio for basal cell carcinoma was higher (OR = 3.8; 95% CI 1.5-9.4; P = 0.002). BRCA2 mutation carriers are at increased risk for skin cancer, compared with BRCA1 carriers, in particular for basal cell carcinoma.

Background: Hormone therapy (HT) is commonly given to women to alleviate the climacteric symptoms associated with menopause. There is concern that this treatment may increase the risk of breast cancer. The potential association of HT and breast cancer risk is of particular interest to women who carry a mutation in BRCA1 because they face a high lifetime risk of breast cancer and because many of these women take HT after undergoing prophylactic surgical oophorectomy at a young age. Methods: We conducted a matched case-control study of 472 postmenopausal women with a BRCA1 mutation to examine whether or not the use of HT is associated with subsequent risk of breast cancer. Breast cancer case patients and control subjects were matched with respect to age, age at menopause, and type of menopause (surgical or natural). Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated with conditional logistic regression. Statistical tests were two-sided. Results: In this group of BRCA1 mutation carriers, the adjusted OR for breast cancer associated with ever use of HT compared with never use was 0.58 (95% CI = 0.35 to 0.96; P =. 03). In analyses by type of HT, an inverse association with breast cancer risk was observed with use of estrogen only (OR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.98; P =. 04); the association with use of estrogen plus progesterone was not statistically significant (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.34 to 1.27; P =. 21). Conclusion: Among postmenopausal women with a BRCA1 mutation, HT use was not associated with increased risk of breast cancer; indeed, in this population, it was associated with a decreased risk.

Men with BRCA2 mutations have been found to be at increased risk of developing prostate cancer. There is a recent report that BRCA2 carriers with prostate cancer have poorer survival than noncarrier prostate cancer patients. In this study, we compared survival of men with a BRCA2 mutation and prostate cancer with that of men with a BRCA1 mutation and prostate cancer. We obtained the age at diagnosis, age at death or current age from 182 men with prostate cancer from families with a BRCA2 mutation and from 119 men with prostate cancer from families with a BRCA1 mutation. The median survival from diagnosis was 4.0 years for men with a BRCA2 mutation vs 8.0 years for men with a BRCA1 mutation, and the difference was highly significant (P

Among women with a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2, the risk of breast cancer is high, but it may be modified by exogenous and endogenous factors. There is concern that exposure to carcinogens in cigarette smoke may increase the risk of cancer in mutation carriers. We conducted a matched case-control study of 2,538 cases of breast cancer among women with a BRCA1 (n = 1,920) or a BRCA2 (n = 618) mutation. One non-affected mutation carrier control was selected for each case, matched on mutation, country of birth, and year of birth. Odds ratios were calculated using conditional logistic regression, adjusted for oral contraceptive use and parity. Ever-smoking was not associated with an increased breast cancer risk among BRCA1 carriers (OR = 1.09; 95% CI 0.95-1.24) or among BRCA2 carriers (OR = 0.81; 95% CI 0.63-1.05). The result did not differ when cases were restricted to women who completed the questionnaire within two years of diagnosis. A modest, but significant increase in risk was seen among BRCA1 carriers with a past history of smoking (OR = 1.27; 95% CI 1.06-1.50), but not among current smokers (OR = 0.95; 0.81-1.12). There appears to be no increase in the risk of breast cancer associated with current smoking in BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers. There is a possibility of an increased risk of breast cancer among BRCA1 carriers associated with past smoking. There may be different effects of carcinogens in BRCA mutation carriers, depending upon the timing of exposure.

Women with a breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 (BRCA1) or breast cancer susceptibility gene 2 (BRCA2) mutation are at increased risk for developing breast and ovarian cancer. Various reproductive and hormonal factors have been shown to modify the risk of breast cancer. These studies suggest that estrogen exposure and deprivation are important in the etiology of hereditary cancer. Many patients are interested in the possibility of an adverse effect of fertility treatment on breast cancer risk. It is important to evaluate whether or not infertility per se or exposure to fertility medications increase the risk of breast cancer in genetically predisposed women.We conducted a matched case-control study of 1,380 pairs of women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation to determine if a history of infertility, the use of fertility medications, or undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) were associated with and increased the risk of breast cancer.Sixteen percent of the study subjects reported having experienced a fertility problem and 4% had used a fertility medication. Women who had used a fertility medication were not at significantly increased risk of breast cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.81-1.82) compared to non-users. Furthermore, there was no risk associated with a history of use of a fertility medication when the subjects were stratified by parity: (OR = 1.29; 95% CI = 0.83-2.01 for nulliparous women and OR = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.30-2.22 for parous women).The results of this study suggest that the use of fertility medications does not adversely affect the risk of breast cancer among BRCA mutation carriers. Given the small sizes of the exposed subgroups, these findings should be interpreted with caution and confirmatory studies are required.

