The effect of classic breast cancer risk factors on hormone receptor-defined breast cancer is not fully clarified. We explored these associations in a Swedish population-based study. Postmenopausal women ages 50 to 74 years, diagnosed with invasive breast cancer during 1993 to 1995, were compared with 3,065 age frequency-matched controls. We identified 332 estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) negative, 286 ER+PR, 71 ERPR+, 1,165 ER+PR+, and 789 tumors with unknown receptor status. Unconditional logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Women ages ≥30 years, compared with those ages 20 to 24 years at first birth, were at an increased risk of ER+PR+ tumors (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8) but not ERPR tumors (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8-1.6). Women who gained ≥30 kg in weight during adulthood had an ∼3-fold increased relative risk of ER+PR+ tumors (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.9-3.8), but no risk increase of ERPR tumors (OR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.5-2.1), compared with women who gained <10 kg. Compared with never users, women who used menopausal estrogen-progestin therapy for at least 5 years were at increased risk of ER+PR+ tumors (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 2.1-4.1) but not ERPR tumors (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.7-2.5). In conclusion, other risk factors were similarly related to breast cancer regardless of receptor status, but high age at first birth, substantial weight gain in adult age, and use of menopausal estrogen-progestin therapy were more strongly related to receptor-positive breast cancer than receptor-negative breast cancer. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(12):2482–8)

Exposure to ovarian hormones throughout life, probably even before birth, affects the risk of developing breast cancer (1). Early menarche and late menopause, as well as high endogenous levels of estrogens, increase the risk of breast cancer (1). Estrogen and progesterone most likely induce breast cancer by increasing cell proliferation as well as through genotoxicity (2). Both hormones act via nuclear receptors. More recently, estrogen receptors (ER) have been found also in the plasma membrane and in mitochondria, so the mechanisms of the receptors seem complex and are far from fully understood yet (2). It has been suggested that some breast cancer risk factors, especially reproductive factors and postmenopausal obesity, are associated mainly with ER+ and progesterone receptor-positive (PR+) tumors (3). Still, little is established about the etiology of receptor-defined breast cancer, and few reports exist where ER and PR status are considered jointly (3). Clarifying whether risk factors are associated with certain types of receptor-defined breast cancer will help us to understand the biological mechanisms behind breast carcinogenesis. We here report results on the relationships between reproductive, anthropometric, and various other breast cancer risk factors as well as menopausal hormone therapy and the risk of breast cancer according to joint receptor status, from a large population-based Swedish case-control study among postmenopausal women.

Subjects

This study is an extension of a case-control study that we have reported on previously (4) The study base consisted of all native Swedish female residents ages 50 to 74 years, surveyed between October 1, 1993 and March 31, 1995 (5). The investigation was approved by the ethical review board at the Karolinska Institutet and by the five ethical review boards in other regions in Sweden. Women with incident primary invasive breast cancer were identified via the six Swedish Regional Cancer Registries and contacted via their doctors. Of the 3,979 case women identified, 3,345 (84%) participated in the study. Nonparticipation was mainly due to doctor's refusal because of the patient's poor health or the patient's refusal. The mean interval from diagnosis to data collection was 4.3 months (SD, 1.5 months). As controls, 4,188 age frequency-matched women were randomly selected from the Swedish National Population Register holding data on national registration number, name, address, and place of birth of all Swedish residents. The participation rate among controls was 82% (3,455 of 4,188). Women diagnosed previously with invasive cancer (other than nonmelanoma skin cancer) were excluded from the study (112 cases and 91 controls). Menopause was defined as the age at last menstrual period or age at bilateral oophorectomy, if 1 year or more before data collection. Premenopausal women (198 cases and 152 controls) as well as women below the age of 55 years with unknown age at menopause (202 cases and 101 controls) were excluded.

We retrieved information on hormone receptor status, various other tumor characteristics, and detection mode (mammography screening or other) from medical records of all participating cases. Following a decision of the Ethical Review Board of the University of Lund, written informed consent to retrieve this information was sought from cases in that region (n = 563), among whom 58 women did not provide informed consent.

Information from the medical records led us to further exclude 58 cases with noninvasive breast cancer, 35 cases with previous cancer, 1 case with a cancer diagnosis other than breast cancer, and 19 cases diagnosed before or after the study period. Women with missing information on body mass index (BMI; 14 cases and 45 controls) or age at first birth (5 cases and 1 control) were excluded from the study. Thus, the final analytic sample comprised 2,643 cases and 3,065 controls.

Data Collection

Data on sociodemographic, anthropometric, reproductive, and menstrual factors, use of oral contraceptives, medical history, lifetime physical activity, and smoking habits, as well as recent (1 year before data collection) dietary habits and alcohol use were collected by means of a postal questionnaire. Detailed information on use of menopausal hormone therapy, including timing and type for each treatment episode, was also requested. A color chart displaying all preparations ever marketed in Sweden was included with the questionnaire to aid recall. In addition, ∼50% of both cases and controls were contacted by telephone to complete missing or ambiguous responses, mainly on the use of menopausal hormone therapy. Of all eligible controls, 14% did not return the questionnaire but agreed to a telephone interview covering the most important items, including use of menopausal hormone therapy.

ER and PR

ER and PR content of breast tumors were routinely measured in Sweden at the time of the study but was often not done on tumors ≤1 cm in size due to lack of tumor tissue. Receptor analyses were usually done at one particular laboratory within each region. All seven laboratories in Sweden analyzing ER and PR content used an enzyme immunoassay (Abbott Laboratories) on cytosol samples. The method used for assessing ER content was ERα specific (6). Three laboratories reported amount of receptor per microgram DNA, three laboratories reported amount of receptor per milligram protein, and one laboratory reported both. Quantitative receptor content was available for 67% of the tumors for both ER and PR. Solely qualitative receptor status (strongly positive, positive, weakly positive, or negative) was obtained in 4% and 3% of the tumors, for ER and PR, respectively. We defined receptor-positive tumors as ≥0.05 fmol receptor/μg DNA or ≥10 fmol receptor/mg protein. For the laboratory reporting both analyses, the proportion of receptor-positive tumors was most similar to the proportion among the other laboratories when measured as amount of receptor per microgram DNA. Hence, we used these values. Tumors with qualitative information were defined as receptor negative if they were classified as negative, otherwise as receptor positive.

Statistical Analyses

We used χ2 tests to evaluate the statistical significance of associations between missing receptor status information, or receptor status category, and categorical variables, such as age group and various tumor characteristics.

We used unconditional logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (OR) with associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) separately for each receptor-defined group and for undefined tumors compared with controls. To formally test heterogeneity, whether effect estimates were similar between ER+PR+ and ERPR tumors, we fitted adjusted case-case models and estimated the tests for association. As missing receptor status was associated with tumor size, tumor size was included as a covariate in the heterogeneity models. We report P values from Wald statistics for the heterogeneity. To test whether the observed heterogeneities in the associations between risk factors and ERPR or ER+PR+ tumors could be due to earlier detection of ER+PR+ tumors compared with ERPR tumors, we did models additionally, including detection mode and lymph node involvement, but these covariates did not influence the estimates and were not included in the final heterogeneity models.

We adjusted all estimates for age and assessed the potential confounding effects of a variety of other risk factors, including number of births, age at first birth, age at menopause, bilateral oophorectomy, menopausal symptoms, recent BMI, height, socioeconomic status, recent smoking, recent alcohol intake, and ever use of estrogen-progestin therapy. Factors were defined as confounders and included in the final models when adjustment introduced a change of age-adjusted point estimates >10%.

To assure accurate classification of age at menopause and avoid confounding, we restricted the analyses of age at menopause to women with known age at menopause that had not used menopausal hormone therapy before menopause. The influence of recent BMI (kg/m2) as well as weight gain from age 18 to 1 year before data collection was evaluated among never users of menopausal hormone therapy as the association between body fatness and breast cancer risk seems to be confined to this group (4). Alcohol has been reported to interact with menopausal hormone therapy to increase the risk of certain groups of receptor-defined breast cancer (7, 8), so we stratified the analyses of alcohol use according to ever or never use of estrogen ± progestin. We included alcohol use, menopausal hormone therapy use, and an interaction term in a model for each receptor-defined group compared with controls to test for interaction. Tumors detected through the national mammography screening program or through other health check-ups (mostly due to menopausal hormone therapy or employment related) were defined as screening detected and other tumors as nonscreening detected.

