Reproductive factors and subtypes of breast cancer defined by hormone receptor and histology.

Reproductive factors are associated with reduced risk of breast cancer, but less is known about whether there is differential protection against subtypes of breast cancer. Assuming reproductive factors act through hormonal mechanisms they should protect predominantly against cancers expressing oestrogen (ER) and progesterone (PR) receptors. We examined the effect of reproductive factors on subgroups of tumours defined by hormone receptor status as well as histology using data from the NIHCD Women's Contraceptive and Reproductive Experiences (CARE) Study, a multicenter case-control study of breast cancer. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as measures of relative risk using multivariate unconditional logistic regression methods. Multiparity and early age at first birth were associated with reduced relative risk of ER + PR + tumours (P for trend=0.0001 and 0.01, respectively), but not of ER - PR - tumours (P for trend=0.27 and 0.85), whereas duration of breastfeeding was associated with lower relative risk of both receptor-positive (P for trend=0.0002) and receptor-negative tumours (P=0.0004). Our results were consistent across subgroups of women based on age and ethnicity. We found few significant differences by histologic subtype, although the strongest protective effect of multiparity was seen for mixed ductolobular tumours. Our results indicate that parity and age at first birth are associated with reduced risk of receptor-positive tumours only, while lactation is associated with reduced risk of both receptor-positive and -negative tumours. This suggests that parity and lactation act through different mechanisms. This study also suggests that reproductive factors have similar protective effects on breast tumours of lobular and ductal origin.

The risk of menstrual abnormalities after tubal sterilization. U.S. Collaborative Review of Sterilization Working Group.

BACKGROUND: The existence of a post-tubal-ligation syndrome of menstrual abnormalities has been debated for decades. We used data from the U.S. Collaborative Review of Sterilization to determine whether the likelihood of persistent menstrual abnormalities was greater among women who had undergone tubal sterilization than among women who had not. METHODS: A total of 9514 women who underwent tubal sterilization and 573 women whose partners underwent vasectomy were followed in a multicenter, prospective cohort study for up to five years by means of annual telephone interviews. All women were asked the same questions about six characteristics of their menstrual cycles in the presterilization and follow-up interviews. Multiple logistic-regression analysis was used to assess the risk of persistent menstrual changes. RESULTS: The women who had undergone sterilization were no more likely than those who had not undergone the procedure to report persistent changes in intermenstrual bleeding or the length of the menstrual cycle. They were more likely to have decreases in the number of days of bleeding (odds ratio, 2.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.1 to 5.2), the amount of bleeding (odds ratio, 1.5; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.1 to 2.0), and menstrual pain (odds ratio, 1.3; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.0 to 1.8) and to have an increase in cycle irregularity (odds ratio, 1.6; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.1 to 2.3). Among women who had had very heavy bleeding at base line, women who had undergone sterilization were more likely than women who had not undergone the procedure to report decreased bleeding (45 percent vs. 33 percent, P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Women who have undergone tubal sterilization are no more likely than other women to have menstrual abnormalities.

Influenza--United States, 1988-89.

PROBLEM/CONDITION: CDC monitors the emergence and spread of new influenza virus variants and the impact of influenza on morbidity and mortality annually from October through May. REPORTING PERIOD COVERED: This report covers United States influenza surveillance conducted from October 1988 through May 1989. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM: Weekly reports from the vital statistics offices of 121 cities provided an index of influenza's impact on mortality; 58 WHO collaborating laboratories reported weekly identification of influenza viruses; weekly morbidity reports were received both from the state and territorial epidemiologists and from 153 sentinel family practice physicians. Nonsystematic reports of outbreaks and unusual illnesses were received throughout the year. RESULTS: During the 1988-89 influenza season, influenza A (H1N1) and B viruses were identified in the United States with essentially equal frequency overall, although both regional and temporal patterns of predominance shifted over the course of the season. Throughout the season increases in the indices of influenza morbidity in regions where influenza B predominated. Only 7% of identified viruses were influenza A (H3N2), but not isolations of this subtype increased as the season waned and it subsequently predominated during the 1989-90 season. During the 1988-89 season outbreaks in nursing homes were reported in association with influenza B and A (H3N2), but not influenza A (H1N1). INTERPRETATION: The alternating temporal and geographic predominance of influenza strains A (H1N1) and B during the 1988-89 season emphasizes the importance of continual attention to regional viral strain surveillance, since amantadine is effective only for treatment and prophylaxis of influenza A. ACTIONS TAKEN: Weekly interim analyses of surveillance data produced throughout the season allow physicians and public health officials to make informed choices regarding appropriate use of amantadine. CDC's annual surveillance allows the observed viral variants to be assessed as candidates for inclusion as components in vaccines used in subsequent influenza seasons.