To study the possible role of dietary and supplementary selenium intake in the etiology of cancer, we carried out a case-control study of breast, colon, and prostate cancer in Montreal between 1989 and 1993. In this study, we were able to interview a total of 1,048 incidence cases of colon (402), breast (414) and prostate (232) cancer subjects and 688 population-based controls matched for age and gender. Of these, a total of 501 cancer cases and 202 controls produced toenail samples for their selenium concentrations, which were determined by neutron activation analysis. We found no association between toenail selenium and breast cancer (odds ratio [OR], 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-1.31) or prostate cancer (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.46-2.83), though we did observe a statistically significant inverse association between toenail selenium level and the risk of colon cancer for both genders combined (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.93; P = .009) and for female subjects (P = .050). We also found that nonsmoker case and control subjects had higher selenium in their toenail samples. This could be due either to the nature of tobacco, which reduces selenium absorption, or to smokers' consumption of certain foods containing less selenium. Further epidemiologic studies are required to clarify the role of selenium in the etiology of certain cancers.

Introduction BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers are at increased risk for developing both breast and ovarian cancer. It has been suggested that carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations may also be at increased risk of having recurrent (three or more) miscarriages. Several reproductive factors have been shown to influence the risk of breast cancer in mutation carriers, but the effects of spontaneous and therapeutic abortions on the risk of hereditary breast cancer risk have not been well studied to date. Methods In a matched case-control study, the frequencies of spontaneous abortions were compared among 1,878 BRCA1 mutation carriers, 950 BRCA2 mutation carriers and 657 related non-carrier controls. The rates of spontaneous and therapeutic abortions were compared for carriers with and without breast cancer. Results There was no difference in the rate of spontaneous abortions between carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and non-carriers. The number of spontaneous abortions was not associated with breast cancer risk among BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. However, BRCA2 carriers who had two or more therapeutic abortions faced a 64% decrease in the risk of breast cancer (odds ratio = 0.36; 95% confidence interval 0.16–0.83; p = 0.02). Conclusion Carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation is not a risk factor for spontaneous abortions and spontaneous abortions do not appear to influence the risk of breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. However, having two or more therapeutic abortions may be associated with a lowered risk of breast cancer among BRCA2 carriers.

A prospective study of 149 unselected incident cases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma and 146 ethnically-matched controls found no associations between GSTM1 (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.14), GSTT1 (AOR: 1.19) and CYP1A1 (AOR: 1.08) polymorphisms and pancreatic cancer susceptibility. Smoking and drinking status did not affect results. These polymorphisms do not appear to be important gene modifiers in pancreatic cancer. © 2000 Cancer Research Campaign

Lucenteforte, E La Vecchia, C Silverman, D Petersen, G M Bracci, P M Ji, B T Bosetti, C Li, D Gallinger, S Miller, A B Bueno-de-Mesquita, H B Talamini, R Polesel, J Ghadirian, P Baghurst, P A Zatonski, W Fontham, E Bamlet, W R Holly, E A Gao, Y T Negri, E Hassan, M Cotterchio, M Su, J Maisonneuve, P Boffetta, P Duell, E J eng CA098889/CA/NCI NIH HHS/ CA108370/CA/NCI NIH HHS/ CA109767/CA/NCI NIH HHS/ CA59706/CA/NCI NIH HHS/ CA89726/CA/NCI NIH HHS/ N01-CP-05225/CP/NCI NIH HHS/ N01-CP-05227/CP/NCI NIH HHS/ N01-CP-31022/CP/NCI NIH HHS/ N01-CP-51089/CP/NCI NIH HHS/ N01-CP-51090/CP/NCI NIH HHS/ N01-CP-51092/CP/NCI NIH HHS/ N01-PC-35136/PC/NCI NIH HHS/ Meta-Analysis Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, N.I.H., Intramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't England 2011/05/04 06:00 Ann Oncol. 2012 Feb;23(2):374-82. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdr120. Epub 2011 May 2.; International audience; BACKGROUND: Heavy alcohol drinking has been related to pancreatic cancer, but the issue is still unsolved. METHODS: To evaluate the role of alcohol consumption in relation to pancreatic cancer, we conducted a pooled analysis of 10 case-control studies (5585 cases and 11,827 controls) participating in the International Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium. We computed pooled odds ratios (ORs) by estimating study-specific ORs adjusted for selected covariates and pooling them using random effects models. RESULTS: Compared with abstainers and occasional drinkers (< 1 drink per day), we observed no association for light-to-moderate alcohol consumption (/= 9 drinks per day). Results did not change substantially when we evaluated associations by tobacco smoking status, or when we excluded participants who reported a history of pancreatitis, or participants whose data were based upon proxy responses. Further, no notable differences in pooled risk estimates emerged across strata of sex, age, race, study type, and study area. CONCLUSION: This collaborative-pooled analysis provides additional evidence for a positive association between heavy alcohol consumption and the risk of pancreatic cancer.

