Breast cancer is a leading cancer diagnosis among premenopausal women around the world. Unlike rates in postmenopausal women, incidence rates of advanced breast cancer have increased in recent decades for premenopausal women. Progress in identifying contributors to breast cancer risk among premenopausal women has been constrained by the limited numbers of premenopausal breast cancer cases in individual studies and resulting low statistical power to subcategorize exposures or to study specific subtypes. The Premenopausal Breast Cancer Collaborative Group was established to facilitate cohort-based analyses of risk factors for premenopausal breast cancer by pooling individual-level data from studies participating in the United States National Cancer Institute Cohort Consortium. This article describes the Group, including the rationale for its initial aims related to pregnancy, obesity, and physical activity. We also describe the 20 cohort studies with data submitted to the Group by June 2016. The infrastructure developed for this work can be leveraged to support additional investigations. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(9); 1360–9. ©2017 AACR.

This article is featured in Highlights of This Issue, p. 1357

Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed among women worldwide, with an estimated 1.67 million cases diagnosed in 2012, accounting for a quarter of all new cancers in women. Breast cancer is also the most common cancer diagnosed among women ages 15 to 39 years worldwide (1). Furthermore, breast cancer among premenopausal women often presents at more advanced stages (2) and, at the youngest ages, has less favorable prognosis (3) than among postmenopausal women.

Identifying contributors to breast cancer risk in younger women is critical to prevention. In the United States, incidence rates of advanced breast cancer have increased among premenopausal women in recent decades, whereas they have consistently decreased among women ages 60 and older during the same period (4). Accumulating evidence supports etiologic heterogeneity between pre- and postmenopausal breast cancer. Several lifestyle factors, including childbirth (5), obesity (6), and cigarette smoking (7), have been reported to have differential associations with breast cancer risk before and after menopause. Breast cancer subtypes, including those defined by gene expression (8), or clinical markers including estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), or HER2/neu oncogene expression, have emerged as critical considerations for risk factor associations and are differentially distributed by menopausal status (9). Investigations of breast cancer etiologic heterogeneity require large sample sizes to have sufficient statistical power to account jointly for menopausal status and tumor subtype.

The Premenopausal Breast Cancer Collaborative Group (referred to hereafter as the Collaborative Group) was established to facilitate cohort-based analyses of risk factors for premenopausal breast cancer, both overall and according to tumor characteristics. This article describes the formation of the Collaborative Group, the methods used for ongoing efforts, and provides the rationale for initial analyses related to pregnancy, obesity, and physical activity. The infrastructure developed to address these questions can support future investigations of additional potential risk factors.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cohort Consortium was formed to address the need for large-scale collaborations to pool data in cohort studies of cancer and hence to quicken the pace of research (http://epi.grants.cancer.gov/Consortia/cohort.html). The Collaborative Group was initiated within the Cohort Consortium in 2013 by investigators at The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) in London and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). The ICR and the NIEHS serve as the Data Coordinating Centers.

Eligibility

Prospective cohorts in the Cohort Consortium with at least 100 female breast cancers diagnosed during follow-up before age 55 and data collection at two or more time points (baseline and at least one follow-up, to allow for exposure information and menopausal status to be updated) are eligible to participate.

Participating cohorts

This report describes the 20 cohort studies (counting the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition, which has many cohorts within it, as a single cohort; refs. 6, 10–28) with data submitted to the Collaborative Group as of June 2016. Participating cohorts are shown in Table 1 and span North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. The number of female participants from these cohorts ages <55 at enrollment ranges from 5,671 (Campaign against Cancer and Heart Disease) to 117,733 (Nurses' Health Study cohort). The cohorts were initiated as early as 1950 (the Radiation Effects Research Foundation Life Span Study) or as recently as 2003 (Generations and Sister Study cohorts). All cohorts have conducted more than one round of data collection; however, follow-up data are not yet fully available for three cohorts. The number of follow-up rounds for which data have been submitted as of June 1, 2016, ranged from 1 to 16 across cohorts.

Table 1.

Characteristics of women younger than 55 years in cohorts included in the Premenopausal Breast Cancer Collaborative Group

