Background: If height is a well-established risk factor for breast cancer, leg length and sitting height are usually considered as better candidate biomarkers of growth hormone exposure than height, respectively, in pre- and postpuberty.

Methods: Risk of breast cancer associated with quartiles of height, sitting height, and leg length were estimated in the French E3N cohort (N = 50,704, including 2,065 breast cancer cases), stratified on both menopausal and hormone receptor statuses.

Results: Height was associated with an increased postmenopausal breast cancer risk [HR = 1.22 (1.06–1.41) when comparing extreme categories, Ptrend = 0.002], which was exclusively driven by the association with leg length [HR = 1.21 (1.05–1.39), Ptrend = 0.013] and not sitting height [HR = 1.03 (0.89–1.18), Ptrend = 0.379]. Leg length was associated with an increased ER+ breast cancer risk in postmenopausal [HR = 1.24 (1.06–1.46), Ptrend = 0.004], whereas sitting height was associated with a borderline decreased ER premenopausal breast cancer risk [HR = 0.45 (0.20–1.01), Ptrend = 0.011]. The positive associations observed in the overall population between leg length and breast cancer risk were actually restricted to women who had a short birth length [HR = 1.82 (1.22–2.72), Ptrend = 0.022] and those with a low birth weight [HR = 1.43 (1.00–2.04), Ptrend = 0.054].

Conclusion: The two components of height risk are differentially associated with breast cancer risk: leg length with an increased risk of postmenopausal ER+ tumors and sitting height with a decreased risk of premenopausal ER tumors.

Impact: Future prospective studies should no longer consider height a single risk factor for breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 21(7); 1171–5. ©2012 AACR.

Height is a well-established risk factor for breast cancer (1–3). Only 2 cohort studies (4, 5) showed that its effect was because of leg length rather than to sitting height. In parallel, the hypothesis that leg length is a better biomarker of childhood IGF-1 levels than sitting height or height has been recently criticized (6). These components of height have also been reported as potential confounders in the relationship between age at menarche and breast cancer risk (7).

To our knowledge, no study has ever provided results about the relationships between height, leg length, sitting height, and breast cancer risk, taking into account menopausal and hormone receptor statuses, and birth weight, birth length, and age at menarche. We used data from the French E3N cohort to evaluate these associations.

Study population

The E3N cohort includes 98,995 women living in France and covered by a national health insurance program primarily comprising schoolteachers. Its design has previously been described (8). Briefly, participants were 40 to 65 years old when they first entered the cohort in 1990. At inclusion, they filled in a baseline questionnaire containing questions on established risk factors for breast cancer, including aspects of reproductive life, menopausal status, history of benign breast disease, breast cancer in first-degree relatives and a variety of lifestyle characteristics. Follow-up questionnaires were sent out approximately 2 to 3 years thereafter. Pathology reports were obtained for 93% of incident invasive breast cancer cases.

For this study, follow-up started in 1995, the date of return of the fourth questionnaire, when components of height were self-reported for the first time. Responders (n = 65,989) contributed person-years of follow-up until the date of any cancer diagnosis other than basal cell carcinoma, date of the last completed questionnaire, or date of mailing of the last available questionnaire (the ninth, sent in 2008), whichever occurred first. We excluded women with prevalent cancer (other than basal cell carcinoma; n = 936), those with no follow-up (n = 1,312), and women who did not provide information on height or sitting height (n = 12,508). Among the 2,594 breast cancer cases, we excluded cases with an unknown hormone receptor status (n = 529). During follow-up (accruing 600,674 person-years), 2,065 breast cancer cases were finally considered among 50,704 women. Median follow-up time was 6 years for women with breast cancer and 13 years for non–breast cancer cases.

Statistical analysis

Sitting height was self-reported. Women were asked to sit up right on a hard seat, buttocks, and scapulas against the wall, to measure their height using a tape measure with an angle bracket placed on their heads, and then to subtract the seat height. Height and sitting height measurements were previously validated (9), with correlation coefficients between self-report and measurements by a technician of 0.94 and 0.56, respectively. Leg length was calculated as the difference between the height and sitting height. Cox proportional hazards regression models with age as the time scale were used to estimate HR and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Both the hypotheses of the estrogen pathway in breast cancerogenesis and the differential effect of pre- and postpubertal growth were tested by including interaction terms between the components of height and menopausal status, use of MHT, body mass index, and birth length and weight. Trends were tested by including the ordinal variable in multivariate models with median values of each quartile.

