Open Access

The contribution of the environment (especially diet) to breast cancer risk

Breast Cancer Research20024:58

DOI: 10.1186/bcr423

Received: 16 November 2001

Accepted: 21 January 2002

Published: 1 April 2002

Abstract

Environmental factors play an important role in breast carcinogenesis. Opportunities for prevention are limited, however, because most of the known or suspected risk factors are not targets for modification. Dietary factors have generally not emerged as crucial contributors to mammary tumor causation. We still appear to be missing a critical piece of the breast cancer puzzle because we can only explain a moderate proportion of international and national variation in breast cancer rates. Research needs to pursue new avenues, focusing on exposure windows that have not yet been sufficiently explored, such as events between conception and adolescence, and on modifiable risk factors that show large variation within or between populations.

Keywords

diet epidemiology estrogens growth factors nutrition

Introduction

What do we know about the causes of breast cancer at the beginning of the third millennium? Relatively little - disappointingly little. Despite the number of smart minds and research dollars invested in breast cancer research, we have disentangled amazingly little of the maze of breast cancer causation. Known or suspected risk factors explain only a modest proportion of the international and within-population variation in worldwide breast cancer rates, less than for other diseases including some other cancers [1]. Worse than this is that, although we know little about modifiable risk factors, these very factors may be our best hope for successful preventive efforts.

Although genetic factors undoubtedly play a role in mammary carcinogenesis, and susceptibility genes such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 have been identified, environmental factors must also contribute to breast cancer etiology. How do we arrive at this insight? Migrant studies have taught us that a change in environment affects risk for breast cancer. Breast cancer rates among immigrants are similar to those observed in their newly adopted host country, even if substantially different from their native country. The timeframe of adjustment remains unclear; some studies suggest that breast cancer rates change within the same generation, whereas others indicate that it takes a generation for rates to conform to those of the new host country. This inconsistency may be a function of women's age at migration; if migration occurs during childhood and adolescence, then the chances may be greater that the adjustment is triggered within the same generation.

What we think we know

To the best of our current knowledge, reproductive factors such as early menarche, nulliparity, older age at first birth, and older age at menopause play important roles in the formation of mammary tumors [2, 3]. Although these may be the most important factors in breast cancer etiology we have thus far identified, they are not targets for preventive strategies. Reproductive risk factors point toward endogenous estrogens as likely players in the initiation, progression, or promotion of breast cancer. Other important factors identified in breast carcinogenesis are indicators of growth, including height, birth weight, adult weight gain, body mass index, and waist circumference [46]. Obesity and weight gain are associated with high estrogen levels (which in turn may explain the association with breast cancer risk), but accelerated fetal growth and tall height may indicate an important role for other growth factors, such as insulin-like growth factors, in the etiology of mammary carcinoma. In contrast, among premenopausal women, high body mass index has been related to a reduced risk for breast cancer [7]. Although the underlying mechanisms have not yet been disentangled, it is possible that compromised ovarian function among obese women contributes to this effect.

Exogenous hormones appear to affect mammary tumor formation only after endogenous levels begin to decrease. Oral contraceptives do not appear to impact on breast cancer risk. Postmenopausal hormone use, however, has been associated with a modest but consistent increase in breast cancer incidence [8]. Exogenous replacement of steroid hormones appears to elevate risk for breast cancer to the level that would be expected if endogenous production had not decreased. The opposed hormone regimen of estrogen plus progesterone appears to increase the risk beyond that of estrogen alone. The decision to use post-menopausal hormones, however, should be based on the presence of menopausal symptoms rather than on possible effects on cancer or cardiovascular disease, and thus postmenopausal hormone use is not a suitable target for breast cancer prevention.

Some possible modifiable environmental risk factors for breast cancer have not evolved as major players in the causal web after careful scrutiny. Among such factors are smoking and physical activity, which could become prevention targets, but evidence to support their role in mammary carcinogenesis is inconsistent.

The role of diet

Given the high incidence of breast cancer and the fear that many women have of such a diagnosis, dietary risk factors would be ideal candidates for modification and prevention efforts. Unfortunately, diet during adult life appears to play a minor role if any in breast cancer etiology. Although fat intake had been suspected to influence breast cancer risk, this hypothesis has largely been disproved by large observational studies [9]. Evidence regarding whether any of the subtypes of fat may affect mammary carcinoma is inconclusive. No foods, specific nutrients, or vitamin supplements were implicated by repeated testing in epidemiologic studies, and no dietary factors have been convincingly linked to breast cancer incidence [10]. Phytoestrogens have been studied because of their antiestrogenic effect, and some studies have shown a reduced risk for breast cancer associated with soy intake [11]. Phytoestrogens also have estrogenic effects, however, and may increase breast tissue proliferation [12]. Before we can encourage women to stock up on tofu and soymilk, more convincing evidence is needed.