CohortLocationAges at enrollment; mean (SD), rangeCalendar years of enrollmentBaseline data collection methodsN of data collection roundsaBreast cancer cases (N)Breast cancer ascertainment sourcesCohort size (women <55 years)N years of follow-up, mean (SD), range (<55 years)
Black Women's Health Study (10) United States 37.1 (8.6)20–54 1995 Mailed questionnaire 1,299 Self-report and state registry 52,543 12.6 (5.6)0–18.6 
California Teachers Cohort (28) United States 40.4 (7.4)22–54 1995–1998 Mailed questionnaire 1,185 State registry 47,516 11.6 (5.0)0.0–17.2 
Campaign against Cancer and Heart Disease (CLUE II; ref. 13) United States 39.6 (9.6)18–54 1989 Administered questionnaire 131 State registry 5,671 10.8 (5.4)0.3–26.0 
Canadian Study of Diet, Lifestyle, and Health (12)b Canada 44.1 (6.9)23–54 1991–1999 Mailed questionnaire 377 Provincial and national registry 1,589 8.1 (4.7)0–18.6 
European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (14)c Europe 44.2 (8.1)19–54 1991–2000 Self-reported/administered questionnaires 2,122 Self-report and national/regional registries 150,291 7.5 (4.2)0–16.6 
Etude Epidémiologique auprès de femmes de la Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale (E3N; ref. 15) France 46.5 (4.2)38–54 1989–1991 Mailed questionnaire 1,908 Self-report 72,748 8.1 (4.2)0–16.4 
Generations Study (11) United Kingdom 39.8 (9.5)16–54 2003–2012 Mailed questionnaire 719 Self-report and national registry 72,058 5.4 (1.7)0–9.7 
Helseundersøkelsen i Nord-Trøndelag (HUNT2; ref. 26) Norway 38.9 (9.7)20–54 1995–1997 Administered questionnaire 209 National cancer registry 20,974 10.2 (4.1)0.3–14.0 
Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (16) Australia 47.5 (4.4)31–54 1990–1994 Administered questionnaire 227 State registry 12,029 7.3 (4.4)0–20.1 
New York University Women's Health Study (19, 20) United States 45.2 (5.5)31–54 1984–1991 Self-administered questionnaire 371 Self-report and state registry 8,757 9.5 (5.5)0–23.5 
Norwegian Women and Cancer Study (105) Norway 45.7 (6.0)31–54 1991–2007 Mailed questionnaire 2,124 National registry 117,633 9.0 (5.8)0.3–20.5 
Nurses' Health Study (17) United States 42.6 (7.1)29–54 1976–1978 Mailed questionnaire 16 2,743 Self-report 117,730 12.2 (7.0)0.1–25.5 
Nurses' Health Study II (18) United States 34.8 (4.7)24–44 1989–1990 Mailed questionnaire 12 3,765 Self-report 116,415 18.7 (3.7)0.1–23.7 
Radiation Effects Research Foundation Life Span Study (21) Japan 41.3 (8.5)18–54 1963–1993 Administered or mailed questionnaire 130 City registry 18,420 13.5 (8.5)0.1–36.7 
Singapore Chinese Health Study (22) Singapore 49.6 (3.0)43–54 1993–1998 Administered questionnaire 134 National cancer registry 16,056 5.3 (3.0)0.3–11.5 
Sister Study (6) United States 47.9 (4.9)35–54 2003–2009 Telephone and written questionnaire 679 Self-report 24,044 4.7 (2.5)0.1–10.6 
Southern Community Cohort Study (23) United States 47.3 (4.2)40–54 2002–2009 Administered questionnaire 233 State registry 30,289 5.1 (2.4)0.1–13.3 
Sweden Women's Lifestyle and Health Study (27) Sweden 39.7 (5.8)29–49 1991–1992 Mailed questionnaire 1,192 National registry 49,010 14.4 (5.3)0.1–21.1 
Swedish Mammography Cohort (24) Sweden 46.6 (4.3)38–54 1987–1990 Mailed questionnaire 649 National registry 34,126 8.3 (4.3)0–16.6 
United States Radiologic Technologist Cohort (25) United States 36.8 (7.3)22–54 1983–1998 Mailed questionnaire 1,570 Self-report 62,862 14.5 (5.6)0–22.8 
CohortLocationAges at enrollment; mean (SD), rangeCalendar years of enrollmentBaseline data collection methodsN of data collection roundsaBreast cancer cases (N)Breast cancer ascertainment sourcesCohort size (women <55 years)N years of follow-up, mean (SD), range (<55 years)
Black Women's Health Study (10) United States 37.1 (8.6)20–54 1995 Mailed questionnaire 1,299 Self-report and state registry 52,543 12.6 (5.6)0–18.6 
California Teachers Cohort (28) United States 40.4 (7.4)22–54 1995–1998 Mailed questionnaire 1,185 State registry 47,516 11.6 (5.0)0.0–17.2 
Campaign against Cancer and Heart Disease (CLUE II; ref. 13) United States 39.6 (9.6)18–54 1989 Administered questionnaire 131 State registry 5,671 10.8 (5.4)0.3–26.0 
Canadian Study of Diet, Lifestyle, and Health (12)b Canada 44.1 (6.9)23–54 1991–1999 Mailed questionnaire 377 Provincial and national registry 1,589 8.1 (4.7)0–18.6 
European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (14)c Europe 44.2 (8.1)19–54 1991–2000 Self-reported/administered questionnaires 2,122 Self-report and national/regional registries 150,291 7.5 (4.2)0–16.6 
Etude Epidémiologique auprès de femmes de la Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale (E3N; ref. 15) France 46.5 (4.2)38–54 1989–1991 Mailed questionnaire 1,908 Self-report 72,748 8.1 (4.2)0–16.4 
Generations Study (11) United Kingdom 39.8 (9.5)16–54 2003–2012 Mailed questionnaire 719 Self-report and national registry 72,058 5.4 (1.7)0–9.7 
Helseundersøkelsen i Nord-Trøndelag (HUNT2; ref. 26) Norway 38.9 (9.7)20–54 1995–1997 Administered questionnaire 209 National cancer registry 20,974 10.2 (4.1)0.3–14.0 
Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (16) Australia 47.5 (4.4)31–54 1990–1994 Administered questionnaire 227 State registry 12,029 7.3 (4.4)0–20.1 
New York University Women's Health Study (19, 20) United States 45.2 (5.5)31–54 1984–1991 Self-administered questionnaire 371 Self-report and state registry 8,757 9.5 (5.5)0–23.5 
Norwegian Women and Cancer Study (105) Norway 45.7 (6.0)31–54 1991–2007 Mailed questionnaire 2,124 National registry 117,633 9.0 (5.8)0.3–20.5 
Nurses' Health Study (17) United States 42.6 (7.1)29–54 1976–1978 Mailed questionnaire 16 2,743 Self-report 117,730 12.2 (7.0)0.1–25.5 
Nurses' Health Study II (18) United States 34.8 (4.7)24–44 1989–1990 Mailed questionnaire 12 3,765 Self-report 116,415 18.7 (3.7)0.1–23.7 
Radiation Effects Research Foundation Life Span Study (21) Japan 41.3 (8.5)18–54 1963–1993 Administered or mailed questionnaire 130 City registry 18,420 13.5 (8.5)0.1–36.7 
Singapore Chinese Health Study (22) Singapore 49.6 (3.0)43–54 1993–1998 Administered questionnaire 134 National cancer registry 16,056 5.3 (3.0)0.3–11.5 
Sister Study (6) United States 47.9 (4.9)35–54 2003–2009 Telephone and written questionnaire 679 Self-report 24,044 4.7 (2.5)0.1–10.6 
Southern Community Cohort Study (23) United States 47.3 (4.2)40–54 2002–2009 Administered questionnaire 233 State registry 30,289 5.1 (2.4)0.1–13.3 
Sweden Women's Lifestyle and Health Study (27) Sweden 39.7 (5.8)29–49 1991–1992 Mailed questionnaire 1,192 National registry 49,010 14.4 (5.3)0.1–21.1 
Swedish Mammography Cohort (24) Sweden 46.6 (4.3)38–54 1987–1990 Mailed questionnaire 649 National registry 34,126 8.3 (4.3)0–16.6 
United States Radiologic Technologist Cohort (25) United States 36.8 (7.3)22–54 1983–1998 Mailed questionnaire 1,570 Self-report 62,862 14.5 (5.6)0–22.8 

aContributed as of June 2016; includes baseline and each follow-up.

bThe Canadian Study of Diet, Lifestyle, and Health is the only case-cohort study. The cohort size (N = 1,589) represents the subcohort only.

cThe European Prospective Study into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) dataset does not include the French or Norwegian EPIC sites which contributed from the Etude Epidémiologique auprès de femmes de la Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale and Norwegian Women and Cancer Study directly.

Breast cancer ascertainment

To date, data have been received for 1,030,761 women, and include 21,766 incidents invasive or in situ breast cancers diagnosed after study enrollment and before age 55 years (Table 2). Across studies, cancer diagnoses are identified by linkage with city/state/provincial/regional (10, 12, 13, 23, 28–31) or national (11, 12, 14, 24, 26, 32, 33) population-based cancer registries, and/or through self-report followed by medical record review (6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 25, 34, 35). All participating studies established case ascertainment procedures and published findings related to incident breast cancer risk prior to joining the Collaborative Group.

Table 2.

Breast cancer characteristics among women younger than 55 years across the Premenopausal Breast Cancer Collaborative Group

CharacteristicCombined (N)Total N studies with data availablea
Total breast cancers diagnosed 21,766 20 (all) 
Age at diagnosis (y)  20 (all) 
<30 32  
30–39 1,245  
40–44 3,340  
45–49 7,053  
50–54 10,096  
Extent of disease  20 
In situ 3,651  
Invasive 17,357  
Missing 758  
Estrogen receptor status  16 
Positive 9,583  
Negative 3,182  
Borderline 52  
Missing 8,949  
Progesterone receptor status  16 
Positive 7,919  
Negative 3,939  
Borderline 95  
Missing 9,813  
HER2/neu overexpression  11 
Positive 1,093  
Negative 4,808  
Borderline 29  
Missing 15,836  
CharacteristicCombined (N)Total N studies with data availablea
Total breast cancers diagnosed 21,766 20 (all) 
Age at diagnosis (y)  20 (all) 
<30 32  
30–39 1,245  
40–44 3,340  
45–49 7,053  
50–54 10,096  
Extent of disease  20 
In situ 3,651  
Invasive 17,357  
Missing 758  
Estrogen receptor status  16 
Positive 9,583  
Negative 3,182  
Borderline 52  
Missing 8,949  
Progesterone receptor status  16 
Positive 7,919  
Negative 3,939  
Borderline 95  
Missing 9,813  
HER2/neu overexpression  11 
Positive 1,093  
Negative 4,808  
Borderline 29  
Missing 15,836  

aContributed as of June 2016.