Population characteristics

Main mean characteristics are tabulated in Table 1. Anthropometric characteristics were very similar between cases and noncases. In noncases, mean height was 161.7 cm (SD = 5.7), mean sitting height was 84.7 cm (SD = 4.1), and mean leg length 76.9 cm (SD = 4.9). During follow-up, 2,065 breast cancer cases were diagnosed: 306 in premenopause and 1,759 in postmenopause.

Table 1.

Main baseline characteristics of the study population, E3N cohort (N = 50,704)

Cases (N = 2,065)Noncases (N = 48,639)
Mean (STD) or N (%)Mean (STD) or N (%)
Age 54.5 (6.3) 54.4 (6.7) 
Height (cm) 162.0 (5.7) 161.7 (5.7) 
Sitting height (cm) 84.8 (4.2) 84.7 (4.1) 
Leg length (cm) 77.2 (4.9) 76.9 (4.9) 
Birth weight 
 Low (≤2,490 g) 252 (12.3) 6,010 (12.5) 
 Medium (2,490–4,000 g) 1,367 (66.3) 31,308 (64.2) 
 Large (>4,000 g) 231 (11.3) 5,462 (11.3) 
 Missing 215 (10.1) 5,859 (12.0) 
Birth length 
 Short (≤47 cm) 196 (9.2) 4,655 (9.6) 
 Medium (47–51 cm) 1,378 (67.0) 31,732 (65.2) 
 Large (>51 cm) 144 (7.0) 3,013 (6.2) 
 Missing 347 (16.8) 9,239 (19.0) 
Body shape at menarche 
 Lean 1,221 (59.1) 27,162 (55.9) 
 Medium 470 (22.8) 11,316 (23.3) 
 Large 374 (18.1) 10,161 (20.8) 
Age at menarche 12.7 (1.3) 12.8 (1.4) 
Menopausal status 
 Premenopause 716 (34.7) 17,887 (36.8) 
 Postmenopause 1,349 (65.3) 30,748 (63.2) 
Cases (N = 2,065)Noncases (N = 48,639)
Mean (STD) or N (%)Mean (STD) or N (%)
Age 54.5 (6.3) 54.4 (6.7) 
Height (cm) 162.0 (5.7) 161.7 (5.7) 
Sitting height (cm) 84.8 (4.2) 84.7 (4.1) 
Leg length (cm) 77.2 (4.9) 76.9 (4.9) 
Birth weight 
 Low (≤2,490 g) 252 (12.3) 6,010 (12.5) 
 Medium (2,490–4,000 g) 1,367 (66.3) 31,308 (64.2) 
 Large (>4,000 g) 231 (11.3) 5,462 (11.3) 
 Missing 215 (10.1) 5,859 (12.0) 
Birth length 
 Short (≤47 cm) 196 (9.2) 4,655 (9.6) 
 Medium (47–51 cm) 1,378 (67.0) 31,732 (65.2) 
 Large (>51 cm) 144 (7.0) 3,013 (6.2) 
 Missing 347 (16.8) 9,239 (19.0) 
Body shape at menarche 
 Lean 1,221 (59.1) 27,162 (55.9) 
 Medium 470 (22.8) 11,316 (23.3) 
 Large 374 (18.1) 10,161 (20.8) 
Age at menarche 12.7 (1.3) 12.8 (1.4) 
Menopausal status 
 Premenopause 716 (34.7) 17,887 (36.8) 
 Postmenopause 1,349 (65.3) 30,748 (63.2) 

Height and breast cancer risk in the overall population and according to menopausal status

As an interaction between height and menopausal status was observed (P = 0.092), analyses are presented in the overall, pre- and postmenopausal populations (Table 2). Because age-adjusted and fully adjusted estimates did not differ materially, we decided to comment only those pertaining to fully adjusted models. Compared with short women (<158 cm), tall women (≥165 cm) were at significantly increased risk [HR = 1.16 (1.02–1.31)]. A significant trend was also observed (P = 0.007). This association was restricted to postmenopausal women [HR = 1.22 (1.06–1.41)] for the highest quartile, Ptrend = 0.002 in postmenopause and HR = 0.86 (0.61–1.20), Ptrend = 0.504 in premenopause.

Table 2.