We categorized menopausal hormone therapy into four types: estrogen alone (mainly estradiol and to a lesser extent conjugated estrogens), use of estrogen-progestin (mainly estradiol combined sequentially or continuously with levonorgestrel or norethisterone acetate), use of orally administered estriol, or local estrogen treatment. Use of only one type of therapy was defined as exclusive use. We explored the influence of all use as well as exclusive use of each type of therapy. Exclusive use was evaluated as ever use, as well as by duration (<5 or ≥5 years) and recency of use (current use defined as last use <6 months before reference date and past use as last use >6 months before reference date). All use of each type was only assessed as ever and current use, as the estimates for past use and duration of use could be severely influenced by the other therapies. Exposure to hormone therapy after a reference date (defined in cases as date of diagnosis minus 3 months; in controls as the date of questionnaire arrival minus mean time from diagnosis to questionnaire arrival in cases, minus an additional 3 months), was censored.

Overall, we had information on joint ERPR status for 1,854 (70%) of all cases. The cases with missing information on receptor status had smaller tumors, less lymph node involvement, a higher proportion of low-grade tumors, higher proportion of histologies other than ductal or lobular, more screening-detected tumors, and lower socioeconomic status (Table 1). However, all differences, except for socioeconomic status, were explained by tumor size (data not shown).

Table 1.

Characteristics of breast cancer cases by joint ER and PR status

Unknown receptor status
Known receptor status
ERPR
ER+PR
ERPR+
ER+PR+
n (%)*n (%) *n (%)n (%)n (%)n (%)
 789 (30) 1,854 (70) 332 (18) 286 (15) 71 (4) 1165 (63) 
Age at diagnosis (y)       
    50-54 64 (24) 199 (76) 50 (25) 22 (11) 16 (8) 111 (56) 
    55-59 182 (30) 416 (70) 80 (19) 59 (14) 15 (4) 262 (63) 
    60-64 160 (29) 388 (71) 68 (18) 53 (14) 13 (3) 254 (65) 
    65-69 204 (31) 463 (69) 74 (16) 76 (16) 15 (3) 298 (64) 
    70-74 179 (32) 388 (68) 60 (15) 76 (20) 12 (3) 240 (62) 
    P values, χ2 0.29  0.0033    
Tumor size (mm)       
    ≤10 387 (54) 334 (46) 52 (16) 43 (13) 10 (3) 229 (69) 
    11-20 264 (23) 881 (77) 129 (15) 143 (16) 37 (4) 572 (65) 
    21-50 109 (15) 577 (84) 129 (22) 89 (15) 20 (3) 339 (59) 
    >50 13 (19) 55 (81) 22 (40) 7 (13) 3 (5) 23 (42) 
    Missing 16 
    P values, χ2 <0.0001  <0.0001    
Involved lymph nodes       
    0 588 (34) 1,149 (66) 189 (16) 170 (15) 42 (4) 748 (65) 
    1-3 118 (22) 425 (78) 75 (18) 68 (16) 15 (4) 267 (63) 
    >3 38 (14) 231 (86) 61 (26) 33 (14) 14 (6) 123 (53) 
    Missing 45 49 15 27 
    P values, χ2 <0.0001  0.0054    
Grade, differentiation       
    Well 100 (37) 170 (63) 13 (8) 20 (12) 7 (4) 130 (76) 
    Moderate 171 (23) 565 (77) 67 (12) 80 (14) 15 (3) 403 (71) 
    Poor 164 (22) 596 (78) 166 (28) 95 (16) 22 (4) 313 (53) 
    Missing 354 523 86 91 27 319 
    P values, χ2 <0.0001  <0.0001    
Histology       
    Ductal 548 (29) 1,340 (71) 256 (19) 202 (15) 46 (3) 836 (62) 
    Lobular 77 (25) 231 (75) 19 (8) 41 (18) 10 (4) 161 (70) 
    Other 140 (34) 271 (66) 53 (20) 41 (15) 14 (5) 163 (60) 
    Missing 24 12 
    P values, χ2 0.026  0.0048    
Screening detection       
    Yes 496 (33) 990 (67) 135 (14) 152 (15) 41 (4) 662 (67) 
    No 268 (24) 854 (76) 194 (23) 131 (15) 30 (4) 499 (58) 
    Missing 25 10 
    P values, χ2 <0.0001  <0.0001    
Socioeconomic status       
    Low 421 (32) 907 (68) 158 (17) 135 (15) 38 (4) 576 (64) 
    High 362 (28) 936 (72) 172 (18) 148 (16) 33 (4) 583 (62) 
    Missing 11 
    P values, χ2 0.033  0.77    
Unknown receptor status
Known receptor status
ERPR
ER+PR
ERPR+
ER+PR+
n (%)*n (%) *n (%)n (%)n (%)n (%)
 789 (30) 1,854 (70) 332 (18) 286 (15) 71 (4) 1165 (63) 
Age at diagnosis (y)       
    50-54 64 (24) 199 (76) 50 (25) 22 (11) 16 (8) 111 (56) 
    55-59 182 (30) 416 (70) 80 (19) 59 (14) 15 (4) 262 (63) 
    60-64 160 (29) 388 (71) 68 (18) 53 (14) 13 (3) 254 (65) 
    65-69 204 (31) 463 (69) 74 (16) 76 (16) 15 (3) 298 (64) 
    70-74 179 (32) 388 (68) 60 (15) 76 (20) 12 (3) 240 (62) 
    P values, χ2 0.29  0.0033    
Tumor size (mm)       
    ≤10 387 (54) 334 (46) 52 (16) 43 (13) 10 (3) 229 (69) 
    11-20 264 (23) 881 (77) 129 (15) 143 (16) 37 (4) 572 (65) 
    21-50 109 (15) 577 (84) 129 (22) 89 (15) 20 (3) 339 (59) 
    >50 13 (19) 55 (81) 22 (40) 7 (13) 3 (5) 23 (42) 
    Missing 16 
    P values, χ2 <0.0001  <0.0001    
Involved lymph nodes       
    0 588 (34) 1,149 (66) 189 (16) 170 (15) 42 (4) 748 (65) 
    1-3 118 (22) 425 (78) 75 (18) 68 (16) 15 (4) 267 (63) 
    >3 38 (14) 231 (86) 61 (26) 33 (14) 14 (6) 123 (53) 
    Missing 45 49 15 27 
    P values, χ2 <0.0001  0.0054    
Grade, differentiation       
    Well 100 (37) 170 (63) 13 (8) 20 (12) 7 (4) 130 (76) 
    Moderate 171 (23) 565 (77) 67 (12) 80 (14) 15 (3) 403 (71) 
    Poor 164 (22) 596 (78) 166 (28) 95 (16) 22 (4) 313 (53) 
    Missing 354 523 86 91 27 319 
    P values, χ2 <0.0001  <0.0001    
Histology       
    Ductal 548 (29) 1,340 (71) 256 (19) 202 (15) 46 (3) 836 (62) 
    Lobular 77 (25) 231 (75) 19 (8) 41 (18) 10 (4) 161 (70) 
    Other 140 (34) 271 (66) 53 (20) 41 (15) 14 (5) 163 (60) 
    Missing 24 12 
    P values, χ2 0.026  0.0048    
Screening detection       
    Yes 496 (33) 990 (67) 135 (14) 152 (15) 41 (4) 662 (67) 
    No 268 (24) 854 (76) 194 (23) 131 (15) 30 (4) 499 (58) 
    Missing 25 10 
    P values, χ2 <0.0001  <0.0001    
Socioeconomic status       
    Low 421 (32) 907 (68) 158 (17) 135 (15) 38 (4) 576 (64) 
    High 362 (28) 936 (72) 172 (18) 148 (16) 33 (4) 583 (62) 
    Missing 11 
    P values, χ2 0.033  0.77    
*

Denominator includes all cases.

Denominator includes only receptor-defined cases.

Low level includes blue-collar workers and low-level white-collar workers, whereas high level includes all other categories.

Among tumors with known receptor status, 332 (18%) were ERPR, 286 (15%) were ER+PR, 71 (4%) were ERPR+, and 1,165 (63%) were ER+PR+ (Table 1). Receptor status varied significantly with age, tumor characteristics, and mode of detection but not with socioeconomic status. Tumors in women ages 50 to 54 years at diagnosis were less often ER+PR+ than those in older women. The fraction of ER+PR+ tumors decreased, and ERPR increased, with increasing tumor size, lymph node involvement, and grade. Lobular tumors were more likely to be ER+PR+ than tumors of other histologic types. ER+PR+ tumors were more common among screening detected tumors than among those clinically detected.