Data exchange and harmonization

After approval by the NCI Cohort Consortium executive committee, the aims of the proposed collaboration were circulated to all Consortium members in 2013. Key exposure, covariate, and outcome information necessary to address the initial analyses and potential confounding or effect modification was identified by the Coordinating Centers. Complete capture of all information across exposures is not required for participation.

After confirming eligibility, a data request template is sent to cohorts that wish to participate. Requested exposure data include: age/year of cohort entry, length of follow-up, demographic characteristics (age, race/ethnicity, education, socioeconomic status), lifestyle factors (physical activity, anthropometric characteristics, alcohol intake, smoking information, mammography use), reproductive history (menarche, menstrual cycle characteristics, gravidity, parity, pregnancy complications, infertility, breastfeeding, hormonal medications, menopausal status), benign breast disease, and family history of breast cancer (Supplementary Table S1). Most characteristics are requested at enrollment and each follow-up, as available. Breast cancer information includes age at diagnosis, stage, grade, histology, and expression of ER, PR, HER2, CK5/6, or EGFR. Participating studies are asked where possible to recode their own data to fit the data request template to minimize the potential for error in the recoding or understanding of variables in their original form. However, if this is not possible due to programming support constraints or other reasons, data are sent to the Coordinating Centers in their original form with a study-specific contact person identified to address questions from Coordinating Center programmers who reformat the information to fit the standard definitions in the data request template.

After data transfer agreements are signed between each individual study and the Coordinating Centers, completed datasets were transferred to the coordinating centers using secure file transfer protocols. Each cohort submits their data to one of the two Coordinating Centers who are responsible for data transfer and harmonization procedures. By having two data coordinating sites, one located in the United States and the other in the United Kingdom, we are able to minimize time zone differences to facilitate rapid communication, and accommodate studies that are only able to send data to certain locations because of country-specific information governance requirements.

Data harmonization procedures are standardized across Coordinating Centers. Quality control checks are run on each dataset to identify (i) potential data inconsistencies for each questionnaire round (e.g., nulliparous women reporting more than zero births), (ii) inconsistencies between questionnaire rounds (e.g., number of births at follow-up being lower than at baseline questionnaire), and (iii) implausible values. Data checking procedures are automated with a shared program that was run at each Coordinating Center with standardized output. Each cohort is contacted regarding any issues that were identified, and clarifications or updates are incorporated into the study-specific dataset. Where issues could not be resolved, pre-established recoding rules are applied to the data. When study-specific variables cannot be recoded to meet the data template formats (e.g., age at exposure was collected in categories but a continuous variable was requested), differences are documented and original data are retained for potential future use. Once the datasets are recoded to the standardized formats, data are merged to create a pooled dataset containing values from all cohorts.

Defining menopausal status

A primary issue for the Collaborative Group analyses is the definition of menopausal status during follow-up and at diagnosis. Menopausal status was ascertained by cohorts at each follow-up round for which it was available. In addition, we request at least one follow-up round after age 55 or breast cancer diagnosis (if available) to allow menopausal status to be defined retrospectively. In analyses conducted by menopausal status we will explore different lag periods to determine patterns for “premenopausal” or “perimenopausal” breast cancer, as menopause can be a gradual transition.

Statistical approach

Two statistical approaches are being used to analyze the data. We first examine study-specific estimates and a pooled estimate across studies using a random-effects model that weights estimates by the inverse of the study-specific variance (36–38). An advantage of this approach is that each study-specific estimate can be derived based on its own available covariates. Cochran's Q statistic is used to examine statistical heterogeneity between studies by comparing a weighted measure of difference between individual study estimates and the pooled estimate (39, 40). We calculate the I2 statistic to examine the proportion of variance that is due to between-study heterogeneity rather than chance (41). Potential sources of heterogeneity are investigated.

Maximum flexibility for confounder adjustment and assessment of effect modification can be achieved by pooling individual-level data across cohorts. If homogeneity assumptions are not violated, we pool data into a single dataset to conduct aggregate analyses stratified by study and adjusted for potential confounders that are available in all included studies.

In both approaches, Cox regression models are used to calculate HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for breast cancer (42). Regression models are constructed with age as the time scale such that person-time is accrued from age at cohort entry until breast cancer diagnosis, age at last follow-up, or other exit age, whichever occurred first. Follow-up time is stratified by time-updated exposures obtained from follow-up questionnaires, as appropriate. We test the proportional hazards assumption for exposures of interest, and in case of time-varying associations, for example, an interaction between attained age and the risk factor of interest, we investigate the addition of time-varying covariates in the model. In pooled analyses, potential variation in the association between exposures and breast cancer risk according to tumor subtype are assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression accounting for alternative tumor subtypes as competing risks (43, 44).

Pregnancy

A “dual effect” of pregnancy on breast cancer risk has been used to describe the short-term increase in breast cancer risk observed after childbirth followed by a long-term protective effect of parity. This pattern has been reported in epidemiological studies nested within European population registries (45–49) and in other case–control (50–55) and cohort (56) studies. Observational studies have reported 1.25- to 3-fold increases in breast cancer risk for up to 10 years after the last birth (5, 57). The magnitude of the pregnancy-related increase in breast cancer risk varies across studies, and may be influenced by maternal, pregnancy, or post-partum characteristics. Although a period of increased breast cancer risk after childbirth has been reported across several studies, it remains unclear whether this observation is different for, or limited to, specific groups defined by age (5, 50, 51), parity (45, 52, 53), oral contraceptive use (58), breastfeeding practices, family history of breast cancer (48, 59), or varies by breast cancer subtype (55, 56, 60) or other tumor characteristics (61, 62).

Women who have a first birth at an older age may have the greatest initial increase in breast cancer risk, and the longest interval until a protective effect appears (5, 49, 54, 63). Over the last 50 years, more women have postponed childbirth to older ages (5); this trend may have contributed to the increasing advanced-stage breast cancer rates among reproductive-age women. Pregnancy may also have opposite effects on risks of different breast cancer subtypes. For example, without considering menopausal status or subtype, parity reduces overall breast cancer risk by approximately 30% (64). However, parous women have a 50% to 90% increased risk of basal-like or ER/PR breast cancer overall (56, 65, 66). Associations for pre- and postmenopausal breast cancer combined often reflect patterns among the majority postmenopausal breast cancer cases. Our study will be well positioned to examine potential variation in the association between recent pregnancy and breast cancer subtype among premenopausal women. Others have proposed that pregnancy-related increases in breast cancer risk may also be affected by the relatively greater influence of genetic predisposition at younger versus older ages at diagnosis (48). In support of this hypothesis, at least two studies have shown stronger associations with recent birth and breast cancer risk among women with a mother or sister who was diagnosed with breast cancer (48, 59).