Univariate and multivariate models for height, sitting height, and leg length associations with breast cancer risk in the overall, pre-, and postmenopausal population, E3N cohort (N = 50,704)

Overall populationPremenopausal womenPostmenopausal women
Model 1aModel 2bModel 1aModel 2bModel 1aModel 2b
NHR (95% CI)HR (95% CI)NHR (95% CI)HR (95% CI)NHR (95% CI)HR (95% CI)
Height (cm) 
<158 453 1 (ref) 1 (ref) 69 1 (ref) 1 (ref) 384 1 (ref) 1 (ref) 
158–162 509 0.96 (0.85–1.09) 0.96 (0.84–1.09) 77 0.94 (0.68–1.30) 0.82 (0.59–1.15) 432 0.98 (0.85–1.12) 0.98 (0.85–1.12) 
162–165 390 1.07 (0.93–1.23) 1.07 (0.93–1.23) 50 0.75 (0.52–1.08) 0.78 (0.53–1.14) 340 1.14 (0.98–1.32) 1.13 (0.97–1.32) 
≥165 713 1.14 (1.02–1.29) 1.15 (1.01–1.31) 110 0.89 (0.66–1.21) 0.88 (0.63–1.23) 603 1.20 (1.06–1.37) 1.22 (1.06–1.40) 
Ptrend  0.006 0.008  0.422 0.576  0.001 0.002 
Sitting height (cm) 
<82 368 1 (ref) 1 (ref) 40 1 (ref) 1 (ref) 328 1 (ref) 1 (ref) 
82–85 536 0.98 (0.86–1.12) 0.97 (0.85–1.11) 81 1.35 (0.92–1.98) 1.19 (0.81–1.76) 455 0.96 (0.83–1.10) 0.94 (0.81–1.08) 
85–87 466 1.02 (0.89–1.17) 1.00 (0.87–1.15) 70 1.04 (0.70–1.53) 0.93 (0.62–1.39) 396 1.02 (0.88–1.18) 0.99 (0.85–1.15) 
≥87 695 1.04 (0.91–1.18) 1.02 (0.89–1.16) 115 1.07 (0.74–1.53) 1.02 (0.70–1.49) 580 1.05 (0.92–1.21) 1.03 (0.89–1.18) 
Ptrend  0.411 0.64  0.674 0.723  0.253 0.37 
Leg length (cm) 
<74 457 1 (ref) 1 (ref) 72 1 (ref) 1 (ref) 385 1 (ref) 1 (ref) 
74–77 501 1.06 (0.94–1.21) 1.06 (0.93–1.21) 81 1.07 (0.78–1.48) 1.03 (0.74–1.44) 420 1.06 (0.93–1.22) 1.06 (0.92–1.21) 
77–80 495 1.11 (0.97–1.26) 1.11 (0.97–1.27) 73 0.97 (0.70–1.34) 1.05 (0.74–1.47) 422 1.13 (0.98–1.30) 1.13 (0.98–1.30) 
≥80 612 1.16 (1.02–1.31) 1.17 (1.03–1.33) 80 0.97 (0.70–1.33) 1.00 (0.71–1.40) 532 1.19 (1.05–1.36) 1.20 (1.05–1.38) 
Ptrend  0.015 0.015  0.702 0.982  0.005 0.02 
Overall populationPremenopausal womenPostmenopausal women
Model 1aModel 2bModel 1aModel 2bModel 1aModel 2b
NHR (95% CI)HR (95% CI)NHR (95% CI)HR (95% CI)NHR (95% CI)HR (95% CI)
Height (cm) 
<158 453 1 (ref) 1 (ref) 69 1 (ref) 1 (ref) 384 1 (ref) 1 (ref) 
158–162 509 0.96 (0.85–1.09) 0.96 (0.84–1.09) 77 0.94 (0.68–1.30) 0.82 (0.59–1.15) 432 0.98 (0.85–1.12) 0.98 (0.85–1.12) 
162–165 390 1.07 (0.93–1.23) 1.07 (0.93–1.23) 50 0.75 (0.52–1.08) 0.78 (0.53–1.14) 340 1.14 (0.98–1.32) 1.13 (0.97–1.32) 
≥165 713 1.14 (1.02–1.29) 1.15 (1.01–1.31) 110 0.89 (0.66–1.21) 0.88 (0.63–1.23) 603 1.20 (1.06–1.37) 1.22 (1.06–1.40) 
Ptrend  0.006 0.008  0.422 0.576  0.001 0.002 
Sitting height (cm) 
<82 368 1 (ref) 1 (ref) 40 1 (ref) 1 (ref) 328 1 (ref) 1 (ref) 
82–85 536 0.98 (0.86–1.12) 0.97 (0.85–1.11) 81 1.35 (0.92–1.98) 1.19 (0.81–1.76) 455 0.96 (0.83–1.10) 0.94 (0.81–1.08) 
85–87 466 1.02 (0.89–1.17) 1.00 (0.87–1.15) 70 1.04 (0.70–1.53) 0.93 (0.62–1.39) 396 1.02 (0.88–1.18) 0.99 (0.85–1.15) 
≥87 695 1.04 (0.91–1.18) 1.02 (0.89–1.16) 115 1.07 (0.74–1.53) 1.02 (0.70–1.49) 580 1.05 (0.92–1.21) 1.03 (0.89–1.18) 
Ptrend  0.411 0.64  0.674 0.723  0.253 0.37 
Leg length (cm) 
<74 457 1 (ref) 1 (ref) 72 1 (ref) 1 (ref) 385 1 (ref) 1 (ref) 
74–77 501 1.06 (0.94–1.21) 1.06 (0.93–1.21) 81 1.07 (0.78–1.48) 1.03 (0.74–1.44) 420 1.06 (0.93–1.22) 1.06 (0.92–1.21) 
77–80 495 1.11 (0.97–1.26) 1.11 (0.97–1.27) 73 0.97 (0.70–1.34) 1.05 (0.74–1.47) 422 1.13 (0.98–1.30) 1.13 (0.98–1.30) 
≥80 612 1.16 (1.02–1.31) 1.17 (1.03–1.33) 80 0.97 (0.70–1.33) 1.00 (0.71–1.40) 532 1.19 (1.05–1.36) 1.20 (1.05–1.38) 
Ptrend  0.015 0.015  0.702 0.982  0.005 0.02 

