Assisted reproductive technology treatment and risk of breast cancer: a population-based cohort study.

STUDY QUESTION: Is there an increased risk of breast cancer among women after ART treatment including ovarian hormone stimulation? SUMMARY ANSWER: The risk of breast cancer was slightly increased among women after ART treatment compared to age-matched, untreated women in the background population, and the risk was further increased among women initiating ART treatment when aged 40+ years. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The majority of breast cancer cases are sensitive to oestrogen, and ovarian hormone stimulation has been suggested to increase the risk of breast cancer by influencing endogenous oestrogen levels. Previous studies on ART treatment and breast cancer have varied in their findings, but several studies have small sample sizes or lack follow-up time and/or confounder adjustment. Recent childbirth, nulliparity and higher socio-economic status are breast cancer risk factors and the latter two are also associated with initiating ART treatment. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The Danish National ART-Couple II (DANAC II) cohort includes women treated with ART at public and private fertility clinics in 1994-2016. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women with no cancer prior to ART treatment were included (n = 61 579). Women from the background population with similar age and no prior history of ART treatment were randomly selected as comparisons (n = 579 760). The baseline mean age was 33.1 years (range 18-46 years). Results are presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with corresponding CIs. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: During follow-up (median 9.69 years among ART-treated and 9.28 years among untreated), 5861 women were diagnosed with breast cancer, 695 among ART-treated and 5166 among untreated women (1.1% versus 0.9%, P < 0.0001). Using Cox regression analyses adjusted for nulliparity, educational level, partnership status, year, maternal breast cancer and age, the risk of breast cancer was slightly increased among women treated with ART (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.12-1.16). All causes of infertility were slightly associated with breast cancer risk after ART treatment. The risk of breast cancer increased with higher age at ART treatment initiation and was highest among women initiating treatment at age 40+ years (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.29-1.45). When comparing women with a first birth at age 40+ years with or without ART treatment, the increased risk among women treated with ART persisted (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.09-2.08). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although this study is based on a large, national cohort of women, more research with sufficient power and confounder adjustment is needed, particularly in cohorts with a broad age representation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: An increased risk of breast cancer associated with a higher age at ART treatment initiation has been shown. Ovarian stimulation may increase the risk of breast cancer among women initiating ART treatment when aged 40+ years. Age-related vulnerability to hormone exposure or higher hormone doses during ART treatment may explain the increased risk. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported by a PhD grant to D.V. from the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. Funding for establishing the DANAC II cohort was received from the Ebba Rosa Hansen Foundation. The authors report no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Response to Dr Stevens' letter ref. Visitisen et al: "Short-term effects of night shift work on breast cancer risk: a cohort study of payroll data".