Theories to explain the transient increased risk of breast cancer after childbirth vary. High levels of estrogen and progesterone and the rapid expansion of breast cells during pregnancy could promote latent initiated tumor cells. However, breast tumors diagnosed postpartum are more often at an advanced stage and are associated with lower survival compared with those diagnosed during pregnancy (67–69). This evidence has led to increased focus on the role of post-partum exposures, including lactational involution (the process that returns the mammary gland to a non-milk producing state), as contributors to a pro-tumorigenic microenvironment that may be favorable for cancer cell migration and metastasis (70). Potential adverse effects of lactational involution on the breast microenvironment must also be reconciled with demonstrated lower risks of specific tumor subtypes among parous women who breastfeed, including ER-negative or basal-like tumors that confer a worse prognosis (56, 65). A better understanding of the factors that contribute to short-term increases in breast cancer risk after pregnancy, including potential variation by age, parity, oral contraceptive use, breastfeeding, family history, or tumor subtype could provide necessary information for refining hypotheses about carcinogenesis in reproductive-age women (71). Individual studies have had insufficient statistical power or have lacked key information to evaluate these characteristics jointly, making the Collaborative Group an ideal setting in which to advance understanding of pregnancy's role in premenopausal breast cancer development.

BMI and other anthropometrics

There is epidemiological evidence for higher BMI at premenopausal ages having an inverse association with breast cancer risk (72–75). Higher adiposity in childhood and adolescence appears to be associated with a lower risk of breast cancer at both premenopausal (73, 76–78) and postmenopausal (77–79) ages. Whether further weight gain contributes to additional reductions in premenopausal breast cancer risk is not entirely clear (80, 81). A protective effect of adiposity at premenopausal ages is in contrast with the effect of adiposity at postmenopausal ages, with greater BMI after menopause associated with higher risk of breast cancer, probably through production of estrogens by aromatase in adipose tissue (82).

The reason for the protective effect of adiposity at premenopausal ages is unclear, although several hypotheses have been put forward. Fewer ovulatory cycles in heavier women, and consequent lower sex hormone levels, has been suggested as a potential explanation (83). Similarly, an effect of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) has been proposed, although Nurses' Health Study II data did not support this (73). To find the reasons for the inverse associations with premenopausal adiposity, large study populations are needed to produce stable estimates and to stratify by potentially explanatory factors.

Few published studies have had sufficiently large numbers of premenopausal cases to produce age-specific estimates over a range of ages, or to explore whether risks differ by other explanatory factors or by breast cancer subtype. The few that stratified by established breast cancer risk factors such as parity have so far reported risk estimates to be similar across these factors (72, 78). The association between adiposity and premenopausal breast cancer has been reported to vary by ethnicity, with strong associations in Caucasian, but not in Asian (84) or African-American (85), women, and associations are possibly stronger for ER+ than ER premenopausal breast cancer (73). It is not clear what level of BMI confers the highest breast cancer risks—one study reported a non-linear association between BMI and risk, with the highest risk around 24 kg/m2 (72).

The Collaborative Group, with its large number of cases in the pooled dataset and data on a wide range of risk factors, will be able to clarify the contribution of premenopausal adiposity to breast cancer risk, by examining which subtypes of breast cancer are affected, analyzing associations by exposures such as menstrual factors, and by assessing the effect of changes in adiposity over time.

Physical activity

Physical activity is of particular interest in that it constitutes a potentially modifiable risk factor for breast and other cancers. For premenopausal women, the effect of physical activity on reducing breast cancer risk appears to be smaller and less certain than for postmenopausal women (86). However, very few studies (35, 87, 88) have published prospective data for premenopausal breast cancer risk in relation to physical activity, whereas others have published by age at breast cancer (89–91) or menopausal status at study entry (92–95), or have included premenopausal women in their study but did not publish effect estimates for these women separately (96, 97).

The biological mechanisms through which physical activity could exert an effect in premenopausal women is less clear than in postmenopausal women, but might be through an effect on menarche, menstrual dysfunction, cycle length, endogenous hormone levels or estrogen metabolism (98–100). A smaller effect of physical activity in premenopausal than postmenopausal women is possible because, in contrast to postmenopausal women, in whom the protective effect of physical activity on breast cancer risk is partly through its effect on reducing adiposity, adiposity in premenopausal women has a protective effect on breast cancer risk. In addition, the impact of physical activity on hormone levels might be less influential among premenopausal women given their high levels of circulating hormones.

To aid prevention, information is needed on the type, frequency and intensity of exercise required to influence breast cancer risk, as well as the ages and characteristics of women for whom it is most effective. There might be periods of life during which physical activity has a higher impact than others, such as the time-period between menarche and first birth (101). There is also emerging evidence of differential effects of activity by ethnicity, weight, parity and family history of breast cancer, but mostly based on data from postmenopausal women (35, 91, 102). It is a limitation, however, that physical activity information is collected in many different ways and is difficult to harmonize (103).

The Collaborative Group aims to address premenopausal breast cancer risk by frequency, intensity, type, and ages of exercise, within strata defined by factors such as BMI, family history of breast cancer and age at diagnosis, and to explore specific breast cancer subtypes and stages, on a much larger scale than previously. The information gained can be used to advise young women about the extent and type of exercise that can influence their breast cancer risk.

Opportunities and challenges

The Collaborative Group is an international collaboration formed to address etiological factors for breast cancer that may be particular to, or differ in, premenopausal or perimenopausal women. By harmonizing a wide range of exposure variables across 20 studies and developing quality assurance and analysis programs, our collaboration is in a position to conduct initial analyses of pregnancy, obesity and physical activity, and to leverage the research infrastructure and established collaboration model for investigations of other risk factors. Our initial aims do not require the use of biospecimens. However, biospecimens have been collected in many of the participating studies, as described in the Cancer Epidemiology Descriptive Cohort Database (available at https://cedcd.nci.nih.gov/biospecimen.aspx) and could potentially be incorporated to address future hypotheses.

Some limitations and challenges have emerged. As in many consortia, information from the participating studies in the Collaborative Group was not collected with future pooling efforts in mind and follow-up data are not collected at standardized intervals. Therefore, harmonization efforts must identify common data elements that are collected with minimal levels of measurement error. Identification of these elements can be complicated by questionnaires and codebooks that must be translated to a common language.

Another aspect of working on pooling cohorts that requires planning and forethought is the potential for overlap of participants between studies, for example, in Scandinavian countries with multiple cohorts that have wide geographic catchment areas. Although the existence of national identifiers makes it theoretically possible to identify women who may contribute information to more than one study in a country, the logistics for obtaining approval and merging datasets can be prohibitive. Therefore, we have worked with study investigators to identify the individual cohorts within a country with the most relevant information for specific Collaborative Group aims, and to develop strategies for excluding specific geographic regions from one cohort, but not another, where overlap of cohort catchment areas is known to exist.

The value of cancer consortia to address scientific questions efficiently and create new opportunities has become increasingly recognized (104). Conducting analyses across multiple studies requires ongoing communication and transparency. Our Collaborative Group holds in-person working group meetings in conjunction with the NCI Cohort Consortium annual meeting, as well as regular telephone conferences. These meetings provide a forum to discuss additional hypotheses that can be addressed in the future to maximize the value of the created infrastructure. The Cohort Consortium provides valuable coordinating and communication services and dedicated time and space through the annual meeting; however, other research support for data preparation, ongoing infrastructure development, and dedicated time for collaboration remains a challenge faced across many large-scale projects. Our Collaborative Group and others continue to work to identify and streamline data sharing models to maximize productivity and collaborative opportunity.