aModel 1: Unadjusted.

bModel 2: Adjusted for (1) non updated variables: education level (undergraduate/graduate or postgraduate), total physical activity (MET-h/wk), age at menarche (year), nulliparity (yes/no) age at first full-term pregnancy (before/after 30 years), breastfeeding (yes/no/unknown), age at menarche (year), age at menopause (year for postmenopausal women only), birth height (short, medium, large) and birth weight (low, medium, and large; (2) variables considered as time dependent: menopausal status (yes/no), use of oral contraceptives (current/non-user), family history of breast cancer (yes/no), mammography during the previous follow-up period (yes/no/unknown), history of benign breast disease (never/ever), use of oral progestagens alone before menopause (current/non-user), use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT, current/non-user for postmenopausal women only).

Components of height and breast cancer risk

The positive association with height in the overall and postmenopause populations was driven by leg length. Women in the highest category (≥80 cm) were at increased risk, in the overall population [HR = 1.17 (1.03–1.33)] and in postmenopause [HR = 1.21 (1.05–1.39)], with P for trends equal to 0.013 in both populations. No association was observed for sitting height.

Hormone receptor status

Among the 306 premenopausal breast cancer, 235 were ER+. Among the 1,759 cases in postmenopause, 1,456 were ER+. When stratifying breast cancer risk according to the estrogen receptor (ER) status (Table 3), the above described associations were confirmed for ER+ tumors only. HRs in the third and fourth quartiles were, respectively, 1.17 (1.00–1.37) and 1.28 (1.11–1.48) for height and 1.16 (1.01–1.34) and 1.22 (1.06–1.41) for leg length in the overall population. Results were similar in postmenopausal women. Trends for height were also observed both in the overall ER+ (P < 0.001) and postmenopausal ER+ (P < 0.001) populations, as were trends for leg length (P = 0.003 and 0.004, respectively).

Table 3.

