Height and body size in childhood and young adulthood have been consistently associated with breast cancer risk; whether associations differ across molecular subtypes is unclear. In a pooled analysis of the Nurses' Health Studies, we prospectively examined the association of four exposures: height, body mass index (BMI) at the age of 18 years, childhood and adolescent somatotypes, with breast cancer risk according to molecular subtypes defined by immunohistochemical markers. We used multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We identified 2,983 luminal A, 1,281 luminal B, 318 HER2-enriched, 408 basal-like, and 128 unclassified tumors. Height was positively associated with all subtypes (Pheterogeneity = 0.78). BMI at the age of 18 (Pheterogeneity = 0.001), childhood (Pheterogeneity = 0.51), and adolescent somatotype (Pheterogeneity = 0.046) were inversely associated, but with differences in magnitude of association. BMI at the age of 18 of ≥25 kg/m2 (compared with 20–21.9 kg/m2) was associated with a 52% decreased risk of HER2-enriched (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.26–0.91; Ptrend < 0.0001) and 39% reduced risk of basal-like tumors (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.36–1.02; Ptrend = 0.008). Compared with the lowest category, women in the highest adolescent body size category were 71% less likely to develop HER2-enriched (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.10–0.85; Ptrend = 0.0005) and 60% less likely to develop basal-like (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.17–0.95; Ptrend = 0.0008). Height was positively associated with risk of all breast cancer molecular subtypes. BMI at 18 years and childhood and adolescent were inversely associated with risk of most breast cancer molecular subtypes with somewhat stronger associations with HER2-enriched and basal-like subtypes. Cancer Prev Res; 9(9); 732–8. ©2016 AACR.

Body size in childhood and adolescence, body mass index (BMI) in young adulthood, and height are established risk factors for pre- and postmenopausal breast cancer (1–3). However, breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease with multiple subtypes of differing prognosis defined by tumor characteristics such as estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status (4, 5). Inverse associations between childhood and adolescent body fatness, BMI in young adulthood and breast cancer have been observed for estrogen receptor–positive (ER+; refs. 1, 2) and negative (ER; ref. 1) breast cancer. Height is positively associated with ER+ tumors, whereas associations with ER tumors have been inconsistent, with both positive (6), and null associations (7) observed. Beyond ER and PR, molecular subtypes defined by gene expression or immunohistochemical markers have been explored with respect to breast cancer etiology and prognosis (8–10) and their relationships with risk factors differ (11). Molecular subtypes include luminal A and B, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-enriched, basal-like and unclassified cancers (4, 12, 13). Few studies have examined associations between body fatness in childhood and adolescence, BMI in young adulthood, and height, and molecular subtypes (7, 14).

Animal data, epidemiologic studies including examinations of effects of radiation exposure on breast cancer risk (15, 16), and risk prediction models (17, 18), have shown that breast tissue is particularly susceptible to exposures in early life, with the period between menarche and first birth most vulnerable (19). This is because the mammary gland goes through extensive morphological changes during early life. Ducts that were developed before birth grow and branch rapidly as a result of hormonal stimulation with final differentiation achieved during pregnancy and lactation (20, 21). The consistency of association between early life and young adulthood body fatness and breast cancer risk across strata of age and menopausal status suggests that greater body fatness at young ages may be associated with permanent changes to breast tissue during this important development period that results in a long-term reduction in breast cancer risk. Similarly, adult height is attained during adolescence or young adulthood and may reflect the concentration of growth factors during that phase of life and beyond (22).

We prospectively examined the association between body fatness in childhood and adolescence, BMI at the age of 18, height, and incidence of breast cancer according to molecular subtype in a pooled analysis of women in the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) and the Nurses' Health Study II (NHSII).

Study population

NHS and NHSII are two ongoing prospective cohort studies of primarily white (>95%) female registered nurses across the United States. NHS began in 1976 with 121,701 female registered between the ages of 30 and 55 years at baseline. NHSII began in 1989 with 116,430 female registered nurses ages 25 to 42 years. Women are sent follow-up questionnaires every 2 years to obtain information about health behaviors, disease status, medical care, and treatment. Cumulative follow-up rates are high (>90%) in both cohorts.

Exposure assessment

Height and BMI at age 18.

Women self-reported height in 1976 (NHS) or 1989 (NHSII) and weight at age 18 in 1980 (NHS) or 1989 (NHSII). Using records from physical examinations conducted at college or nursing school entrance from 118 NHSII participants, the validity of recalled weight at age 18 and self-reported current height was previously assessed (23). On average, participants underreported weight at age 18 by 1.4 kg. The correlation between recalled and measured weight at age 18 was 0.87.

Childhood and adolescent somatotype.

In 1988 (NHS) and 1989 (NHSII), women were asked to select the figure from a validated 9-figure drawing which best corresponded to their body fatness at age 5, 10, and 20 (24, 25). The Third Harvard Growth Study compared women's recalled figure at 15 with measured BMI at age 15. They found that BMI at age 15 increased linearly (19 to 32 kg/m2) with each level of the figure (levels 1–7; no participants selected figure 8 or 9; ref. 26). We averaged somatotypes across 2 ages to create measures for childhood (ages 5 and 10) and adolescent (ages 10 and 20) body fatness. Because of sparse data, we collapsed the top 5 categories of each measure creating a top category that included anyone that selected figure 5 through 9.

Breast cancer case assessment

Incident breast cancer diagnoses on each biennial questionnaire are, with participant or next of kin permission, confirmed through medical record review. From each woman, we request pathology reports and abstract information on tumor characteristics including grade, histologic type, metastases, and hormone receptor status. Pathology reports were available for >95% of the breast cancer cases in this study. Cases among deceased nonrespondents are identified via review of death certificates and medical records. Nearly all (99%) of self-reported breast cancers are confirmed after medical record review. In-situ cases were censored at date of diagnosis and only invasive cases were included in the analysis.

Subtype classification

Tissue block collection and tissue microarray (TMA) construction were described in detail previously (27, 28). In brief, we obtained archived formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue blocks for approximately 70% of incident primary breast cancer cases from 1976 to 2006. Women with available tissue blocks were similar with respect to breast cancer risk factors and tumor characteristics compared with the women without available tissue blocks (27, 29). In brief, hematoxylin and eosin sections from cases with pathology samples were reviewed to confirm the diagnosis, classify the histologic type and grade of the breast cancer, and identify the area from which the TMA cores would be taken. TMAs contained three 0.6-mm diameter cores from each breast cancer sample. Immunostaining was performed on 5-μm paraffin sections cut from TMA blocks. Antibodies used for ER, PR, HER2, cytokeratin 5/6 (CK5/6), and EGFR staining are described elsewhere (11). A pathologist manually assessed ER, PR, HER2, CK5/6, and EGFR expression on each available core. We used the grade assigned by study pathologists except when not available, in which case we used grade collected from the participant's pathology report. A case was considered ER-positive (ER+) or PR-positive (PR+) if any of their tissue cores showed any nuclear staining for ER or PR, respectively. A case was deemed ER and/or PR if there was complete absence of staining for ER and/or PR in all tissue cores. HER2 protein overexpression was defined as moderate or strong membrane staining (2+ or 3+) in more than 10% of the cells in any of the tissue cores. Cases were considered CK5/6+ or EGFR+ if any cytoplasmic and/or membranous staining was detected in the tumor cells in any of the cores. Luminal A tumors were defined as ER+ and/or PR+, with no HER2 overexpression and grade 1 (low) or grade 2 (intermediate). Luminal B tumors were either: (i) ER+ and/or PR+ and HER2-overexpressed or (ii) ER+ and/or PR+ and did not overexpress HER2 and grade 3 (high grade). In secondary analyses, we looked separately at luminal B tumors that over expressed HER2 and those that were high grade. Cases that were ER, PR, HER2-overexpressed were classified as HER2-enriched. Basal-like cases were ER, PR, did not overexpress HER2, and were positive for CK5/6 and/or EGFR. Unclassified tumors lacked expression of all 5 markers. As many studies lack information on CK5/6 and EGFR needed to define the basal-like subtype, we present estimates for triple-negative (ER, PR, and HER2) breast cancer as well (Supplementary Table S3).