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

We wish to acknowledge all study participants, staff, and participating cancer registries as well as Hoda Anton-Culver, Jianwen Cai, Jessica Clague, Christina Clarke, Dennis Deapen, Niclas Håkansson, Allison Iwan, Diane Kampa, James Lacey, Eunjung Lee, Siew-Hong Low, David Nelson, Susan Neuhausen, Katie O'Brien, Hannah Park, Jerry Reid, Peggy Reynolds, Sophia Wang, Renwei Wang, Mark Weaver, Jiawei Xu, Jeffrey Yu, and Argyrios Ziogas.

Support for this research comes, in part, from the Avon Foundation (02-2014-080); Breast Cancer Now; The Institute of Cancer Research, London; the United States National Institutes of Health National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Z01 ES044005, P30 ES000260) and National Cancer Institute (UM1 CA176726, UM1 CA186107, UM1 CA182876, UM1 CA182934, UM1 CA164974, R01 CA058420, R01 CA092447, CA077398, CA144034); the United States National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (KL2-TR001109), the National Program of Cancer Registries of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Energy; the Swedish Research Council and Swedish Cancer Foundation; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare; the Hellenic Health Foundation; Karolinska Institutet Distinguished Professor Award Dnr: 2368/10-221; Cancer Council Victoria and the Australia National Health and Medical Research Council (209057, 396414, 504711); the State of Maryland, the Maryland Cigarette Restitution Fund; and the United Kingdom National Health Service funding to the Royal Marsden/ICR NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. The coordination of the European Prospective Investigation in Cancer is financially supported by the European Commission (DG-SANCO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The national cohorts are supported by Danish Cancer Society (Denmark); Ligue Contre le Cancer, Institut Gustave Roussy, Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM; France); German Cancer Aid, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Deutsche Krebshilfe, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum and Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Germany); the Hellenic Health Foundation (Greece); Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro-AIRC-Italy and National Research Council (Italy); Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); ERC-2009-AdG 232997 and Nordforsk, Nordic Centre of Excellence program on Food, Nutrition and Health (Norway); Health Research Fund (FIS), PI13/00061 to Granada, PI13/01162 to EPIC-Murcia, Regional Governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra, ISCIII RETIC (RD06/0020; Spain); Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Research Council and County Councils of Skåne and Västerbotten (Sweden); Cancer Research UK (14136 to EPIC-Norfolk; C570/A16491 and C8221/A19170 to EPIC-Oxford), Medical Research Council (1000143 to EPIC-Norfolk, MR/M012190/1 to EPIC-Oxford; United Kingdom).