Multivariate models for height, sitting height, and leg length associations with breast cancer risk in the overall, pre- and postmenopausal population, stratified by estrogen receptor status, E3N cohort (N = 50,704)

Overall populationaPremenopausal womenaPostmenopausal womena
ER+ERER+ERER+ER
NHR (95% CI)NHR (95% CI)NHR (95% CI)NHR (95% CI)NHR (95% CI)NHR (95% CI)
Height (cm) 
<158 350 103 45 24 305 79 
158–162 419 1.04 (0.90–1.20) 90 0.71 (0.53–0.95) 57 0.95 (0.64–1.43) 20 0.54 (0.29–1.01) 362 1.05 (0.89–1.25) 70 0.67 (0.47–0.95) 
162–165 323 1.17 (1.00–1.37) 67 0.75 (0.55–1.04) 41 1.00 (0.64–1.57) 0.33 (0.14–0.77) 282 1.19 (1.00–1.43) 58 0.78 (0.53–1.13) 
≥165 599 1.28 (1.11–1.48) 114 0.75 (0.56–1.00) 92 1.15 (0.77–1.71) 18 0.35 (0.18–0.70) 507 1.33 (1.13–1.57) 96 0.85 (0.61–1.19) 
Ptrend  <0.001  0.098  0.372  0.003  <0.001  0.589 
Sitting height (cm) 
<82 293 75 29 11 264 64 
82–85 430 0.99 (0.85–1.14) 106 0.91 (0.68–1.23) 57 1.16 (0.73–1.84) 24 1.21 (0.58–2.53) 373 0.99 (0.83–1.17) 82 0.86 (0.61–1.22) 
85–87 387 1.05 (0.90–1.23) 79 0.78 (0.57–1.07) 50 0.91 (0.57–1.47) 20 0.88 (0.41–1.90) 337 1.02 (0.86–1.22) 59 0.72 (0.49–1.06) 
≥87 581 1.08 (0.94–1.26) 114 0.76 (0.56–1.03) 99 1.23 (0.79–1.89) 16 0.45 (0.20–1.01) 482 1.10 (0.93–1.30) 98 0.86 (0.61–1.22) 
Ptrend  0.158  0.055  0.370  0.011  0.186  0.416 
Leg length (cm) 
<74 365 92 51 21 314 71 
74–77 404 1.08 (0.94–1.25) 97 1.00 (0.75–1.34) 62 1.12 (0.76–1.64) 19 0.77 (0.40–1.47) 342 1.01 (0.85–1.19) 78 1.03 (0.73–1.45) 
77–80 411 1.16 (1.01–1.34) 84 0.92 (0.68–1.24) 60 1.20 (0.81–1.77) 13 0.61 (0.30–1.26) 351 1.07 (0.90–1.26) 71 0.93 (0.65–1.33) 
≥ 80 511 1.22 (1.06–1.41) 101 0.96 (0.72–1.29) 62 1.07 (0.72–1.59) 18 0.76 (0.38–1.49) 449 1.24 (1.06–1.46) 83 0.98 (0.69–1.39) 
Ptrend  0.003  0.697  0.712  0.365  0.004  0.781 
Overall populationaPremenopausal womenaPostmenopausal womena
ER+ERER+ERER+ER
NHR (95% CI)NHR (95% CI)NHR (95% CI)NHR (95% CI)NHR (95% CI)NHR (95% CI)
Height (cm) 
<158 350 103 45 24 305 79 
158–162 419 1.04 (0.90–1.20) 90 0.71 (0.53–0.95) 57 0.95 (0.64–1.43) 20 0.54 (0.29–1.01) 362 1.05 (0.89–1.25) 70 0.67 (0.47–0.95) 
162–165 323 1.17 (1.00–1.37) 67 0.75 (0.55–1.04) 41 1.00 (0.64–1.57) 0.33 (0.14–0.77) 282 1.19 (1.00–1.43) 58 0.78 (0.53–1.13) 
≥165 599 1.28 (1.11–1.48) 114 0.75 (0.56–1.00) 92 1.15 (0.77–1.71) 18 0.35 (0.18–0.70) 507 1.33 (1.13–1.57) 96 0.85 (0.61–1.19) 
Ptrend  <0.001  0.098  0.372  0.003  <0.001  0.589 
Sitting height (cm) 
<82 293 75 29 11 264 64 
82–85 430 0.99 (0.85–1.14) 106 0.91 (0.68–1.23) 57 1.16 (0.73–1.84) 24 1.21 (0.58–2.53) 373 0.99 (0.83–1.17) 82 0.86 (0.61–1.22) 
85–87 387 1.05 (0.90–1.23) 79 0.78 (0.57–1.07) 50 0.91 (0.57–1.47) 20 0.88 (0.41–1.90) 337 1.02 (0.86–1.22) 59 0.72 (0.49–1.06) 
≥87 581 1.08 (0.94–1.26) 114 0.76 (0.56–1.03) 99 1.23 (0.79–1.89) 16 0.45 (0.20–1.01) 482 1.10 (0.93–1.30) 98 0.86 (0.61–1.22) 
Ptrend  0.158  0.055  0.370  0.011  0.186  0.416 
Leg length (cm) 
<74 365 92 51 21 314 71 
74–77 404 1.08 (0.94–1.25) 97 1.00 (0.75–1.34) 62 1.12 (0.76–1.64) 19 0.77 (0.40–1.47) 342 1.01 (0.85–1.19) 78 1.03 (0.73–1.45) 
77–80 411 1.16 (1.01–1.34) 84 0.92 (0.68–1.24) 60 1.20 (0.81–1.77) 13 0.61 (0.30–1.26) 351 1.07 (0.90–1.26) 71 0.93 (0.65–1.33) 
≥ 80 511 1.22 (1.06–1.41) 101 0.96 (0.72–1.29) 62 1.07 (0.72–1.59) 18 0.76 (0.38–1.49) 449 1.24 (1.06–1.46) 83 0.98 (0.69–1.39) 
Ptrend  0.003  0.697  0.712  0.365  0.004  0.781 