Purpose: To investigate risk factors that may be linked to pancreatic cancer. Methods: We designed a multicenter population-based case-control (823 cases, 1679 control patients) study with data collection by using a common protocol and questionnaire. Participating centers were located in Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, and Poland. Results: After adjustment for confounding factors, a positive history of pancreatitis was associated with pancreatic cancer (odds ratio [OR], 4.68; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.23 - 9.84). The risk was especially high in heavy smokers (OR, 15.4; 95% CI, 3.18 - 74.9). Patients with diabetes had an increased risk of developing pancreatic cancer (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.60 - 2.91). The risk was highest in the first year after the development of diabetes (OR, 6.68; 95% CI, 3.56 - 12.6) and decreased over time. A history of allergy was associated with a reduced risk of pancreas cancer (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50 - 0.82). Conclusions: Patients with newly diagnosed diabetes and patients with pancreatitis, particularly in heavy smokers, have an increased risk for developing pancreatic cancer. In addition to being risk factors, these conditions could be early manifestations of underlying pancreatic cancer. A history of allergy decreases the risk of pancreatic cancer. © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus has been associated with an excess risk of pancreatic cancer, but the magnitude of the risk and the time-risk relationship are unclear, and there is limited information on the role of antidiabetic medications. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed individual-level data from 15 case-control studies within the Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium, including 8305 cases and 13 987 controls. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were estimated from multiple logistic regression models, adjusted for relevant covariates. RESULTS: Overall, 1155 (15%) cases and 1087 (8%) controls reported a diagnosis of diabetes 2 or more years before cancer diagnosis (or interview, for controls), corresponding to an OR of 1.90 (95% confidence interval, CI, 1.72-2.09). Consistent risk estimates were observed across strata of selected covariates, including body mass index and tobacco smoking. Pancreatic cancer risk decreased with duration of diabetes, but a significant excess risk was still evident 20 or more years after diabetes diagnosis (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.03-1.63). Among diabetics, long duration of oral antidiabetic use was associated with a decreased pancreatic cancer risk (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14-0.69, for =15 years). Conversely, insulin use was associated with a pancreatic cancer risk in the short term (OR 5.60, 95% CI 3.75-8.35, for

Bosetti, C Lucenteforte, E Bracci, P M Negri, E Neale, R E Risch, H A Olson, S H Gallinger, S Miller, A B Bueno-de-Mesquita, H B Talamini, R Polesel, J Ghadirian, P Baghurst, P A Zatonski, W Fontham, E Holly, E A Gao, Y T Yu, H Kurtz, R C Cotterchio, M Maisonneuve, P Zeegers, M P Duell, E J Boffetta, P La Vecchia, C eng 5R01-CA098870/CA/NCI NIH HHS/ CA098889/CA/NCI NIH HHS/ CA108370/CA/NCI NIH HHS/ CA109767/CA/NCI NIH HHS/ CA59706/CA/NCI NIH HHS/ CA89726/CA/NCI NIH HHS/ N01-PC-35136/PC/NCI NIH HHS/ R01 CA97075/CA/NCI NIH HHS/ U01 CA074783/CA/NCI NIH HHS/ U01-CA74783/CA/NCI NIH HHS/ U24 CA074783/CA/NCI NIH HHS/ Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't England 2013/08/24 06:00 Ann Oncol. 2013 Nov;24(11):2903-10. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt336. Epub 2013 Aug 22.; International audience; BACKGROUND: Peptic ulcer and its treatments have been associated to pancreatic cancer risk, although the evidence is inconsistent. METHODS: We pooled 10 case-control studies within the Pancreatic Cancer Case-control Consortium (PanC4), including 4717 pancreatic cancer cases and 9374 controls, and estimated summary odds ratios (OR) using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: The OR for pancreatic cancer was 1.10 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98-1.23] for history of ulcer (OR = 1.08 for gastric and 0.97 for duodenal ulcer). The association was stronger for a diagnosis within 2 years before cancer diagnosis (OR = 2.43 for peptic, 1.75 for gastric, and 1.98 for duodenal ulcer). The OR was 1.53 (95% CI 1.15-2.03) for history of gastrectomy; however, the excess risk was limited to a gastrectomy within 2 years before cancer diagnosis (OR = 6.18, 95% CI 1.82-20.96), while no significant increased risk was observed for longer time since gastrectomy. No associations were observed for pharmacological treatments for ulcer, such as antacids, H2-receptor antagonists, or proton-pump inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: This uniquely large collaborative study does not support the hypothesis that peptic ulcer and its treatment materially affect pancreatic cancer risk. The increased risk for short-term history of ulcer and gastrectomy suggests that any such association is due to increased cancer surveillance.