Statistical analysis

As each exposure was assessed in different survey cycles, and we excluded women missing data on the primary exposure from each analysis, the analytic sample and length of follow-up differ for each exposure. Sample sizes are as follows: height (n = 233,214); BMI at age 18 (n = 207,490); childhood and adolescent somatotype (n = 188,689). Women stopped contributing person-time when they reported a breast cancer diagnosis, reported a diagnosis of any other cancer (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer), date of death or the study cutoff date June 1, 2006, whichever occurred first. Follow-up continued through 2006, the most recent year tissue data were available. Our analyses included a maximum of 233,214 women contributing 6,129,327 person-years of follow-up. Through the study cutoff date, there were the following numbers of cases: luminal A (n = 2,983), luminal B (n = 1,281), HER2-enriched (n = 316), basal-like (n = 408), and unclassified (n = 128).

Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate incidence rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for breast cancer subtypes associated with adult height (≤62, 63, 64, 65, 66, ≥67 inches), BMI at age 18 (<18.5, 18.5–20, 20–21.9, 22–24.9, ≥25 kg/m2), and childhood and adolescent somatotype (1, 1.5–2, 2.5–3, 3.5–4.5, ≥5). Age-adjusted and multivariate adjusted models are presented. Multivariate models include covariates selected on the basis of their association with breast cancer in previous analyses. In secondary analyses (Supplementary Tables S1 and S2), we present estimates for each exposure stratified by menopausal status (pre- or postmenopausal). To evaluate the consistency of risk estimates across molecular subtypes, we performed a competing risks analysis to estimate separate associations of each exposure with the relative hazard of each subtype (30–32). Analyses were performed using SAS version 9.3 (SAS). All statistical tests were 2-sided, and 0.05 was the threshold for statistical significance. The Institutional Review Board at Brigham and Women's Hospital approved this investigation.

Women who were taller had higher alcohol intake, lower BMI at age 18, lower current BMI, greater weight gain since age 18, older age at menarche, and higher birth weight (Table 1). Greater adolescent somatotype was associated with earlier age at menarche, higher BMI at age 18 and current BMI, and lower prevalence of benign breast disease (Table 2).

Table 1.

Age and age-standardized baseline characteristics according height (inches) among participants in the NHS (N = 118,072) and NHSII (N = 115,142)

NHS (1976)NHSII (1989)
≤62 in. (n = 26,729)64 in. (n = 19,965)≥67 in. (n = 23,943)≤62 in. (n = 21,856)64 in. (n = 18,448)≥67 in. (n = 30,614)
Means (SD) 
 Agea 42.8 (7.3) 42.4 (7.3) 41.7 (7.1) 34.1 (4.6) 34.0 (4.6) 33.7 (4.7) 
 Height, in 61.3 (1.0) 64.0 (0.0) 67.9 (1.2) 61.2 (1.2) 64.0 (0.0) 68.1 (1.3) 
 Age at first birth,b25.1 (3.3) 25.1 (3.3) 25.3 (3.4) 25.4 (4.1) 25.4 (4.1) 25.6 (4.0) 
 Parity 3.6 (7.0) 3.6 (6.9) 3.5 (6.9) 2.1 (0.9) 2.1 (0.9) 2.1 (0.9) 
 Alcohol intake, g/d 5.6 (10.0) 6.4 (10.4) 6.9 (11.1) 2.6 (5.0) 3.0 (5.9) 3.3 (6.0) 
 BMI at age 18, kg/m2 21.7 (3.0) 21.4 (3.0) 21.1 (3.1) 21.4 (3.9) 21.2 (3.8) 20.7 (4.1) 
 Current BMI, kg/m2 24.1 (4.3) 23.8 (4.1) 23.6 (4.0) 24.2 (4.7) 24.1 (4.7) 23.8 (4.8) 
 Weight change since age 18, kg 5.7 (9.2) 6.3 (9.5) 7.2 (10.7) 6.7 (9.6) 7.5 (10.5) 8.7 (11.7) 
 Age at menarche, y 12.3 (1.5) 12.5 (1.4) 12.8 (1.5) 12.2 (1.5) 12.3 (1.4) 12.6 (1.4) 
Percentages 
 History of benign breast disease 18 18 19 
 Irregular menstrual cycles ages 18–22 23 23 23 24 23 24 
 Current hormone therapy usec 32 34 35 82 82 81 
 Former smoker 47 45 40 20 21 23 
 Current smoker 32 32 35 14 13 14 
 Birth weight ≥ 8.5 lbs 12 16 
 Parous 93 94 92 72 72 69 
 Premenopausal 71 72 72 97 97 97 
 Ever oral contraceptive use 46 48 48 82 84 83 
 Family history of breast cancer 
NHS (1976)NHSII (1989)
≤62 in. (n = 26,729)64 in. (n = 19,965)≥67 in. (n = 23,943)≤62 in. (n = 21,856)64 in. (n = 18,448)≥67 in. (n = 30,614)
Means (SD) 
 Agea 42.8 (7.3) 42.4 (7.3) 41.7 (7.1) 34.1 (4.6) 34.0 (4.6) 33.7 (4.7) 
 Height, in 61.3 (1.0) 64.0 (0.0) 67.9 (1.2) 61.2 (1.2) 64.0 (0.0) 68.1 (1.3) 
 Age at first birth,b25.1 (3.3) 25.1 (3.3) 25.3 (3.4) 25.4 (4.1) 25.4 (4.1) 25.6 (4.0) 
 Parity 3.6 (7.0) 3.6 (6.9) 3.5 (6.9) 2.1 (0.9) 2.1 (0.9) 2.1 (0.9) 
 Alcohol intake, g/d 5.6 (10.0) 6.4 (10.4) 6.9 (11.1) 2.6 (5.0) 3.0 (5.9) 3.3 (6.0) 
 BMI at age 18, kg/m2 21.7 (3.0) 21.4 (3.0) 21.1 (3.1) 21.4 (3.9) 21.2 (3.8) 20.7 (4.1) 
 Current BMI, kg/m2 24.1 (4.3) 23.8 (4.1) 23.6 (4.0) 24.2 (4.7) 24.1 (4.7) 23.8 (4.8) 
 Weight change since age 18, kg 5.7 (9.2) 6.3 (9.5) 7.2 (10.7) 6.7 (9.6) 7.5 (10.5) 8.7 (11.7) 
 Age at menarche, y 12.3 (1.5) 12.5 (1.4) 12.8 (1.5) 12.2 (1.5) 12.3 (1.4) 12.6 (1.4) 
Percentages 
 History of benign breast disease 18 18 19 
 Irregular menstrual cycles ages 18–22 23 23 23 24 23 24 
 Current hormone therapy usec 32 34 35 82 82 81 
 Former smoker 47 45 40 20 21 23 
 Current smoker 32 32 35 14 13 14 
 Birth weight ≥ 8.5 lbs 12 16 
 Parous 93 94 92 72 72 69 
 Premenopausal 71 72 72 97 97 97 
 Ever oral contraceptive use 46 48 48 82 84 83 
 Family history of breast cancer 

NOTE: Values are means (SD) or percentages and are standardized to the age distribution of the study population.

aValue is not age adjusted.

bAmong parous women.

cAmong postmenopausal women.