a Models were adjusted for (1) nonupdated variables: education level (undergraduate/graduate or postgraduate), total physical activity (MET-h/wk), age at menarche (year), nulliparity (yes/no) age at first full-term pregnancy (before/after 30 years), breastfeeding (yes/no/unknown), family history of breast cancer (yes/no) age at menopause (year for postmenopausal women only), birth length (short: ≤2,490 g/medium: 2,490–4,000 g/high: >4,000g), birth weight (low: ≤47cm/medium: 47–51 cm/large: >51 cm) and body shape at menarche (lean, medium, large; (2) variables considered as time-dependent: use of oral contraceptives (current/non-user), menopausal status (yes/no), mammography during the previous follow-up period (yes/no/unknown), history of benign breast disease (never/ever), use of oral progestagens alone before menopause (current/non-user), use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT, current/non-user for postmenopausal women only).

With regard to ER tumors, an inverse association was observed for height which was restricted to premenopausal women (HR = 0.33[0.14–0.77 and 0.35[0.18–0.70], respectively, for the third and fourth quartile). A negative significant trend was observed (P = 0.003). A negative trend was also observed for sitting height (P = 0.011) but not for leg length (P = 0.365).

Influence of birth weight and height

An interaction between birth length and leg length was observed (P = 0.066). We thus, stratified our data by birth length and birth weight (not tabulated). The positive association between height, leg length, and breast cancer risk was restricted to women with a short birth length [HR = 1.78 (1.11–2.83) for the last category of height, Ptrend = 0.033, HR = 1.82 (1.22–2.72) for the last category of leg length, Ptrend = 0.022]. The association with leg length was restricted to women with a low birth weight [HR = 1.43 (1.00–2.04) for the last category and Ptrend = 0.0538]. No other association was significant.

In this study, we found a positive association between height and postmenopausal breast cancer risk, driven by leg length. No association between height or its components and overall premenopausal breast cancer risk has been observed. Leg length was associated with an increased risk of ER+ breast cancer risk in postmenopausal, restricted to women who had a short birth length or a low birth weight, whereas sitting height was associated with a decreased ER premenopausal breast cancer risk.

There is evidence that height is associated with breast cancer risk in the literature (1, 2, 4, 10, 11). The absence of association in our study between height and premenopausal breast cancer risk may be attributed to small numbers in this category or to a limited height range in our cohort, with few tall women (12). Height is a biomarker of nutrition and growth factors in childhood (13–16). Although the interest of these variables was recently discussed (6), leg length and sitting height are considered more closely associated to growth hormone exposure than height, respectively, before and after menarche (1, 10).

