% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Hurson:291691,
author = {A. N. Hurson and T. U. Ahearn and H. Koka and B. D. Jenkins
and A. R. Harris and S. Roberts and S. Fan and J. Franklin
and G. Butera and R. Keeman and A. Y. Jung$^*$ and P. Middha
and G. L. Gierach and X. R. Yang and J. Chang-Claude$^*$ and
R. M. Tamimi and M. A. Troester and E. V. Bandera and M.
Abubakar and M. K. Schmidt and M. Garcia-Closas},
title = {{R}isk factors for breast cancer subtypes by race and
ethnicity: {A} scoping review.},
journal = {Journal of the National Cancer Institute},
volume = {116},
number = {12},
issn = {0027-8874},
address = {Oxford},
publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press},
reportid = {DKFZ-2024-01495},
pages = {1992-2002},
year = {2024},
note = {2024 Dec 1;116(12):1992-2002},
abstract = {Breast cancer is comprised of distinct molecular subtypes.
Studies have reported differences in risk factor
associations with breast cancer subtypes, especially by
tumor estrogen receptor (ER) status, but their consistency
across racial and ethnic populations has not been
comprehensively evaluated.We conducted a qualitative,
scoping literature review using the Preferred Reporting
Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis, extension
for Scoping Reviews to investigate consistencies in
associations between 18 breast cancer risk factors
(reproductive, anthropometric, lifestyle, and medical
history) and risk of ER-defined subtypes in women who
self-identify as Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic
or Latina, or White. We reviewed publications between
January 1, 1990 and July 1, 2022. Etiologic heterogeneity
evidence (convincing, suggestive, none, or inconclusive) was
determined by expert consensus.Publications per risk factor
ranged from 14 (benign breast disease history) to 66
(parity). Publications were most abundant for White women,
followed by Asian, Black or African American, and Hispanic
or Latina women. Etiologic heterogeneity evidence was
strongest for parity, followed by age at first birth,
post-menopausal BMI, oral contraceptive use, and
estrogen-only and combined menopausal hormone therapy.
Evidence was limited for other risk factors. Findings were
consistent across racial and ethnic groups, although the
strength of evidence varied.The literature supports
etiologic heterogeneity by ER for some established risk
factors that are consistent across race and ethnicity
groups. However, in non-White populations evidence is
limited. Larger, more comparable data in diverse populations
is needed to better characterize breast cancer etiologic
heterogeneity.},
subtyp = {Review Article},
cin = {C020},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)C020-20160331},
pnm = {313 - Krebsrisikofaktoren und Prävention (POF4-313)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-313},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:39018167},
doi = {10.1093/jnci/djae172},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/291691},
}