Risk of Receptor-Defined Breast Cancer according to Endogenous Factors

Age at first birth seemed more strongly associated with the two ER+ groups (P = 0.059 for heterogeneity between ER+PR+ and ERPR; Table 2). Women who were at least 170 cm tall were at a significantly increased risk of ER+, but not ER, tumors compared with women who were shorter than 160 cm, but with no signs of significant heterogeneity. Women in the highest quintile of BMI (≥28.3 kg/m2) were at increased risk for all tumor types, except ER+PR tumors. Women who gained ≥30 kg in weight during adulthood had an ∼3-fold increased relative risk of ER+PR+ tumors (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.9-3.8) compared with women who gained <10 kg. This difference was, however, only apparent in the highest weight gain category (P overall heterogeneity, 0.064), and tumors with unknown receptor status were not associated with the largest weight gain. Weight gain in adult age seemed more strongly associated with the two PR+ groups compared with the two PR groups. The other endogenous risk factors seemed similarly associated with the different receptor-defined tumor groups (Table 2).

Table 2.

Endogenous factors and risk for breast cancer defined by joint ER and PR status

Control group
ERPR
ER+PR
ERPR+
ER+PR+
Unknown ERPR
P, Wald (df)*
nnOR (95% CI)nOR (95% CI)nOR (95% CI)nOR (95% CI)nOR (95% CI)
Parous             
    No 348 42 1.0 (Ref) 47 1.0 (Ref) 1.0 (Ref) 173 1.0 (Ref) 140 1.0 (Ref) 0.31 (1) 
    Yes 2,717 290 0.8 (0.6-1.2) 239 0.7 (0.5-0.9) 65 1.4 (0.6-3.2) 992 0.7 (0.6-0.9) 649 0.6 (0.5-0.7)  
Age at first birth (y)§             
    <20 311 24 0.7 (0.4-1.1) 13 0.5 (0.3-1.0) 1.0 (0.5-2.3) 93 0.9 (0.7-1.2) 69 1.1 (0.8-1.5)  
    20-24 1,164 129 1.0 (Ref) 98 1.0 (Ref) 29 1.0 (Ref) 369 1.0 (Ref) 239 1.0 (Ref) 0.059 (3) 
    25-29 858 83 0.8 (0.6-1.1) 80 1.0 (0.8-1.4) 20 0.9 (0.5-1.6) 340 1.2 (1.0-1.4) 218 1.2 (0.9-1.4)  
    ≥30 384 54 1.1 (0.8-1.6) 48 1.2 (0.8-1.8) 1.0 (0.4-2.2) 190 1.5 (1.2-1.8) 123 1.4 (1.1-1.8)  
No. births             
    1 573 81 1.0 (Ref) 70 1.0 (Ref) 1.0 (Ref) 247 1.0 (Ref) 161 1.0 (Ref) 0.37 (3) 
    2 1,099 129 0.8 (0.6-1.1) 98 0.8 (0.6-1.1) 30 1.6 (0.8-3.6) 435 0.9 (0.8-1.1) 302 1.0 (0.8-1.3)  
    3 653 56 0.6 (0.4-0.9) 55 0.8 (0.5-1.1) 21 1.9 (0.8-4.4)* 213 0.8 (0.7-1.0) 125 0.7 (0.5-0.9)  
    ≥4 392 24 0.5 (0.3-0.8) 16 0.4 (0.2-0.7) 0.8 (0.3-2.5) 97 0.7 (0.5-0.9) 61 0.6 (0.4-0.9)  
Age at menarche (y)             
    <12 166 27 1.5 (1.0-2.4) 14 0.9 (0.5-1.7) 10 2.3 (1.1-5.0) 83 1.2 (0.9-1.7) 52 1.2 (0.8-1.7)  
    12-13 1,187 120 1.0 (Ref) 113 1.0 (Ref) 28 1.0 (Ref) 454 1.0 (Ref) 305 1.0 (Ref) 0.56 (3) 
    14-15 1,200 129 1.1 (0.9-1.5) 123 1.1 (0.8-1.4) 24 0.9 (0.5-1.6) 429 1.0 (0.9-1.2) 315 1.1 (0.9-1.3)  
    ≥16 241 23 1.0 (0.6-1.7) 15 0.6 (0.4-1.1) 0.8 (0.3-2.3) 80 0.9 (0.7-1.2) 51 0.9 (0.6-1.2)  
Age at menopause (y)             
    <45 332 31 0.9 (0.6-1.3) 18 0.5 (0.3-0.8) 0.6 (0.2-1.7) 79 0.6 (0.5-0.8) 61 0.6 (0.5-0.9)  
    45-49 670 77 1.1 (0.8-1.5) 50 0.7 (0.5-0.9) 15 0.9 (0.5-1.8) 228 0.9 (0.7-1.1) 164 0.9 (0.7-1.1) 0.34 (3) 
    50-54 1,261 132 1.0 (Ref) 139 1.0 (Ref) 28 1.0 (Ref) 480 1.0 (Ref) 342 1.0 (Ref)  
    ≥55 283 31 1.1 (0.8-1.7) 28 0.9 (0.6-1.4) 1.3 (0.6-3.1) 110 1.0 (0.8-1.3) 65 0.8 (0.6-1.2)  
Height (cm)             
    <160 675 67 1.0 (Ref) 55 1.0 (Ref) 13 1.0 (Ref) 224 1.0 (Ref) 140 1.0 (Ref) 0.18 (3) 
    160-164 1,035 104 1.0 (0.7-1.4) 99 1.2 (0.8-1.7) 28 1.4 (0.7-2.7) 356 1.0 (0.9-1.3) 266 1.3 (1.0-1.6)  
    165-169 900 108 1.1 (0.8-1.6) 78 1.0 (0.7-1.5) 16 0.8 (0.4-1.8) 347 1.2 (1.0-1.4) 239 1.3 (1.0-1.6)  
    ≥170 455 53 1.1 (0.7-1.6) 54 1.4 (1.0-2.1) 14 1.5 (0.7-3.2) 238 1.5 (1.2-1.9) 144 1.5 (1.1-1.9)  
Recent BMI (kg/m2)             
    <22.2 477 35 1.0 (Ref) 45 1.0 (Ref) 1.0 (Ref) 105 1.0 (Ref) 79 1.0 (Ref) 0.48 (4) 
    22.2-24.0 463 41 1.3 (0.8-2.0) 35 0.8 (0.5-1.3) 0.3 (0.1-1.5) 128 1.3 (1.0-1.7) 104 1.4 (1.0-2.0)  
    24.1-25.8 480 45 1.4 (0.9-2.2) 40 0.9 (0.6-1.5) 11 1.7 (0.7-4.5) 135 1.3 (1.0-1.8) 98 1.3 (0.9-1.8)  
    25.9-28.2 489 50 1.5 (0.9-2.3) 37 0.9 (0.5-1.3) 1.1 (0.4-3.1) 176 1.7 (1.3-2.3) 113 1.5 (1.1-2.1)  
    ≥28.3 501 55 1.6 (1.0-2.5) 45 1.0 (0.7-1.6) 14 2.2 (0.9-5.6) 228 2.2 (1.7-2.8) 151 2.0 (1.4-2.7)  
Adult weight gain (kg)**             
    <0 185 13 0.7 (0.4-1.3) 15 0.6 (0.3-1.1) 0.3 (0.0-2.2) 39 0.7 (0.5-1.1) 36 0.8 (0.5-1.2)  
    0-9.5 518 51 1.0 (Ref) 63 1.0 (Ref) 10 1.0 (Ref) 146 1.0 (Ref) 119 1.0 (Ref) 0.064 (4) 
    10-19.5 611 78 1.3 (0.9-1.8) 39 0.5 (0.3-0.8) 12 1.0 (0.4-2.4) 242 1.4 (1.1-1.8) 172 1.3 (1.0-1.7)  
    20-29.5 264 36 1.4 (0.9-2.2) 28 0.9 (0.6-1.4) 1.4 (0.5-3.8) 114 1.6 (1.2-2.1) 82 1.4 (1.0-1.9)  