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.
Ferlay
J
,
Soerjomataram
I
,
Ervik
M
,
Dikshit
R
,
Eser
S
,
Mathers
C
, et al
GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet]
; 
2013
.
Available from
: http://globocan.iarc.fr.
2.
Rosenberg
SM
,
Partridge
AH
. 
Management of breast cancer in very young women
.
Breast
2015
;
24
:
S154
8
.
3.
Lewis
DR
,
Seibel
NL
,
Smith
AW
,
Stedman
MR
. 
Adolescent and young adult cancer survival
.
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr
2014
;
2014
:
228
35
.
4.
Johnson
RH
,
Chien
FL
,
Bleyer
A
. 
Incidence of breast cancer with distant involvement among women in the United States, 1976 to 2009
.
JAMA
2013
;
309
:
800
5
.
5.
Schedin
P
. 
Pregnancy-associated breast cancer and metastasis
.
Nat Rev Cancer
2006
;
6
:
281
91
.
6.
White
AJ
,
Nichols
HB
,
Bradshaw
PT
,
Sandler
DP
. 
Overall and central adiposity and breast cancer risk in the Sister Study
.
Cancer
2015
;
121
:
3700
8
.
7.
Johnson
KC
,
Miller
AB
,
Collishaw
NE
,
Palmer
JR
,
Hammond
SK
,
Salmon
AG
, et al
Active smoking and secondhand smoke increase breast cancer risk: the report of the Canadian Expert Panel on Tobacco Smoke and Breast Cancer Risk (2009)
.
Tob Control
2011
;
20
:
e2
.
8.
Perou
CM
,
Sorlie
T
,
Eisen
MB
,
van de Rijn
M
,
Jeffrey
SS
,
Rees
CA
, et al
Molecular portraits of human breast tumours
.
Nature
2000
;
406
:
747
52
.
9.
Clarke
CA
,
Keegan
TH
,
Yang
J
,
Press
DJ
,
Kurian
AW
,
Patel
AH
, et al
Age-specific incidence of breast cancer subtypes: understanding the black-white crossover
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2012
;
104
:
1094
101
.
10.
Boggs
DA
,
Rosenberg
L
,
Adams-Campbell
LL
,
Palmer
JR
. 
Prospective approach to breast cancer risk prediction in African American women: the black women's health study model
.
J Clin Oncol
2015
;
33
:
1038
44
.
11.
Swerdlow
A
,
Jones
M
,
Schoemaker
M
,
Hemming
J
,
Thomas
D
,
Williamson
J
, et al
The Breakthrough Generations Study: design of a long-term UK cohort study to investigate breast cancer aetiology
.
Br J Cancer
2011
;
105
:
911
7
.
12.
Rohan
TE
,
Soskolne
CL
,
Carroll
KK
,
Kreiger
N
. 
The Canadian Study of Diet, Lifestyle, and Health: design and characteristics of a new cohort study of cancer risk
.
Cancer Detect Prev
2007
;
31
:
12
7
.
13.
Gallicchio
L
,
Visvanathan
K
,
Burke
A
,
Hoffman
SC
,
Helzlsouer
KJ
. 
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the risk of developing breast cancer in a population-based prospective cohort study in Washington County, MD
.
Int J Cancer
2007
;
121
:
211
15
.
14.
Riboli
E
,
Hunt
K
,
Slimani
N
,
Ferrari
P
,
Norat
T
,
Fahey
M
, et al
European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC): study populations and data collection
.
Public Health Nutr
2002
;
5
:
1113
24
.
15.
Clavel-Chapelon
F
,
E3N Study Group
. 
Cohort profile: the French E3N cohort study
.
Int J Epidemiol
2014
:
dyu184
.
16.
Giles
G
,
English
D
,
Riboli
E
,
Lambert
R
. 
The Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study
.
Nutrition and lifestyle: opportunities for cancer prevention European Conference on Nutrition and Cancer held in Lyon, France in 21–24 June, 2003: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
. p.
69
70
.
Available from
: http://www.iarc.fr/en/publications/pdfs-online/prev/sp156/sp156-ch1.pdf.
17.
Hennekens
C
,
Speizer
F
,
Rosner
B
,
Bain
C
,
Belanger
C
,
Peto
R
. 
Use of permanent hair dyes and cancer among registered nurses
.
Lancet
1979
;
313
:
1390
3
.
18.
Colditz
GA
,
Hankinson
SE
. 
The Nurses' Health Study: lifestyle and health among women
.
Nat Rev Cancer
2005
;
5
:
388
96
.
19.
Toniolo
PG
,
Levitz
M
,
Zeleniuch-Jacquotte
A
,
Banerjee
S
,
Koenig
KL
,
Shore
RE
, et al
A prospective study of endogenous estrogens and breast cancer in postmenopausal women
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
1995
;
87
:
190
7
.
20.
Zeleniuch-Jacquotte
A
,
Afanasyeva
Y
,
Kaaks
R
,
Rinaldi
S
,
Scarmo
S
,
Liu
M
, et al
Premenopausal serum androgens and breast cancer risk: a nested case-control study
.
Breast Cancer Res
2012
;
14
:
R32
.
21.
Beebe
G
,
Ishida
M
,
Jablon
S
. 
Description of study mortality in the medical subsample October 1950–June 1951
.
J Hiroshima Med Assoc
1962
;
15
:
1397
422
.
22.
Hankin
JH
,
Stram
DO
,
Arakawa
K
,
Park
S
,
Low
S-H
,
Lee
H-P
, et al
Singapore Chinese Health Study: development, validation, and calibration of the quantitative food frequency questionnaire
.
Nutr Cancer
2001
;
39
:
187
95
.
23.
Signorello
LB
,
Hargreaves
MK
,
Steinwandel
MD
,
Zheng
W
,
Cai
Q
,
Schlundt
DG
, et al
Southern community cohort study: establishing a cohort to investigate health disparities
.
J Natl Med Assoc
2005
;
97
:
972
.
24.
Wolk
A
,
Bergström
R
,
Hunter
D
,
Willett
W
,
Ljung
H
,
Holmberg
L
, et al
A prospective study of association of monounsaturated fat and other types of fat with risk of breast cancer
.
Arch Intern Med
1998
;
158
:
41
5
.
25.
Doody
MM
,
Freedman
DM
,
Alexander
BH
,
Hauptmann
M
,
Miller
JS
,
Rao
RS
, et al
Breast cancer incidence in U.S. radiologic technologists
.
Cancer
2006
;
106
:
2707
15
.
26.
Krokstad
S
,
Langhammer
A
,
Hveem
K
,
Holmen
TL
,
Midthjell
K
,
Stene
TR
, et al
Cohort Profile: the HUNT Study, Norway
.
Int J Epidemiol
2013
;
42
:
968
77
.
27.
Roswall
N
,
Sandin
S
,
Adami
HO
,
Weiderpass
E
. 
Cohort Profile: the Swedish women's lifestyle and health cohort
.
Int J Epidemiol.
2015
Jun 10. [Epub ahead of print]
.
28.
Bernstein
L
,
Allen
M
,
Anton-Culver
H
,
Deapen
D
,
Horn-Ross
PL
,
Peel
D
, et al
High breast cancer incidence rates among California teachers: results from the California Teachers Study (United States)
.
Cancer Causes Control
2002
;
13
:
625
35
.
29.
Toniolo
PG
,
Pasternack
BS
,
Shore
RE
,
Sonnenschein
E
,
Koenig
KL
,
Rosenberg
C
, et al
Endogenous hormones and breast cancer: a prospective cohort study
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
1991
;
18
:
S23
S6
.
30.
Gertig
DM
,
Fletcher
AS
,
English
DR
,
MacInnis
RJ
,
Hopper
JL
,
Giles
GG
. 
Hormone therapy and breast cancer: what factors modify the association?
Menopause
2006
;
13
:
178
84
.
31.
McGregor
DH
,
Land
C
,
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
811
.
32.
Gago-Dominguez
M
,
Yuan
J
,
Sun
C
,
Lee
H
,
Yu
M
. 
Opposing effects of dietary n-3 and n-6 fatty acids on mammary carcinogenesis: The Singapore Chinese Health Study
.
Br J Cancer
2003
;
89
:
1686
92
.
33.
Eiliv
L
,
Merethe
K
,
Tonje
B
,
Anette
H
,
Kjersti
B
,
Elise
E
, et al
External validity in a population-based national prospective study–the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study (NOWAC)
.
Cancer Causes Control
2003
;
14
:
1001
8
.
34.
Willett
WC
,
Stampfer
MJ
,
Colditz
GA
,
Rosner
BA
,
Hennekens
CH
,
Speizer
FE
. 
Dietary fat and the risk of breast cancer
.
N Engl J Med
1987
;
316
:
22
8
.
35.
Cho
E
,
Spiegelman
D
,
Hunter
DJ
,
Chen
WY
,
Stampfer
MJ
,
Colditz
GA
, et al
Premenopausal fat intake and risk of breast cancer