Table 2.

Age and age-standardized baseline characteristics according to childhood somatotype among participants in the NHS (N = 76,299) and NHSII (N = 112,390)

NHS (1988)NHS II (1989)
1 (leanest; n = 23,208)3 (n = 14,643)≥5 (heaviest; n = 5,387)1 (leanest; n = 19,691)3 (n = 28,052)≥5 (heaviest; n = 7,144)
Mean (SD) 
 Agea 55.3 (6.9) 53.7 (7.2) 53.7 (7.1) 34.3 (4.8) 33.8 (4.6) 34.5 (4.6) 
 Height 64.5 (2.5) 64.5 (2.4) 64.6 (2.5) 64.9 (2.7) 64.8 (2.6) 65.1 (2.6) 
 Age at first birth,b25.1 (3.3) 25.1 (3.2) 25.2 (3.3) 25.3 (4.0) 25.5 (4.0) 25.4 (4.1) 
 Parity 3.5 (5.6) 3.4 (5.2) 3.3 (5.0) 2.1 (0.9) 2.1 (0.9) 2.0 (0.9) 
 Alcohol intake, g/d 6.1 (10.5) 6.2 (10.7) 6.1 (11.0) 3.1 (5.8) 3.0 (5.6) 3.1 (6.2) 
 BMI at age 18, kg/m2 19.8 (2.2) 21.9 (2.6) 24.6 (3.9) 19.4 (2.1) 21.5 (2.8) 24.8 (4.7) 
 Current BMI, kg/m2 24.5 (4.0) 26.0 (4.8) 27.6 (5.6) 24.2 (4.7) 24.1 (4.7) 23.9 (4.8) 
 Weight change since age 18, kg 12.5 (10.5) 11.1 (12.0) 9.1 (15.0) 7.4 (8.2) 7.9 (10.8) 7.6 (15.3) 
 Age at menarche, y 12.8 (1.4) 12.4 (1.4) 12.2 (1.4) 12.8 (1.5) 12.3 (1.4) 12.0 (1.5) 
Percentage 
 History of benign breast disease 17 15 14 10 
 Irregular menstrual cycles ages 18–22 24 22 25 24 23 26 
 Current hormone therapy usec 32 31 28 87 81 77 
 Former smoker 35 38 40 20 22 23 
 Current smoker 18 18 24 13 13 20 
 Birth weight ≥ 8.5 lbs 11 16 11 15 
 Parous 94 94 93 71 72 63 
 Premenopausal 29 30 30 97 97 96 
 Ever oral contraceptive use 50 50 49 85 83 81 
 Family history of breast cancer 11 10 10 
NHS (1988)NHS II (1989)
1 (leanest; n = 23,208)3 (n = 14,643)≥5 (heaviest; n = 5,387)1 (leanest; n = 19,691)3 (n = 28,052)≥5 (heaviest; n = 7,144)
Mean (SD) 
 Agea 55.3 (6.9) 53.7 (7.2) 53.7 (7.1) 34.3 (4.8) 33.8 (4.6) 34.5 (4.6) 
 Height 64.5 (2.5) 64.5 (2.4) 64.6 (2.5) 64.9 (2.7) 64.8 (2.6) 65.1 (2.6) 
 Age at first birth,b25.1 (3.3) 25.1 (3.2) 25.2 (3.3) 25.3 (4.0) 25.5 (4.0) 25.4 (4.1) 
 Parity 3.5 (5.6) 3.4 (5.2) 3.3 (5.0) 2.1 (0.9) 2.1 (0.9) 2.0 (0.9) 
 Alcohol intake, g/d 6.1 (10.5) 6.2 (10.7) 6.1 (11.0) 3.1 (5.8) 3.0 (5.6) 3.1 (6.2) 
 BMI at age 18, kg/m2 19.8 (2.2) 21.9 (2.6) 24.6 (3.9) 19.4 (2.1) 21.5 (2.8) 24.8 (4.7) 
 Current BMI, kg/m2 24.5 (4.0) 26.0 (4.8) 27.6 (5.6) 24.2 (4.7) 24.1 (4.7) 23.9 (4.8) 
 Weight change since age 18, kg 12.5 (10.5) 11.1 (12.0) 9.1 (15.0) 7.4 (8.2) 7.9 (10.8) 7.6 (15.3) 
 Age at menarche, y 12.8 (1.4) 12.4 (1.4) 12.2 (1.4) 12.8 (1.5) 12.3 (1.4) 12.0 (1.5) 
Percentage 
 History of benign breast disease 17 15 14 10 
 Irregular menstrual cycles ages 18–22 24 22 25 24 23 26 
 Current hormone therapy usec 32 31 28 87 81 77 
 Former smoker 35 38 40 20 22 23 
 Current smoker 18 18 24 13 13 20 
 Birth weight ≥ 8.5 lbs 11 16 11 15 
 Parous 94 94 93 71 72 63 
 Premenopausal 29 30 30 97 97 96 
 Ever oral contraceptive use 50 50 49 85 83 81 
 Family history of breast cancer 11 10 10 

NOTE: Values are means (SD) or percentages and are standardized to the age distribution of the study population.

aValue is not age adjusted.

bAmong parous women.

cAmong postmenopausal women.

Height was positively associated with all molecular subtypes (Pheterogeneity = 0.78; Table 3). Women who were ≥67 inches tall, compared to those ≤62 inches tall, were 52% more likely to develop luminal A tumors (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.34–1.73; Ptrend: <0.0001), 48% more likely to develop HER2-enriched tumors (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.02–2.15; Ptrend: 0.004), and 2 times more likely to develop unclassified tumors (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.08–3.70; Ptrend: 0.02). Height was positively associated with all subtypes in pre- and postmenopausal women, although associations were generally stronger in premenopausal women (Supplementary Table S1). For example, for luminal A tumors, each one inch increase in height was associated with a 8% increase in risk for premenopausal women and a 5% increase among postmenopausal women.

Table 3.