    ≥30 111 11 1.0 (0.5-2.1) 11 0.8 (0.4-1.7) 2.1 (0.6-6.8) 81 2.7 (1.9-3.8) 25 1.1 (0.7-1.7)  
Mother or sister with breast cancer             
    No 2,348 279 1.0 (Ref) 237 1.0 (Ref) 54 1.0 (Ref) 945 1.0 (Ref) 648 1.0 (Ref) 0.33 (1) 
    Yes 236 46 1.7 (1.2-2.3) 39 1.7 (1.2-2.4) 15 2.7 (1.5-4.9) 193 2.0 (1.7-2.5) 119 1.8 (1.4-2.3)  
Operated due to benign breast disease             
    No 2,369 289 1.0 (Ref) 241 1.0 (Ref) 60 1.0 (Ref) 1,012 1.0 (Ref) 671 1.0 (Ref) 0.92 (1) 
    Yes 249 43 1.5 (1.1-2.1) 44 1.8 (1.2-2.5) 11 1.9 (1.0-3.7) 145 1.4 (1.1-1.8) 115 1.7 (1.3-2.1)  
Control group
ERPR
ER+PR
ERPR+
ER+PR+
Unknown ERPR
P, Wald (df)*
nnOR (95% CI)nOR (95% CI)nOR (95% CI)nOR (95% CI)nOR (95% CI)
Parous             
    No 348 42 1.0 (Ref) 47 1.0 (Ref) 1.0 (Ref) 173 1.0 (Ref) 140 1.0 (Ref) 0.31 (1) 
    Yes 2,717 290 0.8 (0.6-1.2) 239 0.7 (0.5-0.9) 65 1.4 (0.6-3.2) 992 0.7 (0.6-0.9) 649 0.6 (0.5-0.7)  
Age at first birth (y)§             
    <20 311 24 0.7 (0.4-1.1) 13 0.5 (0.3-1.0) 1.0 (0.5-2.3) 93 0.9 (0.7-1.2) 69 1.1 (0.8-1.5)  
    20-24 1,164 129 1.0 (Ref) 98 1.0 (Ref) 29 1.0 (Ref) 369 1.0 (Ref) 239 1.0 (Ref) 0.059 (3) 
    25-29 858 83 0.8 (0.6-1.1) 80 1.0 (0.8-1.4) 20 0.9 (0.5-1.6) 340 1.2 (1.0-1.4) 218 1.2 (0.9-1.4)  
    ≥30 384 54 1.1 (0.8-1.6) 48 1.2 (0.8-1.8) 1.0 (0.4-2.2) 190 1.5 (1.2-1.8) 123 1.4 (1.1-1.8)  
No. births             
    1 573 81 1.0 (Ref) 70 1.0 (Ref) 1.0 (Ref) 247 1.0 (Ref) 161 1.0 (Ref) 0.37 (3) 
    2 1,099 129 0.8 (0.6-1.1) 98 0.8 (0.6-1.1) 30 1.6 (0.8-3.6) 435 0.9 (0.8-1.1) 302 1.0 (0.8-1.3)  
    3 653 56 0.6 (0.4-0.9) 55 0.8 (0.5-1.1) 21 1.9 (0.8-4.4)* 213 0.8 (0.7-1.0) 125 0.7 (0.5-0.9)  
    ≥4 392 24 0.5 (0.3-0.8) 16 0.4 (0.2-0.7) 0.8 (0.3-2.5) 97 0.7 (0.5-0.9) 61 0.6 (0.4-0.9)  
Age at menarche (y)             
    <12 166 27 1.5 (1.0-2.4) 14 0.9 (0.5-1.7) 10 2.3 (1.1-5.0) 83 1.2 (0.9-1.7) 52 1.2 (0.8-1.7)  
    12-13 1,187 120 1.0 (Ref) 113 1.0 (Ref) 28 1.0 (Ref) 454 1.0 (Ref) 305 1.0 (Ref) 0.56 (3) 
    14-15 1,200 129 1.1 (0.9-1.5) 123 1.1 (0.8-1.4) 24 0.9 (0.5-1.6) 429 1.0 (0.9-1.2) 315 1.1 (0.9-1.3)  
    ≥16 241 23 1.0 (0.6-1.7) 15 0.6 (0.4-1.1) 0.8 (0.3-2.3) 80 0.9 (0.7-1.2) 51 0.9 (0.6-1.2)  
Age at menopause (y)             
    <45 332 31 0.9 (0.6-1.3) 18 0.5 (0.3-0.8) 0.6 (0.2-1.7) 79 0.6 (0.5-0.8) 61 0.6 (0.5-0.9)  
    45-49 670 77 1.1 (0.8-1.5) 50 0.7 (0.5-0.9) 15 0.9 (0.5-1.8) 228 0.9 (0.7-1.1) 164 0.9 (0.7-1.1) 0.34 (3) 
    50-54 1,261 132 1.0 (Ref) 139 1.0 (Ref) 28 1.0 (Ref) 480 1.0 (Ref) 342 1.0 (Ref)  
    ≥55 283 31 1.1 (0.8-1.7) 28 0.9 (0.6-1.4) 1.3 (0.6-3.1) 110 1.0 (0.8-1.3) 65 0.8 (0.6-1.2)  
Height (cm)             
    <160 675 67 1.0 (Ref) 55 1.0 (Ref) 13 1.0 (Ref) 224 1.0 (Ref) 140 1.0 (Ref) 0.18 (3) 
    160-164 1,035 104 1.0 (0.7-1.4) 99 1.2 (0.8-1.7) 28 1.4 (0.7-2.7) 356 1.0 (0.9-1.3) 266 1.3 (1.0-1.6)  
    165-169 900 108 1.1 (0.8-1.6) 78 1.0 (0.7-1.5) 16 0.8 (0.4-1.8) 347 1.2 (1.0-1.4) 239 1.3 (1.0-1.6)  
    ≥170 455 53 1.1 (0.7-1.6) 54 1.4 (1.0-2.1) 14 1.5 (0.7-3.2) 238 1.5 (1.2-1.9) 144 1.5 (1.1-1.9)  
Recent BMI (kg/m2)             
    <22.2 477 35 1.0 (Ref) 45 1.0 (Ref) 1.0 (Ref) 105 1.0 (Ref) 79 1.0 (Ref) 0.48 (4) 
    22.2-24.0 463 41 1.3 (0.8-2.0) 35 0.8 (0.5-1.3) 0.3 (0.1-1.5) 128 1.3 (1.0-1.7) 104 1.4 (1.0-2.0)  
    24.1-25.8 480 45 1.4 (0.9-2.2) 40 0.9 (0.6-1.5) 11 1.7 (0.7-4.5) 135 1.3 (1.0-1.8) 98 1.3 (0.9-1.8)  
    25.9-28.2 489 50 1.5 (0.9-2.3) 37 0.9 (0.5-1.3) 1.1 (0.4-3.1) 176 1.7 (1.3-2.3) 113 1.5 (1.1-2.1)  
    ≥28.3 501 55 1.6 (1.0-2.5) 45 1.0 (0.7-1.6) 14 2.2 (0.9-5.6) 228 2.2 (1.7-2.8) 151 2.0 (1.4-2.7)  
Adult weight gain (kg)**             
    <0 185 13 0.7 (0.4-1.3) 15 0.6 (0.3-1.1) 0.3 (0.0-2.2) 39 0.7 (0.5-1.1) 36 0.8 (0.5-1.2)  
    0-9.5 518 51 1.0 (Ref) 63 1.0 (Ref) 10 1.0 (Ref) 146 1.0 (Ref) 119 1.0 (Ref) 0.064 (4) 
    10-19.5 611 78 1.3 (0.9-1.8) 39 0.5 (0.3-0.8) 12 1.0 (0.4-2.4) 242 1.4 (1.1-1.8) 172 1.3 (1.0-1.7)  
    20-29.5 264 36 1.4 (0.9-2.2) 28 0.9 (0.6-1.4) 1.4 (0.5-3.8) 114 1.6 (1.2-2.1) 82 1.4 (1.0-1.9)  
    ≥30 111 11 1.0 (0.5-2.1) 11 0.8 (0.4-1.7) 2.1 (0.6-6.8) 81 2.7 (1.9-3.8) 25 1.1 (0.7-1.7)  
Mother or sister with breast cancer             
    No 2,348 279 1.0 (Ref) 237 1.0 (Ref) 54 1.0 (Ref) 945 1.0 (Ref) 648 1.0 (Ref) 0.33 (1) 
    Yes 236 46 1.7 (1.2-2.3) 39 1.7 (1.2-2.4) 15 2.7 (1.5-4.9) 193 2.0 (1.7-2.5) 119 1.8 (1.4-2.3)  
Operated due to benign breast disease             
    No 2,369 289 1.0 (Ref) 241 1.0 (Ref) 60 1.0 (Ref) 1,012 1.0 (Ref) 671 1.0 (Ref) 0.92 (1) 
    Yes 249 43 1.5 (1.1-2.1) 44 1.8 (1.2-2.5) 11 1.9 (1.0-3.7) 145 1.4 (1.1-1.8) 115 1.7 (1.3-2.1)  