The only fairly well established dietary risk factor for breast cancer is alcohol; small but consistent increase in risk has been associated with regular consumption [13]. Similarly evident, but not yet as frequently studied, is the modification of the effect of alcohol by folate. Several studies have shown that, among women with high folate intake, the alcohol-breast cancer association is weakened further. With the recent adoption of folic acid fortification of grains in the USA, any major deficits in the population should be reduced, but higher doses of folate might be required to achieve the desired effect. Small relative risk estimates, however, such as that for the alcohol-breast cancer link, may be the result of residual confounding, even if consistent across studies. Women who consume alcohol are likely to differ in many aspects from women who do not, and it is almost impossible to account sufficiently for these differences in statistical analyses.

Circulating insulin levels and hyperinsulinemia with insulin resistance increase the risk of breast cancer independent of adiposity [14, 15]. Plasma insulin regulates bioavailable insulin-like growth factor-I concentrations and affects plasma estrogen [16]. To what extent diet and physical activity (in particular early in life) may influence these pathways and provide opportunities for breast cancer prevention remains to be explored [16].

The importance of obesity and weight gain in mammary tumorigenesis indicates that a positive energy balance increases risk. Whether diet composition modifies this association is not clear. The work of Ellison and coworkers [17, 18], however, indicates that a negative energy balance can compromise ovarian function independent of nutritional status via high energy expenditure. Conversely, it is likely that severe caloric restriction, which has been shown in the animal model to reduce cancer rates, will reduce breast cancer incidence.

The general lack of association between diet and breast cancer in epidemiological studies has to be interpreted cautiously, because diet is assessed with considerable measurement error in observational studies, and our current diet assessment instruments may not provide sufficiently valid and reliable data to detect small to moderate associations with disease. Similarly, variation in diet within the populations studied may not be sufficiently large to overcome the measurement error that is inherent in self-reported dietary information.

Furthermore, inferences cannot be made for dietary regimens more extreme than vegetarianism or high fruit, vegetable, and fiber consumption. Most participants in epidemiologic studies follow a diet without major restrictions. Thus, it is not known whether a more restricted diet might have a profound effect on breast cancer incidence. Such dietary regimens are more common in Europe and largely prescribe the use of fresh, 'living', and whole foods, including freshly ground whole grains, plant proteins, and a large variety of organic raw vegetables and fruit [1922].

New avenues

Although the search for dietary risk factors for breast cancer during adulthood has been disappointing, this does not preclude a possible association between breast cancer and diet earlier in life. Perhaps we have focused on the wrong window of exposure. For example, the consistent correlation of height with breast cancer incidence points toward an earlier origin of breast cancer than we have thus far studied in depth. Height is partly genetically determined, but much variation is due to environmental factors such as maternal nutrition during pregnancy and diet during childhood and adolescence. The importance of the intrauterine environment is also supported by accumulating evidence on the role of birth weight in breast car-cinogenesis [23, 24]. It is likely that such factors operate via growth factors, in particular insulin-like growth factors.

Thus, data are needed on diet during childhood and adolescence and its relation to mammary carcinoma [25]. Dietary information early in life is difficult to collect, however. Retrospective data may be affected by considerable differential and nondifferential measurement error. Linking prospectively assessed diet information to breast cancer incidence data exceeds the working life of an epidemiologist. Nevertheless, although fat intake during adult life has largely been dismissed as an important risk factor for mammary tumors, fat intake during childhood or adolescence, for example, might be of relevance. This has not yet been sufficiently studied.

Similarly, other factors assessed in adult life that were not related to breast cancer risk might well affect risk at earlier stages. Physical activity in childhood and adolescence, for example, might be of greater relevance than that during adult life.

Conclusion

Environmental factors must play an important role in breast cancer causation. Reproductive factors and growth trajectories have been identified as fundamental contributors to breast carcinogenesis. Although the search for risk factors has been vigorous, we are still missing some important pieces of the puzzle. Of particular interest is the identification of potentially modifiable risk factors. Dismissing outright the role of adult diet as an important contributor to breast cancer risk should be considered with caution, given the power of the inherent measurement error in diet assessment to obscure small but important associations. Future research efforts should focus on under-studied windows of opportunity for exposure, such as the perinatal phase, childhood, and adolescence. Because cancer is a multifactorial process, the first seeds might be sown earlier in life than we have thus far appreciated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Harvard Medical School