Leg length has been suggested to be a privileged marker of exposures early in life, as it is particularly sensitive to environmental factors and diet in early childhood (17). In addition, leg length might be a more accurate and stable measure over time than height alone, as height loss in postmenopausal women is typically confined to the axial skeleton (18)-–mainly because of changes in the spinal vertebral bodies by osteoporosis and disk spaces (19). Our results also indicate that the overall association between height—or leg length–-and breast cancer risk are restricted to women with short birth length or low birth weight, which is in agreement with De Stavola and colleagues (2) who found that women with a catch-up growth during childhood—which is also associated with nutritional exposures (17)–-were at particularly increased risk of breast cancer. Catch-up growth has also already been associated with diet during childhood or adolescence. Our results can also be explained by the increased IGF-I levels, acting as a potential cancer promoter, observed in prepubertal children with low birth weight and postnatal catch-up growth (20). IGF-1 levels can act as a potential cancer promoter by inhibiting apoptosis and increasing the differentiation of cells (21), particularly of ER+ subtype (22). But the association between IGF-1 levels in childhood and IGF-1 levels at adulthood is discussed (23). Another hypothesis involves insulinoresistance and diabetes: low birth weight and postnatal catch-up growth are associated with later-life risk of insulinoresistance and type 2 diabetes (24), which have been shown to increase risk of postmenopausal breast cancer, particularly of the ER+ subtype (25). We had no biologic hypothesis supporting the decreased risk of ER premenopausal breast cancer with increasing sitting height, and to our knowledge, no other study has ever analyzed this relationship before.

Strengths and limits of the study

Anthropometric information was self-reported. A validation study proved them reliable (9): with correlation coefficients between self-reported and measured values of height and sitting height of, respectively, 0.94 and 0.56. Even if the correlation coefficient for sitting height was low as compared with the one for height, no absolute difference exceeded 1.1 cm, so that a categorization in quartiles made the risk of misclassification bias unlikely. Another limitation is the potential limited power in some categories and the limited variability of height in the cohort, which might be insufficient to detect small associations.

A major strength was our ability to stratify the analyses by menopausal status, ER status, birth length, and weight for the first time in a prospective study.

In our study, a large leg length was found to be a risk factor for breast cancer, but only for women who had a short birth length. Moreover, leg length seemed to be a risk factor only for ER+ tumors in postmenopause, whereas a large sitting height was associated with a decreased risk of ER premenopausal tumors. These results provided evidence that the relationship between height and breast cancer risk can no longer be interpreted as a simple single association.

The study sponsors had no role in the design of the study, analysis or interpretation of data, writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Conception and design: G. Fagherazzi, F. Clavel-Chapelon, S. Mesrine

Development of methodology: G. Fagherazzi

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): F. Clavel-Chapelon

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): G. Fagherazzi, A. Vilier, M.-C. Boutron-Ruault, S. Mesrine

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: G. Fagherazzi, M.-C. Boutron-Ruault, S. Mesrine

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): F. Clavel-Chapelon

Study supervision: G. Fagherazzi, F. Clavel-Chapelon, S. Mesrine

The authors thank all participants for providing data and to practitioners for providing pathology reports.

The E3N cohort is financially supported by the Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale, the Institut de Cancérologie Gustave Roussy and the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale and the Ligue Contre le Cancer.