NOTE: Recent, 1 year before data collection.

Abbreviation: df, degrees of freedom.

*

P value for association from case-case analysis for ER+PR+ compared with ERPR cancer, in a model adjusted for age, BMI, age at first birth, and tumor size.

Adjusted for age, BMI, and age at first birth where applicable.

Not adjusted for age at first birth.

§

Adjusted for number of births, age, and BMI.

Women with unknown age at menopause and women using menopausal hormone therapy before menopause excluded.

Women ever using menopausal hormone therapy excluded.

**

Weight gain from 18 years to 1 year before data collection.

Risk of Receptor-Defined Breast Cancer according to Exogenous Factors

We found no associations between either oral estriol or local estrogen treatment and any of the receptor-defined groups (data not shown). Therefore, use of these regimens was not defined as hormone therapy in the following analyses. Users of oral estriol or local estrogen were thus included among never as well as exclusive users of other regimens.

Use of estrogen alone (other than oral estriol or local estrogen) hormone therapy was associated with an increased risk for all receptor-defined tumors, both among all users and exclusive users (Table 3). Risks were generally higher after ≥5 years than <5 years of use. For ERPR and ER+PR, risks were higher with past, but not current use, compared with never use. The highest point estimate was found for the ERPR+ group (OR, for ≥5 years of use 10.2; 95% CI, 4.2-24.6). The risks were very similar for the ER+PR+ and ERPR groups (Table 3).

Table 3.

Exogenous factors and risk for breast cancer defined by joint ER and PR status

Control group
ERPR
ER+PR
ERPR+
ER+PR+
Unknown ERPR
P, Wald (df)*
nnOR (95% CI)nOR (95% CI)nOR (95% CI)nOR (95% CI)nOR (95% CI)
Menopausal hormone therapy             
    Estrogen alone             
        No use 2,384 225 1.0 (Ref) 200 1.0 (Ref) 41 1.0 (Ref) 771 1.0 (Ref) 542 1.0 (Ref)  
        All use             
            Ever 222 41 1.9 (1.3-2.7) 30 1.6 (1.1-2.5) 13 3.2 (1.7-6.2) 135 1.9 (1.5-2.5) 87 1.7 (1.3-2.3) 0.88 (1) 
            Current 130 23 1.9 (1.2-3.0) 18 1.8 (1.0-3.0) 3.5 (1.6-7.6) 69 1.7 (1.2-2.3) 50 1.8 (1.2-2.5) 0.59 (1) 
        Exclusive use§             
            Ever 141 26 2.0 (1.3-3.1) 18 1.6 (1.0-2.7) 3.3 (1.5-7.2) 79 1.8 (1.3-2.4) 52 1.7 (1.2-2.4) 0.70 (1) 
        Duration (y)             
            <5 85 13 1.6 (0.9-3.0) 14 2.0 (1.1-3.7) 0.6 (0.1-4.5) 36 1.3 (0.9-2.0) 31 1.7 (1.1-2.5) 0.86 (2) 
            ≥5 45 10 2.4 (1.2-4.8) 1.2 (0.4-3.3) 10.2 (4.2-24.6) 33 2.4 (1.5-3.8) 19 2.0 (1.1-3.4)  
        Recency             
            Current 58 1.0 (0.4-2.4) 0.9 (0.3-2.6) 3.5 (1.2-10.3) 31 1.7 (1.1-2.6) 24 1.9 (1.2-3.1) 0.25 (2) 
            Past 72 17 2.7 (1.5-4.6) 14 2.4 (1.3-4.4) 3.5 (1.2-10.1) 38 1.7 (1.1-2.5) 26 1.7 (1.0-2.7)  
    Estrogen-progestin             
        No use 2,384 225 1.0 (Ref) 200 1.0 (Ref) 41 1.0 (Ref) 771 1.0 (Ref) 542 1.0 (Ref)  
        All use             
            Ever 409 66 1.4 (1.0-1.9) 55 1.7 (1.2-2.4) 22 2.4 (1.4-4.3) 261 2.0 (1.6-2.4) 163 1.7 (1.4-2.2) 0.068 (1) 
            Current 289 41 1.2 (0.8-1.8) 41 1.8 (1.3-2.7) 16 2.5 (1.3-4.7) 177 1.9 (1.5-2.4) 121 1.9 (1.5-2.4) 0.036 (1) 
        Exclusive use§             
            Ever 306 44 1.3 (0.9-1.8) 42 1.8 (1.2-2.6) 16 2.4 (1.3-4.4) 182 1.8 (1.5-2.3) 122 1.8 (1.4-2.3) 0.067 (1) 
        Duration (y)             
            <5 201 29 1.2 (0.8-1.8) 26 1.6 (1.0-2.6) 12 2.5 (1.2-5.1) 98 1.4 (1.1-1.9) 59 1.3 (0.9-1.7) 0.051 (2) 
            ≥5 88 12 1.3 (0.7-2.5) 15 2.3 (1.3-4.1) 2.6 (0.9-7.5) 78 3.0 (2.1-4.1) 62 3.4 (2.4-4.9)  
        Recency             
            Current 191 26 1.1 (0.7-1.8) 27 1.8 (1.2-2.9) 14 3.2 (1.6-6.4)§ 131 2.2 (1.7-2.8) 98 2.4 (1.8-3.2) 0.037 (2) 
            Past 98 15 1.4 (0.8-2.5) 14 1.9 (1.0-3.4) 1.1 (0.2-4.5) 45 1.4 (1.0-2.0) 23 1.7 (1.0-2.7)  
Oral contraceptives             
    No use 2,093 204 1.0 (Ref) 198 1.0 (Ref) 45 1.0 (Ref) 763 1.0 (Ref) 550 1.0 (Ref) 0.29 (2) 
    <5 y 477 52 0.9 (0.6-1.2) 34 0.8 (0.5-1.1) 13 0.8 (0.4-1.6) 196 1.0 (0.8-1.3) 138 1.1 (0.8-1.3)  
    ≥5 y 341 53 1.3 (0.9-1.8) 35 1.2 (0.8-1.8) 10 0.9 (0.4-1.8) 142 1.1 (0.9-1.4) 76 0.8 (0.6-1.1)  
Recent alcohol use (g/d)             
    No alcohol 1,139 129 1.0 (Ref) 114 1.0 (Ref) 38 1.0 (Ref) 459 1.0 (Ref) 321 1.0 (Ref) 0.52 (3) 
    <5 925 128 1.2 (0.9-1.5) 110 1.3 (0.9-1.7) 22 0.6 (0.3-1.0) 401 1.0 (0.8-1.2) 277 1.1 (0.9-1.3)  
    ≥5 to 10 216 32 1.2 (0.8-1.9) 22 1.1 (0.7-1.8) 0.3 (0.1-1.1) 130 1.2 (0.9-1.6) 67 1.1 (0.8-1.5)  
    >10 100 19 1.6 (0.9-2.7) 14 1.4 (0.8-2.6) 0.2 (0.0-1.8) 50 1.0 (0.6-1.6) 42 1.5 (1.0-2.3)  
Recent smoking             
    No 2,275 263 1.0 (Ref) 213 1.0 (Ref) 55 1.0 (Ref) 902 1.0 (Ref) 597 1.0 (Ref) 0.23 (1) 
    Yes 712 69 0.8 (0.6-1.0) 73 1.2 (0.9-1.6) 16 0.8 (0.4-1.4) 261 1.0 (0.8-1.1) 189 1.1 (0.9-1.3)  
Control group
ERPR
ER+PR
ERPR+
ER+PR+
Unknown ERPR
P, Wald (df)*
nnOR (95% CI)nOR (95% CI)nOR (95% CI)nOR (95% CI)nOR (95% CI)
Menopausal hormone therapy             
    Estrogen alone             
        No use 2,384 225 1.0 (Ref) 200 1.0 (Ref) 41 1.0 (Ref) 771 1.0 (Ref) 542 1.0 (Ref)  
        All use             
            Ever 222 41 1.9 (1.3-2.7) 30 1.6 (1.1-2.5) 13 3.2 (1.7-6.2) 135 1.9 (1.5-2.5) 87 1.7 (1.3-2.3) 0.88 (1) 
            Current 130 23 1.9 (1.2-3.0) 18 1.8 (1.0-3.0) 3.5 (1.6-7.6) 69 1.7 (1.2-2.3) 50 1.8 (1.2-2.5) 0.59 (1) 
        Exclusive use§             
            Ever 141 26 2.0 (1.3-3.1) 18 1.6 (1.0-2.7) 3.3 (1.5-7.2) 79 1.8 (1.3-2.4) 52 1.7 (1.2-2.4) 0.70 (1) 
        Duration (y)             
            <5 85 13 1.6 (0.9-3.0) 14 2.0 (1.1-3.7) 0.6 (0.1-4.5) 36 1.3 (0.9-2.0) 31 1.7 (1.1-2.5) 0.86 (2) 
            ≥5 45 10 2.4 (1.2-4.8) 1.2 (0.4-3.3) 10.2 (4.2-24.6) 33 2.4 (1.5-3.8) 19 2.0 (1.1-3.4)  
        Recency             
            Current 58 1.0 (0.4-2.4) 0.9 (0.3-2.6) 3.5 (1.2-10.3) 31 1.7 (1.1-2.6) 24 1.9 (1.2-3.1) 0.25 (2) 
            Past 72 17 2.7 (1.5-4.6) 14 2.4 (1.3-4.4) 3.5 (1.2-10.1) 38 1.7 (1.1-2.5) 26 1.7 (1.0-2.7)  
    Estrogen-progestin             
        No use 2,384 225 1.0 (Ref) 200 1.0 (Ref) 41 1.0 (Ref) 771 1.0 (Ref) 542 1.0 (Ref)  
        All use             
            Ever 409 66 1.4 (1.0-1.9) 55 1.7 (1.2-2.4) 22 2.4 (1.4-4.3) 261 2.0 (1.6-2.4) 163 1.7 (1.4-2.2) 0.068 (1) 
            Current 289 41 1.2 (0.8-1.8) 41 1.8 (1.3-2.7) 16 2.5 (1.3-4.7) 177 1.9 (1.5-2.4) 121 1.9 (1.5-2.4) 0.036 (1) 
        Exclusive use§             
            Ever 306 44 1.3 (0.9-1.8) 42 1.8 (1.2-2.6) 16 2.4 (1.3-4.4) 182 1.8 (1.5-2.3) 122 1.8 (1.4-2.3) 0.067 (1) 
        Duration (y)             
            <5 201 29 1.2 (0.8-1.8) 26 1.6 (1.0-2.6) 12 2.5 (1.2-5.1) 98 1.4 (1.1-1.9) 59 1.3 (0.9-1.7) 0.051 (2) 
            ≥5 88 12 1.3 (0.7-2.5) 15 2.3 (1.3-4.1) 2.6 (0.9-7.5) 78 3.0 (2.1-4.1) 62 3.4 (2.4-4.9)  
        Recency             
            Current 191 26 1.1 (0.7-1.8) 27 1.8 (1.2-2.9) 14 3.2 (1.6-6.4)§ 131 2.2 (1.7-2.8) 98 2.4 (1.8-3.2) 0.037 (2) 
            Past 98 15 1.4 (0.8-2.5) 14 1.9 (1.0-3.4) 1.1 (0.2-4.5) 45 1.4 (1.0-2.0) 23 1.7 (1.0-2.7)  
Oral contraceptives             
    No use 2,093 204 1.0 (Ref) 198 1.0 (Ref) 45 1.0 (Ref) 763 1.0 (Ref) 550 1.0 (Ref) 0.29 (2) 
    <5 y 477 52 0.9 (0.6-1.2) 34 0.8 (0.5-1.1) 13 0.8 (0.4-1.6) 196 1.0 (0.8-1.3) 138 1.1 (0.8-1.3)  
    ≥5 y 341 53 1.3 (0.9-1.8) 35 1.2 (0.8-1.8) 10 0.9 (0.4-1.8) 142 1.1 (0.9-1.4) 76 0.8 (0.6-1.1)  
Recent alcohol use (g/d)             
    No alcohol 1,139 129 1.0 (Ref) 114 1.0 (Ref) 38 1.0 (Ref) 459 1.0 (Ref) 321 1.0 (Ref) 0.52 (3) 
    <5 925 128 1.2 (0.9-1.5) 110 1.3 (0.9-1.7) 22 0.6 (0.3-1.0) 401 1.0 (0.8-1.2) 277 1.1 (0.9-1.3)  
    ≥5 to 10 216 32 1.2 (0.8-1.9) 22 1.1 (0.7-1.8) 0.3 (0.1-1.1) 130 1.2 (0.9-1.6) 67 1.1 (0.8-1.5)  
    >10 100 19 1.6 (0.9-2.7) 14 1.4 (0.8-2.6) 0.2 (0.0-1.8) 50 1.0 (0.6-1.6) 42 1.5 (1.0-2.3)  
Recent smoking             
    No 2,275 263 1.0 (Ref) 213 1.0 (Ref) 55 1.0 (Ref) 902 1.0 (Ref) 597 1.0 (Ref) 0.23 (1) 
    Yes 712 69 0.8 (0.6-1.0) 73 1.2 (0.9-1.6) 16 0.8 (0.4-1.4) 261 1.0 (0.8-1.1) 189 1.1 (0.9-1.3)  