Background: Pancreatitis is a known risk factor for pancreatic cancer; however, an unknown fraction of the disease is thought to be a consequence of tumor-related duct obstruction. Patients and methods: A pooled analysis of a history of pancreatitis and risk of pancreatic cancer was carried out considering the time interval between diagnoses and potential modification by covariates. Adjusted pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from 10 case-control studies (5048 cases of ductal pancreatic adenocarcinoma and 10 947 controls) taking part in the International Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanC4). Results: The association between pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer was nearly three-fold at intervals of >2 years between diagnoses (OR: 2.71, 95% CI: 1.96-3.74) and much stronger at intervals of =2 years (OR: 13.56, 95% CI: 8.72-21.90) probably reflecting a combination of reverse causation and antecedent misdiagnosis of pancreas cancer as pancreatitis. The younger (2 years) pancreatitis (OR: 3.91, 95% CI: 2.53-6.04) than the older (=65 years) cases (OR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.02-2.76; P value for interaction: 0.006). Conclusions: Despite a moderately strong association between pancreatitis (diagnosed before >2 years) and pancreatic cancer, the population attributable fraction was estimated at 1.34% (95% CI: 0.612-2.07%), suggesting that a relatively small proportion of pancreatic cancer might be avoided if pancreatitis could be prevented. © The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Bosetti, C Lucenteforte, E Silverman, D T Petersen, G Bracci, P M Ji, B T Negri, E Li, D Risch, H A Olson, S H Gallinger, S Miller, A B Bueno-de-Mesquita, H B Talamini, R Polesel, J Ghadirian, P Baghurst, P A Zatonski, W Fontham, E Bamlet, W R Holly, E A Bertuccio, P Gao, Y T Hassan, M Yu, H Kurtz, R C Cotterchio, M Su, J Maisonneuve, P Duell, E J Boffetta, P La Vecchia, C eng 5R01-CA098870/CA/NCI NIH HHS/ CA098889/CA/NCI NIH HHS/ CA108370/CA/NCI NIH HHS/ CA109767/CA/NCI NIH HHS/ CA59706/CA/NCI NIH HHS/ CA89726/CA/NCI NIH HHS/ N01-CP-05225/CP/NCI NIH HHS/ N01-CP-05227/CP/NCI NIH HHS/ N01-CP-31022/CP/NCI NIH HHS/ N01-CP-51089/CP/NCI NIH HHS/ N01-CP-51090/CP/NCI NIH HHS/ N01-CP-51092/CP/NCI NIH HHS/ N01-PC-35136/PC/NCI NIH HHS/ P50 CA102701/CA/NCI NIH HHS/ R01 CA97075/CA/NCI NIH HHS/ Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Canada Meta-Analysis Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't England 2011/11/23 06:00 Ann Oncol. 2012 Jul;23(7):1880-8. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdr541. Epub 2011 Nov 21.; International audience; BACKGROUND: To evaluate the dose-response relationship between cigarette smoking and pancreatic cancer and to examine the effects of temporal variables. METHODS: We analyzed data from 12 case-control studies within the International Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanC4), including 6507 pancreatic cases and 12 890 controls. We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) by pooling study-specific ORs using random-effects models. RESULTS: Compared with never smokers, the OR was 1.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-1.3) for former smokers and 2.2 (95% CI 1.7-2.8) for current cigarette smokers, with a significant increasing trend in risk with increasing number of cigarettes among current smokers (OR=3.4 for >/=35 cigarettes per day, P for trend