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2003
;
95
:
1079
85
.
36.
Harville
DA
. 
Maximum likelihood approaches to variance component estimation and to related problems
.
J Am Stat Assoc
1977
;
72
:
320
38
.
37.
Laird
NM
,
Ware
JH
. 
Random effects models for longitudinal data
.
Biometrics
1982
;
38
:
963
74
.
38.
Smith-Warner
SA
,
Spiegelman
D
,
Ritz
J
,
Albanes
D
,
Beeson
WL
,
Bernstein
L
, et al
Methods for pooling results of epidemiologic studies: the pooling project of prospective studies of diet and cancer
.
Am J Epidemiol
2006
;
163
:
1053
64
.
39.
Cochran
WG
. 
The combination of estimates from different experiments
.
Biometrics
1954
;
10
:
101
29
.
40.
DerSimonian
R
,
Laird
N
. 
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
.
Control Clin Trials
1986
;
7
:
177
88
.
41.
Higgins
J
,
Thompson
S
,
Deeks
J
,
Altman
D
. 
Statistical heterogeneity in systematic reviews of clinical trials: a critical appraisal of guidelines and practice
.
J Health Serv Res Policy
2002
;
7
:
51
61
.
42.
Cox
DR
. 
Regression models and life-tables
.
J Royal Stat Soc
1972
;
34
:
187
220
.
43.
Xue
X
,
Kim
MY
,
Gaudet
MM
,
Park
Y
,
Heo
M
,
Hollenbeck
AR
, et al
A comparison of the polytomous logistic regression and joint cox proportional hazards models for evaluating multiple disease subtypes in prospective cohort studies
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2013
;
22
:
275
85
.
44.
Lunn
M
,
McNeil
D
. 
Applying Cox regression to competing risks
.
Biometrics
1995
;
51
:
524
32
.
45.
Lambe
M
,
Hsieh
C
,
Trichopoulos
D
,
Ekbom
A
,
Pavia
M
,
Adami
HO
. 
Transient increase in the risk of breast cancer after giving birth
.
N Engl J Med
1994
;
331
:
5
9
.
46.
Albrektsen
G
,
Heuch
I
,
Kvale
G
. 
The short-term and long-term effect of a pregnancy on breast cancer risk: a prospective study of 802,457 parous Norwegian women
.
Br J Cancer
1995
;
72
:
480
4
.
47.
Leon
DA
,
Carpenter
LM
,
Broeders
MJ
,
Gunnarskog
J
,
Murphy
MF
. 
Breast cancer in Swedish women before age 50: evidence of a dual effect of completed pregnancy
.
Cancer Causes Control
1995
;
6
:
283
91
.
48.
Wohlfahrt
J
,
Olsen
JH
,
Melby
M
. 
Breast cancer risk after childbirth in young women with family history (Denmark)
.
Cancer Causes Control
2002
;
13
:
169
74
.
49.
Kauppila
A
,
Kyyronen
P
,
Lehtinen
M
,
Pukkala
E
. 
Dual effect of short interval between first and second birth on ductal breast cancer risk in Finland
.
Cancer Causes Control
2012
;
23
:
187
93
.
50.
Williams
EM
,
Jones
L
,
Vessey
MP
,
McPherson
K
. 
Short term increase in risk of breast cancer associated with full term pregnancy
.
BMJ
1990
;
300
:
578
9
.
51.
Bruzzi
P
,
Negri
E
,
La Vecchia
C
,
Decarli
A
,
Palli
D
,
Parazzini
F
, et al
Short term increase in risk of breast cancer after full term pregnancy
.
BMJ
1988
;
297
:
1096
8
.
52.
Hsieh
C
,
Pavia
M
,
Lambe
M
,
Lan
SJ
,
Colditz
GA
,
Ekbom
A
, et al
Dual effect of parity on breast cancer risk
.
Eur J Cancer
1994
;
30A
:
969
73
.
53.
Chie
WC
,
Hsieh
C
,
Newcomb
PA
,
Longnecker
MP
,
Mittendorf
R
,
Greenberg
ER
, et al
Age at any full-term pregnancy and breast cancer risk
.
Am J Epidemiol
2000
;
151
:
715
22
.
54.
Cummings
P
,
Weiss
NS
,
McKnight
B
,
Stanford
JL
. 
Estimating the risk of breast cancer in relation to the interval since last term pregnancy
.
Epidemiology
1997
;
8
:
488
94
.
55.
Palmer
JR
,
Viscidi
E
,
Troester
MA
,
Hong
CC
,
Schedin
P
,
Bethea
TN
, et al
Parity, lactation, and breast cancer subtypes in African American women: results from the AMBER Consortium
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2014
;
106
:
pii: dju237
.
56.
Palmer
JR
,
Boggs
DA
,
Wise
LA
,
Ambrosone
CB
,
Adams-Campbell
LL
,
Rosenberg
L
. 
Parity and lactation in relation to estrogen receptor negative breast cancer in African American women
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2011
;
20
:
1883
91
.
57.
Borges
VF
,
Schedin
PJ
. 
Pregnancy-associated breast cancer: an entity needing refinement of the definition
.
Cancer
2012
;
118
:
3226
8
.
58.
Kahlenborn
C
,
Modugno
F
,
Potter
DM
,
Severs
WB
. 
Oral contraceptive use as a risk factor for premenopausal breast cancer: a meta-analysis
.
Mayo Clin Proc
2006
;
81
:
1290
302
.
59.
Albrektsen
G
,
Heuch
I
,
Thoresen
S
,
Kvale
G
. 
Family history of breast cancer and short-term effects of childbirths on breast cancer risk
.
Int J Cancer
2006
;
119
:
1468
74
.
60.
Cruz
GI
,
Martinez
ME
,
Natarajan
L
,
Wertheim
BC
,
Gago-Dominguez
M
,
Bondy
M
, et al
Hypothesized role of pregnancy hormones on HER2+ breast tumor development
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2013
;
137
:
237
46
.
61.
Albrektsen
G
,
Heuch
I
,
Thoresen
SO
. 
Histological type and grade of breast cancer tumors by parity, age at birth, and time since birth: a register-based study in Norway
.
BMC Cancer
2010
;
10
:
226
.
62.
Albrektsen
G
,
Heuch
I
,
Thoresen
S
,
Kvale
G
. 
Clinical stage of breast cancer by parity, age at birth, and time since birth: a progressive effect of pregnancy hormones?
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2006
;
15
:
65
9
.
63.
Innes
KE
,
Byers
TE
. 
First pregnancy characteristics and subsequent breast cancer risk among young women
.
Int J Cancer
2004
;
112
:
306
11
.
64.
Ewertz
M
,
Duffy
SW
,
Adami
HO
,
Kvale
G
,
Lund
E
,
Meirik
O
, et al
Age at first birth, parity and risk of breast cancer: a meta-analysis of 8 studies from the Nordic countries
.
Int J Cancer
1990
;
46
:
597
603
.
65.
Millikan
RC
,
Newman
B
,
Tse
CK
,
Moorman
PG
,
Conway
K
,
Dressler
LG
, et al
Epidemiology of basal-like breast cancer
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2008
;
109
:
123
39
.
66.
Work
ME
,
John
EM
,
Andrulis
IL
,
Knight
JA
,
Liao
Y
,
Mulligan
AM
, et al
Reproductive risk factors and oestrogen/progesterone receptor-negative breast cancer in the Breast Cancer Family Registry
.
Br J Cancer
2014
;
110
:
1367
77
.
67.
Johansson
AL
,
Andersson
TM
,
Hsieh
CC
,
Cnattingius
S
,
Lambe
M
. 
Increased mortality in women with breast cancer detected during pregnancy and different periods postpartum
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2011
;
20
:
1865
72
.
68.
Stensheim
H
,
Moller
B
,
van Dijk
T
,
Fossa
SD
. 
Cause-specific survival for women diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy or lactation: a registry-based cohort study
.
J Clin Oncol
2009
;
27
:
45
51
.
69.
Johansson
AL
,
Andersson
TM
,
Hsieh
CC
,
Jirstrom
K
,
Dickman
P
,
Cnattingius
S
, et al
Stage at diagnosis and mortality in women with pregnancy-associated breast cancer (PABC)
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2013
;
139
:
183
92
.
70.
Lyons
TR
,
O'Brien
J
,
Borges
VF
,
Conklin
MW
,
Keely
PJ
,
Eliceiri
KW
, et al
Postpartum mammary gland involution drives progression of ductal carcinoma in situ through collagen and COX-2
.
Nat Med
2011
;
17
:
1109
15
.
71.
Faupel-Badger
JM
,
Arcaro
KF
,
Balkam
JJ
,
Eliassen
AH
,
Hassiotou
F
,
Lebrilla
CB
, et al