Height, BMI at age 18, and risk of breast cancer according to molecular subtype, NHS and NHSII

Luminal ALuminal BHER2-enrichedBasal-likeUnclassified
CasesHR (95% CI)CasesHR (95% CI)CasesHR (95% CI)CasesHR (95% CI)CasesHR (95% CI)Pheterogeneity
Height,a,b in           0.78 
 ≤62 539 1.00 (reference) 243 1.00 (reference) 71 1.00 (reference) 71 1.00 (reference) 20 1.00 (reference)  
 63 342 1.19 (1.04–1.37) 137 1.00 (0.81–1.24) 32 0.94 (0.62–1.43) 44 1.17 (0.80–1.71) 17 1.67 (0.87–3.20)  
 64 515 1.32 (1.17–1.50) 234 1.21 (1.00–1.45) 39 0.85 (0.57–1.27) 76 1.50 (1.08–2.09) 19 1.38 (0.73–2.60)  
 65 450 1.41 (1.24–1.60) 167 1.05 (0.86–1.29) 52 1.41 (0.97–2.05) 61 1.47 (1.04–2.09) 16 1.38 (0.70–2.70)  
 66 452 1.45 (1.27–1.65) 198 1.20 (0.99–1.46) 56 1.65 (1.14–2.39) 63 1.58 (1.11–2.25) 25 2.20 (1.19–4.08)  
 ≥67 685 1.52 (1.34–1.73) 302 1.19 (0.98–1.43) 68 1.48 (1.02–2.15) 93 1.59 (1.13–2.24) 31 2.00 (1.08–3.70)  
 HR per 1-inch increase 2,983 1.07 (1.05–1.08) 1,281 1.02 (1.00–1.05) 318 1.08 (1.02–1.13) 408 1.07 (1.02–1.11) 128 1.10 (1.02–1.19)  
  Ptrend  <0.0001  0.05  0.004  0.004  0.02  
BMI at age 18,a kg/m2           0.001 
 <18.5 373 1.10 (0.98–1.25) 136 0.83 (0.68–1.01) 52 1.77 (1.24–2.53) 52 1.35 (0.96–1.90) 20 2.00 (1.11–3.61)  
 18.5–20.0 593 1.05 (0.95–1.16) 258 0.95 (0.81–1.11) 84 1.75 (1.28–2.38) 93 1.46 (1.10–1.94) 22 1.37 (0.78–2.42)  
 20–21.9 922 1.0 (reference) 419 1.00 (reference) 79 1.00 (reference) 101 1.00 (reference) 27 1.00 (reference)  
 22.0–24.9 492 0.89 (0.79–0.99) 223 0.88 (0.74–1.03) 47 0.96 (0.67–1.38) 79 1.29 (0.96–1.73) 25 1.51 (0.87–2.60)  
 ≥25 205 0.79 (0.68–0.92) 82 0.69 (0.54–0.87) 11 0.48 (0.26–0.91) 17 0.61 (0.36–1.02) 1.11 (0.52–2.38)  
 HR per 1 kg/m2 increase 2,585 0.96 (0.95–0.98) 1,118 0.98 (0.96–1.00) 201 0.88 (0.83–0.92) 342 0.94 (0.90–0.98) 103 0.95 (0.88–1.02)  
  Ptrend  <0.0001  0.10  <0.0001  0.008  0.29  
Luminal ALuminal BHER2-enrichedBasal-likeUnclassified
CasesHR (95% CI)CasesHR (95% CI)CasesHR (95% CI)CasesHR (95% CI)CasesHR (95% CI)Pheterogeneity
Height,a,b in           0.78 
 ≤62 539 1.00 (reference) 243 1.00 (reference) 71 1.00 (reference) 71 1.00 (reference) 20 1.00 (reference)  
 63 342 1.19 (1.04–1.37) 137 1.00 (0.81–1.24) 32 0.94 (0.62–1.43) 44 1.17 (0.80–1.71) 17 1.67 (0.87–3.20)  
 64 515 1.32 (1.17–1.50) 234 1.21 (1.00–1.45) 39 0.85 (0.57–1.27) 76 1.50 (1.08–2.09) 19 1.38 (0.73–2.60)  
 65 450 1.41 (1.24–1.60) 167 1.05 (0.86–1.29) 52 1.41 (0.97–2.05) 61 1.47 (1.04–2.09) 16 1.38 (0.70–2.70)  
 66 452 1.45 (1.27–1.65) 198 1.20 (0.99–1.46) 56 1.65 (1.14–2.39) 63 1.58 (1.11–2.25) 25 2.20 (1.19–4.08)  
 ≥67 685 1.52 (1.34–1.73) 302 1.19 (0.98–1.43) 68 1.48 (1.02–2.15) 93 1.59 (1.13–2.24) 31 2.00 (1.08–3.70)  
 HR per 1-inch increase 2,983 1.07 (1.05–1.08) 1,281 1.02 (1.00–1.05) 318 1.08 (1.02–1.13) 408 1.07 (1.02–1.11) 128 1.10 (1.02–1.19)  
  Ptrend  <0.0001  0.05  0.004  0.004  0.02  
BMI at age 18,a kg/m2           0.001 
 <18.5 373 1.10 (0.98–1.25) 136 0.83 (0.68–1.01) 52 1.77 (1.24–2.53) 52 1.35 (0.96–1.90) 20 2.00 (1.11–3.61)  
 18.5–20.0 593 1.05 (0.95–1.16) 258 0.95 (0.81–1.11) 84 1.75 (1.28–2.38) 93 1.46 (1.10–1.94) 22 1.37 (0.78–2.42)  
 20–21.9 922 1.0 (reference) 419 1.00 (reference) 79 1.00 (reference) 101 1.00 (reference) 27 1.00 (reference)  
 22.0–24.9 492 0.89 (0.79–0.99) 223 0.88 (0.74–1.03) 47 0.96 (0.67–1.38) 79 1.29 (0.96–1.73) 25 1.51 (0.87–2.60)  
 ≥25 205 0.79 (0.68–0.92) 82 0.69 (0.54–0.87) 11 0.48 (0.26–0.91) 17 0.61 (0.36–1.02) 1.11 (0.52–2.38)  
 HR per 1 kg/m2 increase 2,585 0.96 (0.95–0.98) 1,118 0.98 (0.96–1.00) 201 0.88 (0.83–0.92) 342 0.94 (0.90–0.98) 103 0.95 (0.88–1.02)  
  Ptrend  <0.0001  0.10  <0.0001  0.008  0.29  

aModels adjusted for age (months), time period, cohort, recent alcohol consumption (continuous), age at menarche (<12, 12, 13, 14, >14), age at menopause (years), menopausal status, and PMH use (premenopausal, postmenopausal-never PMH, postmenopausal-past PMH, postmenopausal-current PMH, postmenopausal – unknown PMH), birth index (cont), history of benign breast disease (yes/no), first-degree family history of breast cancer (yes/no), birth weight (<5.5, 5.5–6.9, 7–8.4, ≥8.5 lbs), weight at age 18 (kg), weight change since age 18 (kg), interaction between menopausal status and weight change since 18, and cumulative average physical activity (quintiles).

bModel for height also adjusted for weight at age 18 (in kg).