NOTE: All use, use of other types of hormone therapy allowed; exclusive use, only use of one type of hormone therapy. Recency: current, last use ≤6 months before reference date; past, last use >6 months before reference date. Recent, 1 year before data collection.

*

P value for association from case-case analysis for ER+PR+ compared with ERPR cancer, in a model adjusted for age, BMI, age at first birth, and tumor size.

All ORs adjusted for age, BMI, and age at first birth.

No use: no use of any kind of menopausal hormone therapy (apart from oral estriol or local estrogen).

§

Users of more than one kind of therapy excluded.

Use of estrogen-progestin hormone therapy, either all use or exclusive use, was not associated with the risk of ERPR tumors. In contrast, such treatment was related to the risk of all other tumor groups, especially for current users (Table 3). The heterogeneities between the relative risks for ER+PR+ and ERPR tumors in women who used combined estrogen-progestin treatment were all borderline statistically significant. At least 5-year use of estrogen-progestin was associated with a 3-fold increased risk of ER+PR+ tumors (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 2.1-4.1) compared with OR of 1.3 (95% CI, 0.7-2.5) for ERPR tumors.

Recent alcohol intake of >10 g/d was associated with a seemingly higher risk of ERPR tumors (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.9-2.7) than for ER+PR+ tumors (OR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.6-1.6) compared with no recent alcohol intake, but the heterogeneity was nonsignificant. We found no interaction between menopausal hormone therapy and recent alcohol intake for any of the receptor-defined groups (Table 4).

Table 4.

Alcohol consumption and the risk for receptor-defined breast cancer among users and nonusers of menopausal hormone therapy

Control group
ERPR
ER+PR
ERPR+
ER+PR+
Unknown ER/PR
nnOR* (95% CI)nOR* (95% CI)nOR* (95% CI)nOR* (95% CI)nOR* (95% CI)
Never users of menopausal hormone therapy            
    Recent alcohol use (g/d)            
        No alcohol 960 99 1.0 (Ref) 90 1.0 (Ref) 28 1.0 (Ref) 367 1.0 (Ref) 250 1.0 (Ref) 
        <5 681 87 1.2 (0.9-1.7) 75 1.3 (0.9-1.8) 10 0.4 (0.2-0.9) 244 1.0 (0.8-1.2) 189 1.2 (0.9-1.4) 
        ≥5 to 10 146 17 1.1 (0.6-1.9) 13 1.1 (0.6-2.0) 0.2 (0.0-1.6) 65 1.2 (0.9-1.7) 37 1.0 (0.7-1.5) 
        >10 68 12 1.8 (0.9-3.5) 1.2 (0.5-2.8) 26 1.1 (0.7-1.8) 22 1.4 (0.9-2.4) 
Ever users of menopausal hormone therapy            
    Recent alcohol use (g/d)            
        No alcohol 171 30 1.0 (Ref) 23 1.0 (Ref) 10 1.0 (Ref) 92 1.0 (Ref) 70 1.0 (Ref) 
        <5 237 41 0.9 (0.6-1.6) 35 1.2 (0.6-2.1) 12 0.9 (0.3-2.1) 156 1.2 (0.9-1.7) 86 0.8 (0.5-1.2) 
        ≥5 to 10 68 14 1.1 (0.5-2.2) 0.9 (0.4-2.2) 0.5 (0.1-2.3) 65 1.8 (1.2-2.8) 30 1.0 (0.6-1.7) 
        >10 32 1.0 (0.4-2.6) 1.5 (0.6-3.9) 0.4 (0.0-3.2) 24 1.4 (0.8-2.5) 20 1.3 (0.7-2.4) 
        Pinteraction  0.78  0.97  0.70  0.30  0.57  
Control group
ERPR
ER+PR
ERPR+
ER+PR+
Unknown ER/PR
nnOR* (95% CI)nOR* (95% CI)nOR* (95% CI)nOR* (95% CI)nOR* (95% CI)
Never users of menopausal hormone therapy            
    Recent alcohol use (g/d)            
        No alcohol 960 99 1.0 (Ref) 90 1.0 (Ref) 28 1.0 (Ref) 367 1.0 (Ref) 250 1.0 (Ref) 
        <5 681 87 1.2 (0.9-1.7) 75 1.3 (0.9-1.8) 10 0.4 (0.2-0.9) 244 1.0 (0.8-1.2) 189 1.2 (0.9-1.4) 
        ≥5 to 10 146 17 1.1 (0.6-1.9) 13 1.1 (0.6-2.0) 0.2 (0.0-1.6) 65 1.2 (0.9-1.7) 37 1.0 (0.7-1.5) 
        >10 68 12 1.8 (0.9-3.5) 1.2 (0.5-2.8) 26 1.1 (0.7-1.8) 22 1.4 (0.9-2.4) 
Ever users of menopausal hormone therapy            
    Recent alcohol use (g/d)            
        No alcohol 171 30 1.0 (Ref) 23 1.0 (Ref) 10 1.0 (Ref) 92 1.0 (Ref) 70 1.0 (Ref) 
        <5 237 41 0.9 (0.6-1.6) 35 1.2 (0.6-2.1) 12 0.9 (0.3-2.1) 156 1.2 (0.9-1.7) 86 0.8 (0.5-1.2) 
        ≥5 to 10 68 14 1.1 (0.5-2.2) 0.9 (0.4-2.2) 0.5 (0.1-2.3) 65 1.8 (1.2-2.8) 30 1.0 (0.6-1.7) 
        >10 32 1.0 (0.4-2.6) 1.5 (0.6-3.9) 0.4 (0.0-3.2) 24 1.4 (0.8-2.5) 20 1.3 (0.7-2.4) 
        Pinteraction  0.78  0.97  0.70  0.30  0.57  
*

Adjusted for age, BMI (kg/m2), and age at first birth.