Postpartum remodeling, lactation, and breast cancer risk: summary of a national cancer Institute-Sponsored Workshop
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2013
;
105
:
166
74
.
72.
van den Brandt
PA
,
Spiegelman
D
,
Yaun
SS
,
Adami
HO
,
Beeson
L
,
Folsom
AR
, et al
Pooled analysis of prospective cohort studies on height, weight, and breast cancer risk
.
Am J Epidemiol
2000
;
152
:
514
27
.
73.
Michels
KB
,
Terry
KL
,
Willett
WC
. 
Longitudinal study on the role of body size in premenopausal breast cancer
.
Arch Intern Med
2006
;
166
:
2395
402
.
74.
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
.
75.
Guo
Y
,
Warren Andersen
S
,
Shu
XO
,
Michailidou
K
,
Bolla
MK
,
Wang
Q
, et al
Genetically predicted body mass index and breast cancer risk: mendelian randomization analyses of data from 145,000 Women of European Descent
.
PLoS Med
2016
;
13
:
e1002105
.
76.
Huang
Z
,
Hankinson
SE
,
Colditz
GA
,
Stampfer
MJ
,
Hunter
DJ
,
Manson
JE
, et al
Dual effects of weight and weight gain on breast cancer risk
.
JAMA
1997
;
278
:
1407
11
.
77.
Berkey
CS
,
Frazier
AL
,
Gardner
JD
,
Colditz
GA
. 
Adolescence and breast carcinoma risk
.
Cancer
1999
;
85
:
2400
9
.
78.
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
.
79.
Bardia
A
,
Vachon
CM
,
Olson
JE
,
Vierkant
RA
,
Wang
AH
,
Hartmann
LC
. 
Relative weight at age 12 and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2008
;
17
:374–8.
80.
Coates
RJ
,
Uhler
RJ
,
Hall
HI
,
Potischman
N
,
Brinton
LA
,
Ballard-Barbash
R
, et al
Risk of breast cancer in young women in relation to body size and weight gain in adolescence and early adulthood
.
Br J Cancer
1999
;
81
:
167
74
.
81.
Rosner
B
,
Eliassen
AH
,
Toriola
AT
,
Chen
WY
,
Hankinson
SE
,
Willett
WC
, et al
Weight and weight changes in early adulthood and later breast cancer risk
.
Int J Cancer
2017
;
140
:
2003
2014
.
82.
Key
TJ
,
Appleby
PN
,
Reeves
GK
,
Roddam
A
,
Dorgan
JF
,
Longcope
C
, et al
Body mass index, serum sex hormones, and breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2003
;
95
:
1218
26
.
83.
Key
TJ
,
Pike
MC
. 
The role of oestrogens and progestagens in the epidemiology and prevention of breast cancer
.
Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol
1988
;
24
:
29
43
.
84.
Amadou
A
,
Ferrari
P
,
Muwonge
R
,
Moskal
A
,
Biessy
C
,
Romieu
I
, et al
Overweight, obesity and risk of premenopausal breast cancer according to ethnicity: a systematic review and doseresponse metaanalysis
.
Obesity Rev
2013
;
14
:
665
78
.
85.
Robinson
WR
,
Tse
CK
,
Olshan
AF
,
Troester
MA
. 
Body size across the life course and risk of premenopausal and postmenopausal breast cancer in Black women, the Carolina Breast Cancer Study, 1993–2001
.
Cancer Causes Control
2014
;
25
:
1101
17
.
86.
Friedenreich
CM
. 
Physical activity and breast cancer: review of the epidemiologic evidence and biologic mechanisms
.
Recent Results Cancer Res
2011
;
188
:
125
39
.
87.
Maruti
SS
,
Willett
WC
,
Feskanich
D
,
Rosner
B
,
Colditz
GA
. 
A prospective study of age-specific physical activity and premenopausal breast cancer
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2008
;
100
:
728
37
.
88.
Rosenberg
L
,
Palmer
JR
,
Bethea
TN
,
Ban
Y
,
Kipping-Ruane
K
,
Adams-Campbell
LL
. 
A prospective study of physical activity and breast cancer incidence in African-American women
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2014
;
23
:
2522
31
.
89.
Thune
I
,
Brenn
T
,
Lund
E
,
Gaard
M
. 
Physical activity and the risk of breast cancer
.
N Engl J Med
1997
;
336
:
1269
75
.
90.
Sesso
HD
,
Paffenbarger
RS
 Jr
,
Lee
IM
. 
Physical activity and breast cancer risk in the College Alumni Health Study (United States)
.
Cancer Causes Control
1998
;
9
:
433
9
.
91.
Dallal
CM
,
Sullivan-Halley
J
,
Ross
RK
,
Wang
Y
,
Deapen
D
,
Horn-Ross
PL
, et al
Long-term recreational physical activity and risk of invasive and in situ breast cancer: the California teachers study
.
Arch Intern Med
2007
;
167
:
408
15
.
92.
Lahmann
PH
,
Friedenreich
C
,
Schuit
AJ
,
Salvini
S
,
Allen
NE
,
Key
TJ
, et al
Physical activity and breast cancer risk: the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2007
;
16
:
36
42
.
93.
Howard
RA
,
Leitzmann
MF
,
Linet
MS
,
Freedman
DM
. 
Physical activity and breast cancer risk among pre- and postmenopausal women in the U.S. Radiologic Technologists cohort
.
Cancer Causes Control
2009
;
20
:
323
33
.
94.
Margolis
KL
,
Mucci
L
,
Braaten
T
,
Kumle
M
,
Trolle
LY
,
Adami
HO
, et al
Physical activity in different periods of life and the risk of breast cancer: the Norwegian-Swedish Women's Lifestyle and Health cohort study
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2005
;
14
:
27
32
.
95.
Silvera
SA
,
Jain
M
,
Howe
GR
,
Miller
AB
,
Rohan
TE
. 
Energy balance and breast cancer risk: a prospective cohort study
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2006
;
97
:
97
106
.
96.
Rockhill
B
,
Willett
WC
,
Hunter
DJ
,
Manson
JE
,
Hankinson
SE
,
Colditz
GA
. 
A prospective study of recreational physical activity and breast cancer risk
.
Arch Intern Med
1999
;
159
:
2290
6
.
97.
Tehard
B
,
Friedenreich
CM
,
Oppert
JM
,
Clavel-Chapelon
F
. 
Effect of physical activity on women at increased risk of breast cancer: results from the E3N cohort study
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2006
;
15
:
57
64
.
98.
Gaudet
MM
,
Press
MF
,
Haile
RW
,
Lynch
CF
,
Glaser
SL
,
Schildkraut
J
, et al
Risk factors by molecular subtypes of breast cancer across a population-based study of women 56 years or younger
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2011
;
130
:
587
97
.
99.
Smith
AJ
,
Phipps
WR
,
Thomas
W
,
Schmitz
KH
,
Kurzer
MS
. 
The effects of aerobic exercise on estrogen metabolism in healthy premenopausal women
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2013
;
22
:
756
64
.
100.
Campbell
KL
,
McTiernan
A
. 
Exercise and biomarkers for cancer prevention studies
.
J Nutr
2007
;
137
:
161S
9S
.
101.
Liu
Y
,
Tobias
DK
,
Sturgeon
KM
,
Rosner
B
,
Malik
V
,
Cespedes
E
, et al
Physical activity from menarche to first pregnancy and risk of breast cancer
.
Int J Cancer
2016
;
139
:
1223
30
.
102.
Lynch
BM
,
Neilson
HK
,
Friedenreich
CM
. 
Physical activity and breast cancer prevention
.
Recent Results Cancer Res
2011
;
186
:
13
42
.
103.
Moore
SC
,
Lee
IM
,
Weiderpass
E
,
Campbell
PT
,
Sampson
JN
,
Kitahara
CM
, et al
Association of leisure-time physical activity with risk of 26 types of cancer in 1.44 million adults
.
JAMA Intern Med
2016
;
176
:
816
25
.
104.
Burgio
MR
,
Ioannidis
JP
,
Kaminski
BM
,
Derycke
E
,
Rogers
S
,
Khoury
MJ
, et al
Collaborative cancer epidemiology in the 21st century: the model of cancer consortia
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2013
;
22
:
2148
60
.
105.
Lund
E
,
Dumeaux
V
,
Braaten
T
,
Hjartaker
A
,
Engeset
D
,
Skeie
G
, et al
Cohort profile: the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study–NOWAC–Kvinner og kreft
.
Int J Epidemiol
2008
;
37
:
36
41
.