BMI at age 18 was inversely associated with all molecular subtypes, although associations were strongest for HER2-enriched and basal-like (Pheterogeneity = 0.001; Table 3). Compared with women with a BMI at age 18 or 20 to 21.9 kg/m2, those with a BMI at age 18 of ≥25 kg/m2 were between 52% (HER2-enriched; Ptrend < 0.0001) and 21% (luminal A; Ptrend < 0.0001) less likely to develop breast cancer. Each one unit increase in BMI at age 18 was associated with a 2% decrease in risk of luminal B tumors overall; however, this varied between those that overexpressed HER2 (3% per kg/m2) versus those that were high grade (no association; data not shown). Associations were generally stronger for pre- versus postmenopausal women, although we observed inverse associations in both groups (Supplementary Table S2).

Overall, we observed inverse associations between childhood (Pheterogeneity = 0.51) and adolescent (Pheterogeneity = 0.046) somatotype and most subtypes (Table 4). Compared with lowest category of childhood somatotype, risk reductions for women in the highest category ranged from 23% (luminal A) to 65% (basal-like). For adolescent somatotype, the same contrast was associated with from a 20% reduced risk for luminal A tumors up to a 71% decrease for HER2-enriched tumors. There was no association with unclassified tumors for either childhood or adolescent somatotype. Inverse associations were generally stronger for premenopausal women than postmenopausal women; however, there were small numbers of cases particularly for ER subtypes among premenopausal women (Supplementary Table S2).

Table 4.

Childhood and adolescent somatotype and risk of breast cancer according to molecular subtype, NHS and NHSII

Luminal ALuminal BHER2-EnrichedBasal-likeUnclassified
CasesHR (95% CI)CasesHR (95% CI)CasesHR (95% CI)CasesHR (95% CI)CasesHR (95% CI)Pheterogeneity
Childhooda,b           0.51 
 1 606 1.00 (reference) 283 1.00 (reference) 66 1.00 (reference) 84 1.00 (reference) 13 1.00 (reference)  
 1.5–2 632 1.00 (0.89–1.12) 284 0.93 (0.79–1.10) 69 1.04 (0.73–1.47) 69 0.74 (0.53–1.02) 16 1.45 (0.68–3.05)  
 2.5–3 360 0.75 (0.66–0.86) 206 0.89 (0.74–1.07) 44 0.89 (0.60–1.32) 57 0.82 (0.58–1.16) 0.84 (0.33–2.15)  
 3.5–4.5 315 0.79 (0.69–0.91) 153 0.78 (0.64–0.95) 23 0.55 (0.34–0.90) 32 0.54 (0.35–0.81) 0.88 (0.34–2.27)  
 ≥5 118 0.77 (0.63–0.94) 45 0.60 (0.44–0.83) 0.52 (0.26–1.09) 0.35 (0.17–0.74) 2.33 (0.90–6.06)  
 Per 1 unit increase 2,031 0.93 (0.87–0.96) 971 0.91 (0.86–0.96) 210 0.84 (0.74–0.94) 250 0.83 (0.74–0.92) 50 1.06 (0.86–1.31)  
  Ptrend  <0.0001  0.0003  0.003  0.0007  0.57  
Adolescenta,c           0.046 
 1 198 1.00 (reference) 90 1.00 (reference) 21 1.00 (reference) 23 1.00 (reference) 1.00 (reference)  
 1.5–2 660 1.00 (0.85–1.18) 322 1.02 (0.81–1.29) 84 1.21 (0.75–1.97) 87 1.06 (0.66–1.68) 0.24 (0.08–0.71)  
 2.5–3 607 0.90 (0.76–1.06) 299 0.91 (0.72–1.16) 64 0.89 (0.54–1.47) 80 0.93 (0.57–1.49) 15 0.69 (0.28–1.67)  
 3.5–4.5 461 0.83 (0.69–0.98) 220 0.80 (0.62–1.03) 37 0.64 (0.67–1.10) 53 0.73 (0.44–1.21) 15 0.80 (0.32–1.96)  
 ≥5 105 0.80 (0.62–1.01) 40 0.60 (0.41–0.88) 0.29 (0.10–0.85) 0.40 (0.17–0.95) 1.08 (0.36–3.25)  
 Per 1 unit increase 2,031 0.93 (0.89–0.97) 971 0.88 (0.83–0.93) 210 0.79 (0.70–0.90) 250 0.82 (0.73–0.92) 50 1.12 (0.89–1.40)  
  Ptrend  0.0002  <0.0001  0.0005  0.0008  0.33  
Luminal ALuminal BHER2-EnrichedBasal-likeUnclassified
CasesHR (95% CI)CasesHR (95% CI)CasesHR (95% CI)CasesHR (95% CI)CasesHR (95% CI)Pheterogeneity
Childhooda,b           0.51 
 1 606 1.00 (reference) 283 1.00 (reference) 66 1.00 (reference) 84 1.00 (reference) 13 1.00 (reference)  
 1.5–2 632 1.00 (0.89–1.12) 284 0.93 (0.79–1.10) 69 1.04 (0.73–1.47) 69 0.74 (0.53–1.02) 16 1.45 (0.68–3.05)  
 2.5–3 360 0.75 (0.66–0.86) 206 0.89 (0.74–1.07) 44 0.89 (0.60–1.32) 57 0.82 (0.58–1.16) 0.84 (0.33–2.15)  
 3.5–4.5 315 0.79 (0.69–0.91) 153 0.78 (0.64–0.95) 23 0.55 (0.34–0.90) 32 0.54 (0.35–0.81) 0.88 (0.34–2.27)  
 ≥5 118 0.77 (0.63–0.94) 45 0.60 (0.44–0.83) 0.52 (0.26–1.09) 0.35 (0.17–0.74) 2.33 (0.90–6.06)  
 Per 1 unit increase 2,031 0.93 (0.87–0.96) 971 0.91 (0.86–0.96) 210 0.84 (0.74–0.94) 250 0.83 (0.74–0.92) 50 1.06 (0.86–1.31)  
  Ptrend  <0.0001  0.0003  0.003  0.0007  0.57  
Adolescenta,c           0.046 
 1 198 1.00 (reference) 90 1.00 (reference) 21 1.00 (reference) 23 1.00 (reference) 1.00 (reference)  
 1.5–2 660 1.00 (0.85–1.18) 322 1.02 (0.81–1.29) 84 1.21 (0.75–1.97) 87 1.06 (0.66–1.68) 0.24 (0.08–0.71)  
 2.5–3 607 0.90 (0.76–1.06) 299 0.91 (0.72–1.16) 64 0.89 (0.54–1.47) 80 0.93 (0.57–1.49) 15 0.69 (0.28–1.67)  
 3.5–4.5 461 0.83 (0.69–0.98) 220 0.80 (0.62–1.03) 37 0.64 (0.67–1.10) 53 0.73 (0.44–1.21) 15 0.80 (0.32–1.96)  
 ≥5 105 0.80 (0.62–1.01) 40 0.60 (0.41–0.88) 0.29 (0.10–0.85) 0.40 (0.17–0.95) 1.08 (0.36–3.25)  
 Per 1 unit increase 2,031 0.93 (0.89–0.97) 971 0.88 (0.83–0.93) 210 0.79 (0.70–0.90) 250 0.82 (0.73–0.92) 50 1.12 (0.89–1.40)  
  Ptrend  0.0002  <0.0001  0.0005  0.0008  0.33  

aAll estimates are adjusted for age (months), time period, cohort, recent alcohol consumption (0, 0.1–1.4, 1.5–4.9, 5.0–9.9, ≥10 g/d), age at menarche (<12, 12, 13, 14, >14), age at menopause (years), height (inches), menopausal status and PMH use (premenopausal, postmenopausal-never PMH, postmenopausal-past PMH, postmenopausal-current PMH, postmenopausal – unknown PMH), birth index (control), oral contraceptive duration (years), history of benign breast disease (yes/no), first-degree family history of breast cancer (yes/no), birth weight (<5.5, 5.5–6.9, 7–8.4, ≥8.5 lbs), weight change since age 18 (kg), interaction between menopausal status and weight change since 18, cumulative average physical activity (quintiles).

bAverage of somatotype at ages 5 and 10.

cAverage of somatotype at ages 10 and 20.