1.
Gunnell
D
,
Okasha
M
,
Smith
GD
,
Oliver
SE
,
Sandhu
J
,
Holly
JM
. 
Height, leg length, and cancer risk: a systematic review
.
Epidemiol Rev
2001
;
23
:
313
42
.
2.
De Stavola
BL
,
dos Santos Silva
I
,
McCormack
V
,
Hardy
RJ
,
Kuh
DJ
,
Wadsworth
ME
. 
Childhood growth and breast cancer
.
Am J Epidemiol
2004
;
159
:
671
82
.
3.
Swanson
CA
,
Coates
RJ
,
Schoenberg
JB
,
Malone
KE
,
Gammon
MD
,
Stanford
JL
, et al
Body size and breast cancer risk among women under age 45 years
.
Am J Epidemiol
1996
;
143
:
698
706
.
4.
Albanes
D
,
Jones
DY
,
Schatzkin
A
,
Micozzi
MS
,
Taylor
PR
. 
Adult stature and risk of cancer
.
Cancer Res
1988
;
48
:
1658
62
.
5.
Gunnell
DJ
,
Smith
GD
,
Holly
JM
,
Frankel
S
. 
Leg length and risk of cancer in the Boyd Orr cohort
.
BMJ
1998
;
317
:
1350
1
.
6.
Rogers
I
,
Metcalfe
C
,
Gunnell
D
,
Emmett
P
,
Dunger
D
,
Holly
J
. 
Insulin-like growth factor-I and growth in height, leg length, and trunk length between ages 5 and 10 years
.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
2006
;
91
:
2514
9
.
7.
Osuch
JR
,
Karmaus
W
,
Hoekman
P
,
Mudd
L
,
Zhang
J
,
Haan
P
, et al
Association of age at menarche with adult leg length and trunk height: Speculations in relation to breast cancer risk
.
Ann Hum Biol
2010
;
37
:
76
85
.
8.
Engel
P
,
Fagherazzi
G
,
Mesrine
S
,
Boutron-Ruault
MC
,
Clavel-Chapelon
F
. 
Joint effects of dietary vitamin D and sun exposure on breast cancer risk: results from the French E3N cohort
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2011
;
20
:
187
98
.
9.
Tehard
B
,
van Liere
MJ
,
Com
NC
,
Clavel-Chapelon
F
. 
Anthropometric measurements and body silhouette of women: validity and perception
.
J Am Diet Assoc
2002
;
102
:
1779
84
.
10.
Okasha
M
,
McCarron
P
,
Gunnell
D
,
Smith
GD
. 
Exposures in childhood, adolescence and early adulthood and breast cancer risk: a systematic review of the literature
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2003
;
78
:
223
76
.
11.
Friedenreich
CM
. 
Review of anthropometric factors and breast cancer risk
.
Eur J Cancer Prev
2001
;
10
:
15
32
.
12.
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
5
.
13.
Nilsen
TI
,
Vatten
LJ
. 
Adult height and risk of breast cancer: a possible effect of early nutrition
.
Br J Cancer
2001
;
85
:
959
61
.
14.
Russo
J
,
Tay
LK
,
Russo
IH
. 
Differentiation of the mammary gland and susceptibility to carcinogenesis
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
1982
;
2
:
5
73
.
15.
Frazier
AL
,
Li
L
,
Cho
E
,
Willett
WC
,
Colditz
GA
. 
Adolescent diet and risk of breast cancer
.
Cancer Causes Control
2004
;
15
:
73
82
.
16.
Berkey
CS
,
Gardner
JD
,
Frazier
AL
,
Colditz
GA
. 
Relation of childhood diet and body size to menarche and adolescent growth in girls
.
Am J Epidemiol
2000
;
152
:
446
52
.
17.
Wadsworth
ME
,
Hardy
RJ
,
Paul
AA
,
Marshall
SF
,
Cole
TJ
. 
Leg and trunk length at 43 years in relation to childhood health, diet and family circumstances; evidence from the 1946 national birth cohort
.
Int J Epidemiol
2002
;
31
:
383
90
.
18.
Onland-Moret
NC
,
Peeters
PH
,
van Gils
CH
,
Clavel-Chapelon
F
,
Key
T
,
Tjonneland
A
, et al
Age at menarche in relation to adult height: the EPIC study
.
Am J Epidemiol
2005
;
162
:
623
32
.
19.
Sagiv
M
,
Vogelaere
PP
,
Soudry
M
,
Ehrsam
R
. 
Role of physical activity training in attenuation of height loss through aging
.
Gerontology
2000
;
46
:
266
70
.
20.
Ong
K
,
Kratzsch
J
,
Kiess
W
,
Dunger
D
. 
Circulating IGF-I levels in childhood are related to both current body composition and early postnatal growth rate
.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
2002
;
87
:
1041
4
.
21.
Kleinberg
DL
,
Wood
TL
,
Furth
PA
,
Lee
AV
. 
Growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor-I in the transition from normal mammary development to preneoplastic mammary lesions
.
Endocr Rev
2009
;
30
:
51
74
.
22.
Tworoger
SS
,
Rosner
BA
,
Willett
WC
,
Hankinson
SE
. 
The combined influence of multiple sex and growth hormones on risk of postmenopausal breast cancer: a nested case-control study
.
Breast Cancer Res
2011
;
13
:
R99
.
23.
Gunnell
D
,
Oliver
SE
,
Donovan
JL
,
Peters
TJ
,
Gillatt
D
,
Persad
R
, et al
Do height-related variations in insulin-like growth factors underlie the associations of stature with adult chronic disease?
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
2004
;
89
:
213
8
.
24.
Harder
T
,
Rodekamp
E
,
Schellong
K
,
Dudenhausen
JW
,
Plagemann
A
. 
Birth weight and subsequent risk of type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis
.
Am J Epidemiol
2007
;
165
:
849
57
.
25.
Michels
KB
,
Solomon
CG
,
Hu
FB
,
Rosner
BA
,
Hankinson
SE
,
Colditz
GA
, et al
Type 2 diabetes and subsequent incidence of breast cancer in the Nurses' Health Study
.
Diabetes Care
2003
;
26
:
1752
8
.