Background: Cigarette smoking is the best-characterized risk factor for pancreatic cancer. However, data are limited for other tobacco smoking products and smokeless tobacco. Materials and methods: We conducted a pooled analysis of cigar and pipe smoking and smokeless tobacco use and risk of pancreatic cancer using data from 11 case-control studies (6056 cases and 11 338 controls) within the International Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanC4). Pooled odds ratios (OR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for study center and selected covariates. Results: Compared with never tobacco users, the OR for cigar-only smokers was 1.6 (95% CI: 1.2-2.3), i.e. comparable to that of cigarette-only smokers (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.4-1.6). The OR was 1.1 (95% CI 0.69-1.6) for pipeonly smokers. There was some evidence of increasing risk with increasing amount of cigar smoked per day (OR 1.82 for = 10 grams of tobacco), although not with duration. The OR for ever smokeless tobacco users as compared with never tobacco users was 0.98 (95% CI 0.75-1.3). Conclusion: This collaborative analysis provides evidence that cigar smoking is associated with an excess risk of pancreatic cancer, while no significant association emerged for pipe smoking and smokeless tobacco use. © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved.

A region with a high risk for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in northeast of Iran was identified more than three decades ago. Previous studies suggest that hereditary factors play a role in the high incidence of cancer in the region. Polymorphisms of several genes have been associated with susceptibility to esophageal cancer in various populations, but these have not been studied in Iran. We selected 22 functional variants (and 130 related tagSNPs) from 15 genes which previously have been suggested to be associated with an increased risk of ESCC. We genotyped a primary set of samples from 451 Turkmen (197 cases and 254 controls). Seven of 152 variants were associated with ESCC at the P = 0.05 level; these SNPs were then studied in a validation set of 1668 cases and controls (Turkmen and non-Turkmen) under dominant and recessive models. In the joint sample set, five variants, from five different genes, showed significant associations with ESCC at the P = 0.05 level. For one variant, in ADH1B, the association was strong and was present in both Turkmen and non-Turkmen. The histidine allele at codon 48 of ADH1B gene was associated with a significantly decreased risk of ESCC under a recessive model (OR = 0.41, 95%, CI = 0.19 to 0.49; P = 4×10−4). For four additional variants, an association was present in the Turkmen subgroup, but the statistical significance of these was less compelling than for ADH1B. Two variants showed deleterious effects and two were protective. The G allele of the c.870A>G variant of CCND1 gene was associated with a 1.5-fold increased risk of ESCC under the recessive model (OR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.14 to 2.16, P = 0.02) and the A allele of the rs1625895 variant of TP53 gene was associated with a 1.5-fold increased risk of ESCC under a dominant model (OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.21 to 4.07, P = 0.005). The C allele of the rs886205 variant of ALDH2 was associated with a decreased risk of ESCC under a recessive model (OR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.34 to 0.87, P = 0.02) and the A allele of the rs7087131 variant of MGMT was associated with a decreased risk of ESCC under the recessive model (OR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.49, P=0.01). These results confirm that genetic predisposition to ESCC plays a role in high incidence of this cancer among Turkmens who live in northeast of Iran.

We conducted a population-based case-control study on the relation of menstrual and reproductive factors and hormone use with pancreatic cancer risk among female participants of the SEARCH program study. We evaluated 367 cases of ductal adenocarcinoma and 821 controls for associations between pancreatic cancer and age at menarche, age at menopause, number of pregnancies, exogenous hormone use, and history of gynaecologic surgery. Among directly interviewed and proxy participants, we found a statistically significant association for having age of menarche at 11 years or younger compared with menarche at ages 12-13 years (OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.1-3.1). This result was consistent, but not statistically significant, among three of the four studies analyzed, and when the data were analyzed separately by response status (direct vs. proxy interviews). No other menstrual or reproductive factors were associated with pancreatic cancer risk in this study. In conclusion, earlier age at menarche may be weakly associated with pancreatic cancer, but it seems unlikely that menstrual and reproductive factors play more than only a minor role in pancreatic cancer. Additional analyses in large prospective study populations and in pooled studies may help to clarify remaining inconsistencies.