In this prospective pooled analysis of two large cohorts, we observed significant positive associations between adult height and risk of all breast cancer subtypes and inverse associations between BMI at age 18 and childhood and adolescent somatotype and risk of most subtypes. We observed heterogeneity in associations across subtypes for BMI at age 18 and adolescent somatotype. For BMI at age 18, there was a strong inverse association for HER2-enriched and basal-like tumors. The strongest inverse associations with body fatness in adolescence were observed among HER2-enriched, basal-like, and, to a lesser extent, luminal B tumors. In addition to differences by subtype, we also found that compared with postmenopausal women, associations were similar, but generally stronger among premenopausal women.

Consistent with previous studies, we found that greater adult height was associated with an increased risk of luminal tumors, but we also observed strong positive associations between height and risk of HER2-enriched, basal-like, and unclassified tumors, which has not been consistently seen in other studies (6, 7). A recent meta-analysis of 159 prospective cohorts that included 5,216,302 women and 9,732 breast cancer cases with known ER status, found a positive association between height and risk of ER+ tumors (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.13–1.23 per 10-cm increase), but no association with ER tumors (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.86–1.14). Interestingly, when tumors were classified jointly by ER and PR status, there was a borderline significant association with ER/PR tumors (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.99–1.18; ref. 33). They also conducted a Mendelian randomization analysis using a genetic risk score derived from 168 height-associated variants and found strong positive associations with ER+ and ER+/PR+ tumors and no association with ER or ER/PR tumors. However, this study comes with several caveats. There was significant heterogeneity across studies overall (Pheterogeneity < .001, I2 = 61%) and ER status was only available on 8.7% (9,792 of 113,178) of cases. Importantly, determination of ER and PR status was based on pathology reports and cases were diagnosed over a wide period (late 1960s through 2000s) in many different countries. A major strength of our study is uniform staining and scoring of immunohistochemical markers. In addition, the genetic risk score used Zhang and colleagues' Mendelian randomization analysis only explained 10% of the variation in height among people of European ancestry. The authors do not draw conclusions regarding the association of height with breast cancer risk according to ER/PR status. Instead, they conclude that their results demonstrate that height is causally implicated in breast cancer etiology and that height and breast cancer share genetic risk variants (33).

We found stronger inverse associations between our adolescent and young adulthood body size measures and risk of HER2-enriched and basal-like tumors than with luminal tumors. We also found stronger inverse associations with luminal B tumors that overexpressed HER2 compared with those that were high grade. This builds upon previous work in our cohorts that found stronger inverse associations with ER tumors and a suggestion of stronger associations with tumors that overexpressed HER2 (1). Two other studies also found that the inverse association between childhood body size and breast cancer was strongest for triple-negative tumors and those that overexpressed HER2 (34). While associations have also been observed only among ER+/PR+ (2) or ER+/PR tumors (35); overall, the body of literature suggests that body size in early life may reduce risk of breast cancer in adulthood through sex hormone–dependent and -independent mechanisms. It was previously postulated that higher body fatness in early life may be associated with higher levels of estrogen which could induce early breast differentiation thereby making breast cells less susceptible to malignant transformation (36). However, in girls age 8–10, higher BMI was associated with higher levels of dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate and sex hormone–binding globulin; there was no difference in circulating levels of estrogen or progesterone (37). It is possible; however, that early life body size affects breast differentiation through a different mechanism.

There are several possible mechanisms through which height and early life body size may impact breast cancer risk. Greater body fatness in childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood may reflect slower growth and lower IGF1 levels, which are associated with lower breast cancer risk (38, 39). IGF1 regulates growth beginning in utero and throughout childhood and adolescence (40). It also induces endothelial growth factor, promotes tumor growth, and inhibits apoptosis (41). Genome-wide association studies have demonstrated that genes in the IGF signaling pathway are also associated with adult height (42, 43). Rapid growth in childhood and adolescence is associated with increased risk of breast cancer (39, 44), independent of adult height. In our data, childhood and adolescent somatotype were not associated with adult height, whereas there was a weak inverse association between height and BMI at age 18. Age at attained height was also not associated with breast cancer risk (45) in NHS. Women with higher birth weight and higher BMI at age 18 had lower circulating IGF1 levels in adulthood compared with women who were leaner at early ages (46). Body fatness during childhood and adolescence has also been associated with lower premenopausal breast density (47). Thus, height and body size in early life and young adulthood may reflect the concentration of growth factors during that phase of life, which then has long-term health effects via growth factors in adulthood and breast tissue composition.

This study's strengths include its large size, prospective design, detailed and repeated assessment of known breast cancer risk factors, long follow-up, and comprehensive case ascertainment. Although the somatotype pictogram and BMI at age 18 have been validated (26), the measures rely on participant recall, and there is potential for misclassification. The somatotype figure has also been criticized because, while it queries about body size in childhood and adolescence, the pictures presented are of adult women (48). Yet, because the analysis is prospective, any potential misclassification is likely to be nondifferential with respect to disease status and if anything leads to an underestimation of association. In addition, the somatotype figure has been consistently associated with breast cancer and other outcomes (49–51). It is also important to note that studies with measured height and weight in adolescence have also observed significant inverse associations, albeit of lesser magnitude (44). Small case numbers among the rare subtypes (e.g., HER2-enriched, basal-like, and unclassified) limited our power and introduced some instability in effect estimates. In the future, pooled studies should assess associations with these less common breast cancer subtypes. Our study population was predominately lean in childhood and young adulthood and white. The prevalence of overweight and obesity has increased over time, and the distribution of body size in this study is not representative of today's population (52). In addition, it is possible that the mechanisms for larger body size are different today than they were for earlier birth cohorts included in this analysis. Finally, it is important to study these associations in non-White populations where the distribution of both early life body size and molecular subtype is different than observed here (52, 53).

In conclusion, we found that height was positively associated with risk of all breast cancer molecular subtypes, whereas childhood and adolescent somatotype and BMI at age 18 were inversely associated with risk of most subtypes. Adolescent and young adult body sizes were more strongly associated with HER2-enriched and, to a lesser extent, basal-like tumors, than other subtypes. Despite the consistent inverse associations observed between early life body fatness, BMI at age 18, and breast cancer risk, there are many well-known negative health consequences of overweight and obesity throughout the life course. However, these results provide additional evidence of the importance of early life exposures in breast cancer etiology. The observed associations across molecular subtypes suggest that these factors act either through multiple pathways or through a common nonhormonal or HER2-driven pathway to influence breast cancer risk in adulthood.