Estrogen alone (apart from oral estriol or local estrogen) or estrogen-progestin.

Oral contraceptive use, which consisted mainly of past use in these postmenopausal women, and recent smoking were not associated with risk of any receptor-defined tumor group (Table 3).

The heterogeneities found were not attenuated by introducing screening or nonscreening detection and lymph node involvement in the models (data not shown).

Our results indicate that a few established breast cancer risk factors are differently associated with breast cancers of different receptor-defined subtypes. Older age at first birth seemed to be a risk factor only for ER+ tumors. Adult weight gain was associated primarily with PR+ tumors, and users of combined estrogen-progestin menopausal hormone therapy were at clearly increased risk of receptor-positive tumors but not receptor-negative tumors.

That older age at first birth seems to be a risk factor mainly for ER+ tumors, and to be less strongly correlated to PR status was concluded in the review by Althuis et al. (3). This association is also supported by another recent study (9) in addition to ours.

A few studies, including postmenopausal women comparing parous with nulliparous women, have found, as we did, similarly reduced risks for ER+ and ER tumors (10) or ER+PR+ and ERPR tumors (11, 12), now supported by our finding. However, three studies found a reduced risk only of ER+ or ER+PR+ tumors (9, 13, 14) among parous women, whereas two other studies reported nonsignificantly doubled risks of ER or ERPR tumors among parous women (15, 16). For increasing number of children compared with uniparous women, all studies but one (9) have given evidence of a protective effect regardless of ER (14) or ERPR status (11, 12, 16, 17). In conclusion, increasing number of births seems to similarly reduce the risk of all receptor-defined groups of breast cancer.

Our finding of comparable influences of age at menarche and age at menopause on postmenopausal breast cancer risk regardless of receptor status agrees with previous publications (3, 11, 12, 16).

To our knowledge, only one study has explored the association between height and receptor-defined breast cancer and reported no difference in association between different subtypes (18). We found no significant differences but a tendency toward a stronger association with tumors expressing at least one receptor in taller women.

Four (16, 19-21) of five (12) previous studies on postmenopausal BMI and joint receptor status found high postmenopausal BMI to be a stronger risk factor for ER+PR+ tumors than ERPR tumors. Potter et al. (16) assessed the risks for all combinations of ER and PR and found high BMI to be associated with the two PR+ groups. Three studies reported ER and PR separately (18, 22, 23) and found postmenopausal BMI to be more strongly associated with PR than ER expression. When we assessed adult weight gain, perhaps a better proxy for body fat than BMI, we found no association with ERPR tumors but a strong association with ER+PR+ tumors and a high point estimate also for ERPR+ tumors. The absence of an association in the highest weight gain category for the unknown receptor group is however intriguing, as those tumors are small and thus probably receptor positive to a high extent. In line with our findings, a recent cohort study reported higher point estimates for the association between weight gain and ER+PR+ than ERPR tumors (24).

Postmenopausal obese women, compared with slim, have higher levels of bioavailable estrogens (25), and estrogen up-regulates the PR expression via the ER in normal breast tissue (26). This could be part of the explanation why most epidemiologic researches, including our study, link postmenopausal obesity to tumors expressing receptors and possibly PR more than ER (3). In line with this is the finding that the proportion of PR+ breast cancer is higher among premenopausal women than postmenopausal women of the same age (27). The proportion of tumors expressing ER, on the other hand, does not vary with menopausal status after accounting for age (27).

Two recent studies from the United States reported use of estrogen alone to be unrelated to breast cancer risk regardless of receptor status (28, 29). However, investigators reporting on two other U.S. studies found increased relative risks for ER+PR+ tumors (30, 31). We found similarly increased risks for both ER+PR+ and ERPR tumors among estrogen alone users.

There is accumulating data consistently linking use of estrogen-progestin therapy solely to receptor-positive tumors (28-30, 32, 33). All studies have found an increased risk for ER+PR+ tumors, and all but one (29) have found an increased risk for the relatively rare ERPR+ group. In contrast to the findings from the observational studies, Women's Health Initiative investigators found no differences in ER or PR expression in tumors when comparing women treated with estrogen-progestin therapy or placebo (34).

Our findings of similar risks of receptor-negative and receptor-positive tumors for family history of breast cancer, alcohol, smoking, and operation due to benign breast disease are in line with most previous studies and the conclusion from the review by Althuis et al. (3, 12, 13, 18). An interaction between menopausal hormone therapy and alcohol intake was reported from the Iowa Women's Health Study, with increased risks for ER+PR+ and ERPR tumors but not ER+PR among hormone therapy users compared with nonusers (7). A recent Swedish study on alcohol and menopausal hormone therapy found a strong interaction between these two factors and risk for ER+ but not ER tumors (8). However, similar to another study (18), we found no signs of interactions between alcohol and hormone therapy for any receptor-defined group. Generally, recent but not past use of oral contraceptives is believed to be a risk factor for breast cancer (3). Among our postmenopausal women, very few women were recent oral contraceptive users, and as expected, we observed no associations with any receptor-defined group for this treatment.

Our study was population based and the response rate was high (84% among cases and 82% among controls). Yet, nonparticipants had larger tumors on average, which thus were more likely to be receptor negative. To what extent nonresponders differed in exposure status is not known. Recall bias is theoretically of concern in this retrospective study. Recall differences according to receptor status are, however, unlikely, rendering such bias of case-case comparison less of a problem.

We lacked information on receptor status for 30% of the cases, with a larger proportion of missing information among women with smaller tumors. Small tumors are more often receptor positive, and the ORs for tumors with missing receptor status were similar to those for the ER+PR+ group, except for adult weight gain ≥30 kg. Within categories of tumor size, apart from the slight association with socioeconomic status, there was no suspicion that missingness was related to the outcome (receptor status), so we assumed that missingness was covariate dependent (tumor size) missing completely at random (35) or “missing at random”; thus, missingness did not bias our results. Tumor size is only available for cases, so we could only adjust our case-case analyses for this covariate. A methodologic problem is that tumor size could theoretically be an effect of both exposure and outcome and in that case, adjusting for it might introduce a bias (36). However, because the exposures were at most only slightly correlated with tumor size, this should not be a major concern (data not shown). Studying ER and adjusting for PR could similarly introduce a bias if ER causally affects expression of PR. Therefore, we chose to study the receptors jointly. In an attempt to see if heterogeneity could be explained by earlier detection of receptor-positive tumors, we additionally included screening or nonscreening detection and lymph node involvement as covariates in the case-case models, but our findings of heterogeneity remained.

There is no evident cutoff value discriminating receptor-positive tumors from receptor-negative tumors, and other studies have used cutoffs from 3 to ≥10 fmol receptor/mg protein (3). Interlaboratory and intralaboratory reproducibility for six of the seven laboratories used in our study was evaluated in a study in 1996, showing that the concordance in receptor status was 98.4% (37). Despite this, we found that the fraction of ERPR tumors ranged from 13% to 24% between different laboratories. Receptor status may thus have been misclassified to an extent that was likely to affect our estimates. Because such misclassification is not likely to be associated with breast cancer risk factors, it cannot explain our positive findings but may rather have resulted in attenuated risk estimates. Tumors in the two groups with mixed receptor status (ER+PR and ERPR+) were more likely to be misclassified, as the quantitative values of ER and PR were closer to the cutoff value than for the other two groups (data not shown).

We believe it is more relevant to discuss our results in relation to previous results and biological credibility than to adjust for multiple comparisons in the statistical analyses (38). As the power to study subtypes that make up a small proportion of all breast cancers is low in most single studies, a pooled analysis on this topic is warranted.