References

  1. World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research. Food, Nutrition and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective. Washington DC: American Institute for Cancer Research;. 1997Google Scholar
  2. Hulka BS, Stark AT: Breast cancer: cause and prevention. Lancet. 1995, 346: 883-387. 10.1016/S0140-6736(95)92713-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. McPherson K, Steel CM, Dixon JM: ABC of breast diseases. Breast cancer: epidemiology, risk factors, and genetics. BMJ. 2000, 321: 624-628. 10.1136/bmj.321.7261.624.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. van den Brandt PA, Spiegelman D, Yaun SS, Adami HO, Beeson L, Folsom AR, Fraser G, Goldbohm RA, Graham S, Kushi L, Marshall JR, Miller AB, Rohan T, Smith-Warner SA, Speizer FE, Willett WC, Wolk A, Hunter DJ: Pooled analysis of prospective cohort studies on height, weight, and breast cancer risk. Am J Epi-demiol. 2000, 152: 514-527. 10.1093/aje/152.6.514.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Huang Z, Hankinson SE, Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ, Hunter DJ, Manson JE, Hennekens CH, Rosner B, Speizer FE, Willett WC: Dual effects of weight and weight gain on breast cancer risk. JAMA. 1997, 278: 1407-1411. 10.1001/jama.278.17.1407.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Huang Z, Willett WC, Colditz GA, Hunter DJ, Manson JE, Rosner B, Speizer FE, Hankinson SE: Waist circumference, waist:hip ratio, and risk of breast cancer in the Nurses' Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 1999, 150: 1316-1324.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Ursin G, Longnecker MP, Haile RW, Greenland S: A meta-analysis of body mass index and risk of premenopausal breast cancer. Epidemiology. 1995, 6: 137-141.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Michels KB: Risk of breast cancer with hormone replacement therapy. International Congress Series. 2002, 1229: 135-141. 10.1016/S0531-5131(01)00464-2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Hunter DJ, Spiegelman D, Adami HO, Beeson L, van den Brandt PA, Folsom AR, Fraser GE, Goldbohm RA, Graham S, Howe GR, Kushi LH, Marshall JR, McDermott A, Miller AB, Speizer FE, Wolk A, Yaun SS, Willett WC: Cohort studies of fat intake and the risk of breast cancer: a pooled analysis. N Engl J Med. 1996, 334: 356-361. 10.1056/NEJM199602083340603.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Smith-Warner SA, Spiegelman D, Yaun SS, Adami HO, Beeson WL, van den Brandt PA, Folsom AR, Fraser GE, Freudenheim JL, Goldbohm RA, Graham S, Miller AB, Potter JD, Rohan TE, Speizer FE, Toniolo P, Willett WC, Wolk A, Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A, Hunter DJ: Intake of fruits and vegetables and risk of breast cancer. A pooled analysis of cohort studies. JAMA. 2001, 285: 769-776. 10.1001/jama.285.6.769.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Shu XO, Jin F, Dai Q, Wen W, Potter JD, Kushi LH, Ruan Z, Gao YT, Zheng W: Soyfood intake during adolescence and subsequent risk of breast cancer among Chinese women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001, 10: 483-488.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Atkinson C, Bingham SA: Mammographic breast density as a biomarker of effects of isoflavones on the female breast. Breast Cancer Res. 2002,Google Scholar
  13. Smith-Warner SA, Spiegelman D, Yaun SS, van den Brandt PA, Folsom AR, Goldbohm RA, Graham S, Holmberg L, Howe GR, Marshall JR, Miller AB, Potter JD, Speizer FE, Willett WC, Wolk A, Hunter DJ: Alcohol and breast cancer in women. JAMA. 1998, 279: 535-540. 10.1001/jama.279.7.535.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Del Giudice ME, Fantus IG, Ezzat S, McKeown-Eyssen G, Page D, Goodwin PJ: Insulin and related factors in premenopausal breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1998, 47: 111-120. 10.1023/A:1005831013718.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Bruning PF, Bonfrer JMG, van Noord PAH, Hart AAM, de Jong-Bakker M, Nooijen WJ: Insulin resistance and breast cancer risk. Int J Cancer. 1992, 52: 511-516.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaaks R: Nutrition, hormones, and breast cancer: is insulin the missing link?. Cancer Causes Control. 1996, 7: 605-625.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellison PT, Peacock NR, Lager C: Ecology and ovarian function among Lese women of the Ituri forest, Zaire. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1989, 78: 519-526.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Panter-Brick C, Lotstein DS, Ellison PT: Seasonality of reproductive function and weight loss in rural Nepali women. Hum Reprod. 1993, 8: 684-690.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Wolff O: What Do We Eat? [in German]. Stuttgart, Germany: Verlag Freies Geistesleben;. 1996Google Scholar
  20. Bircher-Benner M, Bircher ME: Bircher-Benner Raw Fruits and Vegetables Book. New Canaan, CT: Keats Publishing Inc;. 1997Google Scholar
  21. Bruker MO: Our Diet, Our Destiny [in German]. Lahnstein, Germany: Emu-Verlag;. 2001Google Scholar
  22. Diamond H, Diamond M: Fit for Life. New York, NY: Warner Books;. 1985Google Scholar
  23. Michels KB, Trichopoulos D, Robins JM, Rosner BA, Manson JE, Hunter DJ, Colditz GA, Hankinson SE, Speizer FE, Willett WC: Birthweight as a risk factor for breast cancer. Lancet. 1996, 348: 1542-1546. 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)03102-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. DeStavola BL, Hardy R, Kuh D, Silva IS, Wadsworth M, Swerdlow AJ: Birthweight, childhood growth and risk of breast cancer in a British cohort. Br J Cancer. 2000, 83: 964-968. 10.1054/bjoc.2000.1370.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Janssens JP: How nutrition during the first few decades of life affects breast cancer risk implications for research and dietary guidelines for children. Nutr Today. 1999, 34: 197-209.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© BioMed Central Ltd 2002