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Conception and design: E.T. Warner, L.C. Collins, W.C. Willett, R.M. Tamimi

Development of methodology: E.T. Warner

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): A.H. Beck, S.J. Schnitt, K.B. Michels, W.C. Willett, R.M. Tamimi

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): E.T. Warner, R. Hu, L.C. Collins, S.J. Schnitt, B. Rosner, A.H. Eliassen, W.C. Willett, R.M. Tamimi

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: E.T. Warner, L.C. Collins, A.H. Beck, S.J. Schnitt, B. Rosner, A.H. Eliassen, K.B. Michels, W.C. Willett, R.M. Tamimi

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): E.T. Warner, R. Hu, A.H. Eliassen, R.M. Tamimi

Study supervision: E.T. Warner, R.M. Tamimi

We would like to thank the participants and staff of the Nurses' Health Study for their valuable contributions as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, WY. The authors assume full responsibility for analyses and interpretation of these data.

This project was supported National Cancer Institute (NCI) grants P01 CA87969 and UM1 CA186107 and UM1 CA176726. E.T. Warner was supported by National Cancer Institute grant K01 CA188075.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1.
Baer
HJ
,
Tworoger
SS
,
Hankinson
SE
,
Willett
WC
. 
Body fatness at young ages and risk of breast cancer throughout life
.
Am J Epidemiol
2010
;
171
:
1183
94
.
2.
Fagherazzi
G
,
Guillas
G
,
Boutron-Ruault
MC
,
Clavel-Chapelon
F
,
Mesrine
S
. 
Body shape throughout life and the risk for breast cancer at adulthood in the French E3N cohort
.
Eur J Cancer Prev
2013
;
22
:
29
.
3.
Engel
P
,
Fagherazzi
G
,
Boutten
A
,
Dupré
T
,
Mesrine
S
,
Boutron-Ruault
M-C
, et al
Serum 25 (OH) vitamin D and risk of breast cancer: a nested case-control study from the French E3N cohort
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2010
;
19
:
2341
50
.
4.
Sorlie
T
,
Perou
CM
,
Tibshirani
R
,
Aas
T
,
Geisler
S
,
Johnsen
H
, et al
Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci
2001
;
98
:
10869
.
5.
Kwan
ML
,
Kushi
LH
,
Weltzien
E
,
Maring
B
,
Kutner
SE
,
Fulton
RS
, et al
Epidemiology of breast cancer subtypes in two prospective cohort studies of breast cancer survivors
.
Breast Cancer Res
2009
;
11
:
R31
.
6.
Ritte
R
,
Lukanova
A
,
Tjønneland
A
,
Olsen
A
,
Overvad
K
,
Mesrine
S
, et al
Height, age at menarche and risk of hormone receptor-positive and -negative breast cancer: a cohort study
.
Int J Cancer
2013
;
132
:
2619
.
7.
Horn
J
,
Alsaker
MD
,
Opdahl
S
,
Engstrom
MJ
,
Tretli
S
,
Haugen
OA
, et al
Anthropometric factors and risk of molecular breast cancer subtypes among postmenopausal Norwegian women
.
Int J Cancer
2014
;
135
:
2678
.
8.
Engstrøm
MJ
,
Opdahl
S
,
Hagen
AI
,
Romundstad
PR
,
Akslen
LA
,
Haugen
OA
, et al
Molecular subtypes, histopathological grade and survival in a historic cohort of breast cancer patients
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2013
;
140
:
463
73
.
9.
Carey
LA
,
Perou
CM
,
Livasy
CA
,
Dressler
LG
,
Cowan
D
,
Conway
K
, et al
Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study
.
JAMA
2006
;
295
:
2492
.
10.
O'Brien
KM
,
Cole
SR
,
Tse
CK
,
Perou
CM
,
Carey
LA
,
Foulkes
WD
, et al
Intrinsic breast tumor subtypes, race, and long-term survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study
.
Clin Cancer Res
2010
;
16
:
6100
10
.
11.
Tamimi
RM
,
Colditz
GA
,
Hazra
A
,
Baer
HJ
,
Hankinson
SE
,
Rosner
B
, et al
Traditional breast cancer risk factors in relation to molecular subtypes of breast cancer
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2012
;
131
:
159
67
.
12.
Perou
CM
,
Sørlie
T
,
Eisen
MB
,
van de Rijn
M
,
Jeffrey
SS
,
Rees
CA
, et al
Molecular portraits of human breast tumours
.
Nature
2000
;
406
:
747
52
.
13.
Brenton
JD
,
Carey
LA
,
Ahmed
AA
,
Caldas
C
. 
Molecular classification and molecular forecasting of breast cancer: ready for clinical application?
J Clin Oncol
2005
;
23
:
7350
60
.
14.
Phipps
AI
,
Malone
KE
,
Porter
PL
,
Daling
JR
,
Li
CI
. 
Body size and risk of luminal, HER2-overexpressing, and triple-negative breast cancer in postmenopausal women
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2008
;
17
:
2078
.
15.
McGregor
H
,
Land
CE
,
Choi
K
,
Tokuoka
S
,
Liu
PI
,
Wakabayashi
T
, et al
Breast cancer incidence among atomic bomb survivors, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1950–69
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
1977
;
59
:
799
.
16.
Land
CE
,
Tokunaga
M
,
Koyama
K
,
Soda
M
,
Preston
DL
,
Nishimori
I
, et al
Incidence of female breast cancer among atomic bomb survivors, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1950–1990
.
Radiat Res
2003
;
160
:
707
17
.
17.
Colditz
GA
,
Rosner
BA
. 
What can be learnt from models of incidence rates?
Breast Cancer Res
2006
;
8
:
208
.
18.
Colditz
GA
,
Rosner
B
. 
Cumulative risk of breast cancer to age 70 years according to risk factor status: data from the Nurses' Health Study
.
Am J Epidemiol
2000
;
152
:
950
64
.
19.
Colditz
GA
,
Frazier
AL
. 
Models of breast cancer show that risk is set by events of early life: prevention efforts must shift focus
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
1995
;
4
:
567
71
.
20.
Dontu
G
,
Liu
S
,
Wicha
MS
. 
Stem cells in mammary development and carcinogenesis
.
Stem Cell Rev
2005
;
1
:
207
.
21.
Biro
FM
,
Deardorff
J
. 
Identifying opportunities for cancer prevention during preadolescence and adolescence: puberty as a window of susceptibility
.
J Adolesc Health
2013
;
52
:
S15
.
22.
Gelander
L
,
Blum
WF
,
Larsson
L
,
Rosberg
S
,
Albertsson-Wikland
K
. 
Monthly measurements of insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) and IGF-binding protein-3 in healthy prepubertal children: characterization and relationship with growth: the 1-year growth study
.
Pediatr Res
1999
;
45
:
377
.
23.
Troy
LM
,
Hunter
DJ
,
Manson
JE
,
Colditz
GA
,
Stampfer
MJ
,
Willett
WC
. 
