Occupational exposures and mammographic density in Spanish women.

OBJECTIVES: The association between occupational exposures and mammographic density (MD), a marker of breast cancer risk, has not been previously explored. Our objective was to investigate the influence of occupational exposure to chemical, physical and microbiological agents on MD in adult women. METHODS: This is a population-based cross-sectional study based on 1476 female workers aged 45-65 years from seven Spanish breast cancer screening programmes. Occupational history was surveyed by trained staff. Exposure to occupational agents was assessed using the Spanish job-exposure matrix MatEmESp. Percentage of MD was measured by two radiologists using a semiautomatic computer tool. The association was estimated using mixed log-linear regression models adjusting for age, education, body mass index, menopausal status, parity, smoking, alcohol intake, type of mammography, family history of breast cancer and hormonal therapy use, and including screening centre and professional reader as random effects terms. RESULTS: Although no association was found with most of the agents, women occupationally exposed to perchloroethylene (eß=1.51; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.19), ionising radiation (eß=1.23; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.52) and mould spores (eß=1.44; 95% CI 1.01 to 2.04) tended to have higher MD. The percentage of density increased 12% for every 5 years exposure to perchloroethylene or mould spores, 11% for every 5 years exposure to aliphatic/alicyclic hydrocarbon solvents and 3% for each 5 years exposure to ionising radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to perchloroethylene, ionising radiation, mould spores or aliphatic/alicyclic hydrocarbon solvents in occupational settings could be associated with higher MD. Further studies are needed to clarify the accuracy and the reasons for these findings.

Occupation and mammographic density: A population-based study (DDM-Occup).

INTRODUCTION: High mammographic density is one of the main risk factors for breast cancer. Although several occupations have been associated with breast cancer, there are no previous occupational studies exploring the association with mammographic density. Our objective was to identify occupations associated with high mammographic density in Spanish female workers. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cross-sectional study of occupational determinants of high mammographic density in Spain, based on 1476 women, aged 45-68 years, recruited from seven screening centers within the Spanish Breast Cancer Screening Program network. Reproductive, family, personal, and occupational history data were collected. The latest occupation of each woman was collected and coded according to the 1994 National Classification of Occupations. Mammographic density was assessed from the cranio-caudal mammogram of the left breast using a semi-automated computer-assisted tool. Association between mammographic density and occupation was evaluated by using mixed linear regression models, using log-transformed percentage of mammographic density as dependent variable. Models were adjusted for age, body mass index, menopausal status, parity, smoking, alcohol intake, educational level, type of mammography, first-degree relative with breast cancer, and hormonal replacement therapy use. Screening center and professional reader were included as random effects terms. RESULTS: Mammographic density was higher, although non-statistically significant, among secondary school teachers (eß = 1.41; 95%CI = 0.98-2.03) and nurses (eß = 1.23; 95%CI = 0.96-1.59), whereas workers engaged in the care of people (eß = 0.81; 95%CI = 0.66-1.00) and housewives (eß = 0.87; 95%CI = 0.79-0.95) showed an inverse association with mammographic density. A positive trend for every 5 years working as secondary school teachers was also detected (p-value = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Nurses and secondary school teachers were the occupations with the highest mammographic density in our study, showing the latter a positive trend with duration of employment. Future studies are necessary to confirm if these results are due to chance or are the result of a true association whose causal hypothesis is, for the moment, unknown.