In conclusion, our findings, seen in the light of results from previous work, seem to indicate that most breast cancer risk factors are similarly related to breast cancer regardless of receptor status. However, age at first birth, postmenopausal obesity, and use of estrogen-progestin menopausal hormone therapy are stronger risk factors for receptor-positive breast cancer than receptor-negative breast cancer.

Grant support: NIH grant RO1-CA58427 and Swedish Cancer Foundation.

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.

Note: The funding sources had no role in the study design, collection of data, data analysis, interpretation of the data, or writing of the report.

1
Trichopoulos D, Lagiou P, Adami HO. Towards an integrated model for breast cancer etiology: the crucial role of the number of mammary tissue-specific stem cells.
Breast Cancer Res
2005
;
7
:
13
–7.
2
Yager JD, Davidson NE. Estrogen carcinogenesis in breast cancer.
N Engl J Med
2006
;
354
:
270
–82.
3
Althuis MD, Fergenbaum JH, Garcia-Closas M, Brinton LA, Madigan MP, Sherman ME. Etiology of hormone receptor-defined breast cancer: a systematic review of the literature.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2004
;
13
:
1558
–68.
4
Magnusson C, Baron JA, Correia N, Bergstrom R, Adami HO, Persson I. Breast-cancer risk following long-term oestrogen- and oestrogen-progestin-replacement therapy.
Int J Cancer
1999
;
81
:
339
–44.
5
Magnusson C, Baron J, Persson I, et al. Body size in different periods of life and breast cancer risk in post-menopausal women.
Int J Cancer
1998
;
76
:
29
–34.
6
Brouillet JP, Dujardin MA, Chalbos D, et al. Analysis of the potential contribution of estrogen receptor (ER) β in ER cytosolic assay of breast cancer.
Int J Cancer
2001
;
95
:
205
–8.
7
Gapstur SM, Potter JD, Drinkard C, Folsom AR. Synergistic effect between alcohol and estrogen replacement therapy on risk of breast cancer differs by estrogen/progesterone receptor status in the Iowa Women's Health Study.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
1995
;
4
:
313
–8.
8
Suzuki R, Ye W, Rylander-Rudqvist T, Saji S, Colditz GA, Wolk A. Alcohol and postmenopausal breast cancer risk defined by estrogen and progesterone receptor status: a prospective cohort study.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2005
;
97
:
1601
–8.
9
Ursin G, Bernstein L, Lord SJ, et al. Reproductive factors and subtypes of breast cancer defined by hormone receptor and histology.
Br J Cancer
2005
;
93
:
364
–71.
10
Cooper JA, Rohan TE, Cant EL, Horsfall DJ, Tilley WD. Risk factors for breast cancer by oestrogen receptor status: a population-based case-control study.
Br J Cancer
1989
;
59
:
119
–25.
11
Yoo KY, Tajima K, Miura S, et al. Breast cancer risk factors according to combined estrogen and progesterone receptor status: a case-control analysis.
Am J Epidemiol
1997
;
146
:
307
–14.
12
Cotterchio M, Kreiger N, Theis B, Sloan M, Bahl S. Hormonal factors and the risk of breast cancer according to estrogen- and progesterone-receptor subgroup.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2003
;
12
:
1053
–60.
13
Kreiger N, King WD, Rosenberg L, Clarke EA, Palmer JR, Shapiro S. Steroid receptor status and the epidemiology of breast cancer.
Ann Epidemiol
1991
;
1
:
513
–23.
14
Wohlfahrt J, Mouridsen H, Andersen PK, Melbye M. Reproductive risk factors for breast cancer by receptor status, histology, laterality, and location.
Int J Cancer
1999
;
81
:
49
–55.
15
Hislop TG, Coldman AJ, Elwood JM, Skippen DH, Kan L. Relationship between risk factors for breast cancer and hormonal status.
Int J Epidemiol
1986
;
15
:
469
–76.
16
Potter JD, Cerhan JR, Sellers TA, et al. Progesterone and estrogen receptors and mammary neoplasia in the Iowa Women's Health Study: how many kinds of breast cancer are there?
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
1995
;
4
:
319
–26.
17
McCredie MR, Dite GS, Southey MC, Venter DJ, Giles GG, Hopper JL. Risk factors for breast cancer in young women by oestrogen receptor and progesterone receptor status.
Br J Cancer
2003
;
89
:
1661
–3.
18
Colditz GA, Rosner BA, Chen WY, Holmes MD, Hankinson SE. Risk factors for breast cancer according to estrogen and progesterone receptor status.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2004
;
96
:
218
–28.
19
Enger SM, Ross RK, Paganini-Hill A, Carpenter CL, Bernstein L. Body size, physical activity, and breast cancer hormone receptor status: results from two case-control studies.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2000
;
9
:
681
–7.
20
Huang WY, Newman B, Millikan RC, Schell MJ, Hulka BS, Moorman PG. Hormone-related factors and risk of breast cancer in relation to estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor status.
Am J Epidemiol
2000
;
151
:
703
–14.
21
Suzuki R, Rylander-Rudqvist T, Ye W, Saji S, Wolk A. Body weight and postmenopausal breast cancer risk defined by estrogen and progesterone receptor status among Swedish women: A prospective cohort study.
Int J Cancer
2006
;
119
:
1683
–9.
22
Yoo K, Tajima K, Park S, et al. Postmenopausal obesity as a breast cancer risk factor according to estrogen and progesterone receptor status (Japan).
Cancer Lett
2001
;
167
:
57
–63.
23
Sellers TA, Davis J, Cerhan JR, et al. Interaction of waist/hip ratio and family history on the risk of hormone receptor-defined breast cancer in a prospective study of postmenopausal women.
Am J Epidemiol
2002
;
155
:
225
–33.
24
Feigelson HS, Patel AV, Teras LR, Gansler T, Thun MJ, Calle EE. Adult weight gain and histopathologic characteristics of breast cancer among postmenopausal women.
Cancer
2006
;
107
:
12
–21.
25
Lukanova A, Lundin E, Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A, et al. Body mass index, circulating levels of sex-steroid hormones, IGF-I and IGF-binding protein-3: a cross-sectional study in healthy women.
Eur J Endocrinol
2004
;
150
:
161
–71.
26
Allred DC, Mohsin SK, Fuqua SA. Histological and biological evolution of human premalignant breast disease.
Endocr Relat Cancer
2001
;
8
:
47
–61.
27
Osborne CK. Steroid hormone receptors in breast cancer management.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
1998
;
51
:
227
–38.
28
Daling JR, Malone KE, Doody DR, et al. Association of regimens of hormone replacement therapy to prognostic factors among women diagnosed with breast cancer aged 50-64 years.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2003
;
12
:
1175
–81.
29
Li CI, Malone KE, Porter PL, et al. Relationship between long durations and different regimens of hormone therapy and risk of breast cancer.
JAMA
2003
;
289
:
3254
–63.
30
Ursin G, Tseng CC, Paganini-Hill A, et al. Does menopausal hormone replacement therapy interact with known factors to increase risk of breast cancer?
J Clin Oncol
2002
;
20
:
699
–706.
31
Chen WY, Manson JE, Hankinson SE, et al. Unopposed estrogen therapy and the risk of invasive breast cancer.
Arch Intern Med
2006
;
166
:
1027
–32.
32
Chen WY, Hankinson SE, Schnitt SJ, Rosner BA, Holmes MD, Colditz GA. Association of hormone replacement therapy to estrogen and progesterone receptor status in invasive breast carcinoma.
Cancer
2004
;
101
:
1490
–500.
33
Lee S, Kolonel L, Wilkens L, Wan P, Henderson B, Pike M. Postmenopausal hormone therapy and breast cancer risk: the multiethnic cohort.
Int J Cancer
2006
;
118
:
1285
–91.
34
Chlebowski RT, Hendrix SL, Langer RD, et al. Influence of estrogen plus progestin on breast cancer and mammography in healthy postmenopausal women: the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Trial.
JAMA
2003
;
289
:
3243
–53.
35
Wood AM, White IR, Hillsdon M, Carpenter J. Comparison of imputation and modelling methods in the analysis of a physical activity trial with missing outcomes.
Int J Epidemiol
2005
;
34
:
89
–99.
36
Hernan MA, Hernandez-Diaz S, Werler MM, Mitchell AA. Causal knowledge as a prerequisite for confounding evaluation: an application to birth defects epidemiology.
Am J Epidemiol
2002
;
155
:
176
–84.
37
Ferno M, Bendahl PO, Brisfors A, et al.; Swedish Society of Cancer Study Group. Intra- and inter-laboratory reproducibility of estrogen and progesterone receptor enzyme immunoassay in breast cancer cytosol samples—a Swedish multicenter study.
Acta Oncol
1997
;
36
:
793
–8.
38
Rothman KJ. No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons.
Epidemiology
1990
;
1
:
43
–6.