We thank Dr Richard Stevens for his comments (1) on our recent article that showed no increased risk of breast cancer following recent night shift work when compared with recent day shift work (2). This finding was based on linkage of day-by-day information on working hours and breast cancer incidence data. Results are thus less likely to have been biased by differential misclassification than findings from earlier studies relying on self-report (3). We defined a night shift as ≥3 hours of work between 24:00-05:00 hours and a day shift as ≥3 hours work between 6:00-20:00 hours. This day shift definition did not exclude shifts starting before 05:00 or ending after 24:00 hours. However, this affected only 0.02% and 0.3% of all day shifts, respectively. This diminutive misclassification, that is expected to be non-differential, can hardly explain our negative findings. It is suggested that shifts that begin after 07:00 and end before 18:00 would constitute a more sensible baseline comparison group. Since the biological mechanism is not certain, it is not obvious to us if this will be a more appropriate reference than the present. However, we agree that future studies should test how different definitions of shifts affect the risk of breast cancer, which will be possible using this type of data. We only had information on working hours from 2007 and onwards, and night shift work prior to 2007 could have confounded our analyses towards no effect but only if inversely associated with night shift work in 2007 or later. We find this unlikely. Left truncation could also have biased findings towards the null. We therefore supplemented analyses of the total study population with analyses of the one-third of the population with first recorded employment in 2008 or later (the inception population). Even if the mean age was 35.5 years - and many undoubtedly had been working (with and without night shifts) prior to 2008 - this population should be less affected by such selection bias, but we observed similar risk estimates as for the total study population. Taken together, we find that our study provides rather robust evidence of no short-term breast cancer risk following recent night shift work. It must, however, be stressed that data did not allow assessment of a possible long-term risk. Reference 1. Stevens R. Letter ref. Vitisen et al: "Short-term effects of night shift work on breast cancer risk: a cohort study of payroll data". Scand J Work Environ Health. 2017;43(1):95. http://dx.doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3607 2. Vistisen HT, Garde AH, Frydenberg M, Christiansen P, Hansen AM, Hansen J, Bonde JP, Kolstad HA. Short-term effects of night shift work on breast cancer risk: A cohort study of payroll data. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2017;43(1):59-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3603. 3. Ijaz S, Verbeek J, Seidler A, Lindbohm ML, Ojajarvi A, Orsini N, Costa G, Neuvonen K. Night-shift work and breast cancer--a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2013 Sep 1;39(5):431-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3371.

Factors Associated with Adherence to Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy Among Privately Insured and Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Patients: A Quantile Regression Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer remains suboptimal, which suggests that women are not getting the full benefit of the treatment to reduce breast cancer recurrence and mortality. The majority of studies on adherence to AET focus on identifying factors among those women at the highest levels of adherence and provide little insight on factors that influence medication use across the distribution of adherence. OBJECTIVE: To understand how factors influence adherence among women across low and high levels of adherence. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation was conducted using the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database from 2007-2011. Privately insured women aged 18-64 years who were recently diagnosed and treated for breast cancer and who initiated AET within 12 months of primary treatment were assessed. Adherence was measured as the proportion of days covered (PDC) over a 12-month period. Simultaneous multivariable quantile regression was used to assess the association between treatment and demographic factors, use of mail order pharmacies, medication switching, and out-of-pocket costs and adherence. The effect of each variable was examined at the 40th, 60th, 80th, and 95th quantiles. RESULTS: Among the 6,863 women in the cohort, mail order pharmacies had the greatest influence on adherence at the 40th quantile, associated with a 29.6% (95% CI = 22.2-37.0) higher PDC compared with retail pharmacies. Out-of-pocket cost for a 30-day supply of AET greater than $20 was associated with an 8.6% (95% CI = 2.8-14.4) lower PDC versus $0-$9.99. The main factors that influenced adherence at the 95th quantile were mail order pharmacies, associated with a 4.4% higher PDC (95% CI = 3.8-5.0) versus retail pharmacies, and switching AET medication 2 or more times, associated with a 5.6% lower PDC versus not switching (95% CI = 2.3-9.0). CONCLUSIONS: Factors associated with adherence differed across quantiles. Addressing the use of mail order pharmacies and out-of-pocket costs for AET may have the greatest influence on improving adherence among those women with low adherence. DISCLOSURES: This research was supported by a Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award for Individual Predoctoral Fellowship grant from the National Cancer Institute (grant number F31 CA174338), which was awarded to Farias. Additionally, Farias was funded by a Postdoctoral Fellowship at the University of Texas School of Public Health Cancer Education and Career Development Program through the National Cancer Institute (NIH Grant R25 CA57712). The other authors declare no conflicts of interest. DISCLAIMER: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute or the National Institutes of Health. Farias was primarily responsible for the study concept and design, along with Hansen and Zeliadt and with assistance from the other authors. Farias, Hansen, and Zeliadt took the lead in data interpretation, assisted by the other authors. The manuscript was written by Farias, along with Thompson and assisted by the other authors, and was revised by Ornelas, Li, and Farias, with assistance from the other authors.