Alcohol, tobacco and breast cancer--collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 58,515 women with breast cancer and 95,067 women without the disease.

Alcohol and tobacco consumption are closely correlated and published results on their association with breast cancer have not always allowed adequately for confounding between these exposures. Over 80% of the relevant information worldwide on alcohol and tobacco consumption and breast cancer were collated, checked and analysed centrally. Analyses included 58,515 women with invasive breast cancer and 95,067 controls from 53 studies. Relative risks of breast cancer were estimated, after stratifying by study, age, parity and, where appropriate, women's age when their first child was born and consumption of alcohol and tobacco. The average consumption of alcohol reported by controls from developed countries was 6.0 g per day, i.e. about half a unit/drink of alcohol per day, and was greater in ever-smokers than never-smokers, (8.4 g per day and 5.0 g per day, respectively). Compared with women who reported drinking no alcohol, the relative risk of breast cancer was 1.32 (1.19-1.45, P<0.00001) for an intake of 35-44 g per day alcohol, and 1.46 (1.33-1.61, P<0.00001) for >/=45 g per day alcohol. The relative risk of breast cancer increased by 7.1% (95% CI 5.5-8.7%; P<0.00001) for each additional 10 g per day intake of alcohol, i.e. for each extra unit or drink of alcohol consumed on a daily basis. This increase was the same in ever-smokers and never-smokers (7.1% per 10 g per day, P<0.00001, in each group). By contrast, the relationship between smoking and breast cancer was substantially confounded by the effect of alcohol. When analyses were restricted to 22 255 women with breast cancer and 40 832 controls who reported drinking no alcohol, smoking was not associated with breast cancer (compared to never-smokers, relative risk for ever-smokers=1.03, 95% CI 0.98-1.07, and for current smokers=0.99, 0.92-1.05). The results for alcohol and for tobacco did not vary substantially across studies, study designs, or according to 15 personal characteristics of the women; nor were the findings materially confounded by any of these factors. If the observed relationship for alcohol is causal, these results suggest that about 4% of the breast cancers in developed countries are attributable to alcohol. In developing countries, where alcohol consumption among controls averaged only 0.4 g per day, alcohol would have a negligible effect on the incidence of breast cancer. In conclusion, smoking has little or no independent effect on the risk of developing breast cancer; the effect of alcohol on breast cancer needs to be interpreted in the context of its beneficial effects, in moderation, on cardiovascular disease and its harmful effects on cirrhosis and cancers of the mouth, larynx, oesophagus and liver.

Preoperative evaluation for diabetic renal transplantation: impact of clinical, laboratory, and echocardiographic parameters on patient and allograft survival.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact on renal transplant patients and graft survival of clinical, laboratory, and echocardiographic parameters commonly measured prior to surgery. PATIENTS: Forty-seven consecutive diabetics with preoperative echocardiograms at the time of transplantation. METHODS: Clinical history, standard chest roentgenogram, electrocardiogram, blood tests, echocardiograms, and HLA testing at baseline; follow-up from 2 to 7 years with periodic reassessment of graft function. RESULTS: Patient survival did not appear to be influenced by age, sex, or type of allograft. A history of either myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or angina was present in 15 patients with 3-year survival of 50% (72% if not present, p less than 0.05). Histocompatibility testing did not impact on survival. Serum sodium, potassium, calcium, phosphate, and calcium-phosphate product did not discern different survival groups. A hematocrit greater than 30% was present in 15 patients with 3-year survival of 43% (73% if not present, p less than 0.05). Greater than 10% antibody sensitization of the recipient resulted in a 3-year survival of 38% in eight patients (68% if not present, p less than 0.05). Radiologic evidence of cardiomegaly or congestive heart failure and standard electrocardiographic evidence for left ventricular hypertrophy or strain did not impact on survival. Echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, posterior wall thickness, or ejection fraction were also not predictive. Increased end-systolic diameter (10 patients, 30% 3-year survival versus 69%, p less than 0.05) and decreased velocity of circumferential fiber shortening (11 patients, 45% 3-year survival versus 71%, p less than 0.05) both appeared to be related to survival. Increased accuracy of prediction could be obtained by adding risk factors so that a history of coronary artery disease and increased end-systolic diameter predicted 3-year survival of 42% versus 82% if neither was present. In terms of graft survival, no clinical, radiographic, or electrocardiographic result yielded predictive information. Among the laboratory tests, only highly antibody-sensitized patients (eight patients, 0% 3-year survival versus 66% 3-year survival, p less than 0.001) showed different survival patterns. Echocardiographic elevated end-systolic diameter predicted a significantly (p less than 0.001) decreased graft survival (3-year survival 33% versus 63%). CONCLUSION: Preoperative prediction of patient and graft survival in diabetic renal transplantation may be enhanced by echocardiographic assessment of systolic load and function. For patients with normal systolic function, whose hematocrit is below 30%, with preformed antibodies less than 10%, renal transplantation has an excellent prognosis; invasive cardiac procedures are not likely required. Since these risk factors are likely additive, a high-risk group may be identified. These latter patients should undergo coronary angiography.