The validity of recalled weight among younger women
.
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord
1995
;
19
:
570
.
24.
Koprowski
C
,
Coates
RJ
,
Bernstein
L
. 
Ability of young women to recall past body size and age at menarche
.
Obes Res
2001
;
9
:
478
.
25.
Stunkard
AJ
,
Sorensen
T
,
Schulsinger
F
. 
Use of the Danish Adoption Register for the study of obesity and thinness
.
Res Publ Assoc Res Nerv Ment Dis
1983
;
60
:
115
.
26.
Must
A
,
Willett
WC
,
Dietz
WH
. 
Remote recall of childhood height, weight, and body build by elderly subjects
.
Am J Epidemiol
1993
;
138
:
56
.
27.
Tamimi
RM
,
Baer
HJ
,
Marotti
J
,
Galan
M
,
Galaburda
L
,
Fu
Y
, et al
Comparison of molecular phenotypes of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer
.
Breast Cancer Res
2008
;
10
:
R67
.
28.
Collins
LC
,
Marotti
JD
,
Baer
HJ
,
Tamimi
RM
. 
Comparison of estrogen receptor results from pathology reports with results from central laboratory testing
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2008
;
100
:
218
.
29.
Wang
J
,
Zhang
X
,
Beck
AH
,
Collins
LC
,
Chen
WY
,
Tamimi
RM
, et al
Alcohol consumption and risk of breast cancer by tumor receptor expression
.
Horm Cancer
2015
;
6
:
237
46
.
30.
Lunn
M
,
McNeil
D
. 
Applying Cox regression to competing risks
.
Biometrics
1995
;
51
:
524
.
31.
Glynn
RJ
,
Rosner
B
. 
Comparison of risk factors for the competing risks of coronary heart disease, stroke, and venous thromboembolism
.
Am J Epidemiol
2005
;
162
:
975
.
32.
Glynn
RJ
,
Rosner
B
,
Christen
WG
. 
Evaluation of risk factors for cataract types in a competing risks framework
.
Ophthalmic Epidemiol
2009
;
16
:
98
.
33.
Zhang
B
,
Shu
XO
,
Delahanty
RJ
,
Zeng
C
,
Michailidou
K
,
Bolla
MK
, et al
Height and breast cancer risk: evidence from prospective studies and mendelian randomization
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2015
;
107
. pii: djv219.
34.
Eriksson
L
,
Czene
K
,
Rosenberg
L
,
Humphreys
K
,
Hall
P
. 
The influence of mammographic density on breast tumor characteristics
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2012
;
134
:
859
66
.
35.
Bardia
A
,
Vachon
CM
,
Olson
JE
,
Vierkant
RA
,
Wang
AH
,
Hartmann
LC
, et al
Relative weight at age 12 and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2008
;
17
:
374
.
36.
Hilakivi-Clarke
L
,
Forsen
T
,
Eriksson
JG
,
Luoto
R
,
Tuomilehto
J
,
Osmond
C
, et al
Tallness and overweight during childhood have opposing effects on breast cancer risk
.
Br J Cancer
2001
;
85
:
1680
.
37.
Baer
HJ
,
Colditz
GA
,
Willett
WC
,
Dorgan
JF
. 
Adiposity and sex hormones in girls
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2007
;
16
:
1880
.
38.
Key
TJ
,
Appleby
PN
,
Reeves
GK
,
Roddam
AW
. 
Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1), IGF binding protein 3 (IGFBP3), and breast cancer risk: pooled individual data analysis of 17 prospective studies
.
Lancet Oncol
2010
;
11
:
530
.
39.
Berkey
CS
,
Frazier
AL
,
Gardner
JD
,
Colditz
GA
. 
Adolescence and breast carcinoma risk
.
Cancer
1999
;
85
:
2400
.
40.
Rosenfeld
RG
. 
Insulin-like growth factors and the basis of growth
.
N Engl J Med
2003
;
349
:
2184
.
41.
Brosseau
C
,
Pirianov
G
,
Colston
KW
. 
Role of insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3 in 1, 25-dihydroxyvitamin-d 3 -induced breast cancer cell apoptosis
.
Int J Cell Biol
2013
;
2013
:
960378
.
42.
Okada
Y
,
Kamatani
Y
,
Takahashi
A
,
Matsuda
K
,
Hosono
N
,
Ohmiya
H
, et al
A genome-wide association study in 19 633 Japanese subjects identified LHX3-QSOX2 and IGF1 as adult height loci
.
Hum Mol Genet
2010
;
19
:
2303
.
43.
He
M
,
Xu
M
,
Zhang
B
,
Liang
J
,
Chen
P
,
Lee
JY
, et al
Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies of adult height in East Asians identifies 17 novel loci
.
Hum Mol Genet
2015
;
24
:
1791
.
44.
Ahlgren
M
,
Melbye
M
,
Wohlfahrt
J
,
Sørensen
TIA
. 
Growth patterns and the risk of breast cancer in women
.
N Engl J Med
2004
;
351
:
1619
.
45.
Baer
HJ
,
Rich-Edwards
JW
,
Colditz
GA
,
Hunter
DJ
,
Willett
WC
,
Michels
KB
. 
Adult height, age at attained height, and incidence of breast cancer in premenopausal women
.
Int J Cancer
2006
;
119
:
2231
.
46.
Poole
EM
,
Tworoger
SS
,
Hankinson
SE
,
Schernhammer
ES
,
Pollak
MN
,
Baer
HJ
. 
Body size in early life and adult levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 and insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3
.
Am J Epidemiol
2011
;
174
:
642
.
47.
Bertrand
KA
,
Baer
HJ
,
Orav
EJ
,
Klifa
C
,
Shepherd
JA
,
Van Horn
L
, et al
Body fatness during childhood and adolescence and breast density in young women: a prospective analysis
.
Breast Cancer Res
2015
;
17
:
1
.
48.
Magnusson
C
,
Roddam
AW
. 
Breast cancer and childhood anthropometry: emerging hypotheses
.
Breast Cancer Res
2005
;
7
:
83
.
49.
Vitonis
AF
,
Baer
HJ
,
Hankinson
SE
,
Laufer
MR
,
Missmer
SA
. 
A prospective study of body size during childhood and early adulthood and the incidence of endometriosis
.
Hum Reprod
2010
;
25
:
1325
.
50.
Nimptsch
K
,
Giovannucci
E
,
Willett
WC
,
Fuchs
CS
,
Wei
EK
,
Wu
K
. 
Body fatness during childhood and adolescence, adult height, and risk of colorectal adenoma in women
.
Cancer Prev Res
2011
;
4
:
1710
.
51.
Bertrand
KA
,
Giovannucci
E
,
Zhang
SM
,
Laden
F
,
Rosner
B
,
Birmann
BM
. 
A prospective analysis of body size during childhood, adolescence, and adulthood and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma
.
Cancer Prev Res
2013
;
6
:
864
.
52.
Ogden
CL
,
Carroll
MD
,
Lawman
HG
,
Fryar
CD
,
Kruszon-Moran
D
,
Kit
BK
, et al
Trends in obesity prevalence among children and adolescents in the United States, 1988–1994 through 2013–2014
.
JAMA
2016
;
315
:
2292
9
.
53.
John
EM
,
Sangaramoorthy
M
,
Hines
LM
,
Stern
MC
,
Baumgartner
KB
,
Giuliano
AR
, et al
Body size throughout adult life influences postmenopausal breast cancer risk among hispanic women: the breast cancer health disparities study
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2015
;
24
:
128
37
.