| |
Note:
This document has undergone peer-review by an independent group of scientific
experts in the field. Readers of the website wishing to comment on the
substance of the paper are welcome to send your comments to peerreview@protectingourhealth.org.
Revision
Date: 10 April 2003
Breast
Cancer and the Environment
By Gina M. Solomon, MD, MPH
School of Medicine
University of California, San Francisco
and
the Natural Resources Defense Council
The Disease
Breast
cancer is a very common disease and an increasing concern for women in
the U.S. and in many other industrialized countries. One out of every
three newly-diagnosed cancers in women is a cancer of the breast, and
if current incidence rates hold steady, one out of every eight women in
the United States will develop breast cancer during her lifetime (Kelsey
and Bernstein 1996). Breast
cancer is second only to lung cancer as a cause of cancer-related deaths
in women. About one in every four women with breast cancer will die of
the disease. Although 99% of breast cancer cases occur in women, this
cancer can also affect men, and the outcomes in men are more likely to
be fatal (de
los Santos and Buchholz 2000).
Breast
Cancer Epidemiology: Prevalence and Trends
The
incidence rate (reflecting the annual number of new cases) has been rising
for fifty years, with a particularly steep rise during the 1980’s,
and some flattening during the 1990’s (Kelsey
and Bernstein 1996). Overall, the rate has been increasing by an average
of 1-2% per year. Although some scientists contend that the increase reflects
early detection due to mammography, many researchers believe that the
increase is real, since earlier detection of cancers would not be expected
to cause long-term, steady increases in the number of cases, including
the observed increasing rates of breast cancer in young women.
Breast
cancer is a disease of industrialized, westernized countries. Historically,
rates have been highest in the United States and Western Europe, and low
in Africa and Asia. However, in recent years, incidence rates have risen
steeply in some traditionally low risk countries such as Japan and several
Eastern European countries. When individuals emigrate from a country with
low rates of breast cancer to an area with high rates, their risk of breast
cancer rises. By the second generation, the children of immigrants have
a risk of breast cancer equal to the rest of the U.S. population (Kelsey
and Horn-Ross 1993).
In
the U.S., black women have lower rates of breast cancer than white women,
although the rates are paradoxically higher among black women in premenopausal
age goups. Breast cancer takes a much more severe course in black women.
The rates of metastatic breast cancer are about twice as high in black
women, and five-year survival rates are around 60% as compared to about
80% in white women. There are two main theories as to why these differences
exist. The poorer outcomes among African-American women may be due to
decreased access to health care, resulting in diagnosis later in the course
of the disease. This theory is somewhat weakened by the fact that African-American
women also have poorer survival than white women at the same disease stage.
Others point out that there are subtle by important differences in the
cancers that occur in white women and black women, and the latter are
more likely to get tuors that are difficult to treat. (Chen
et al. 1994) For example, black women are more likely to
get cancers that are estrogen receptor-negative (Gordon
1995). These cancers tend to be harder to treat and more aggressive.
Unfortunately, few studies have focused specifically on causes of breast
cancer in African-American women, so there is little information available
to help understand the reasons for the poorer outcomes in this population.
The situation becomes even more confusing because male breast cancers
are more common among black men than among white men (Meguerditchian
et al. 2002).
The
causes of breast cancer: What is known?
There
are few known causes of breast cancer, although there are numerous factors
that have been identified as associated with a higher risk of developing
the disease (Sasco 2001).
One of the known causes of breast cancer is ionizing radiation, an environmental
factor. There is also intense research into other possible environmental
risk factors for breast cancer, including pesticide exposures, secondhand
smoke, air pollutants, and estrogenic chemicals in the environment. Despite
some excellent epidemiologic research, the scientific studies looking
at breast cancer and environmental toxicants are extraordinarily conflicting,
with a frustrating lack of clear, cohesive answers.
The
particularly conflicting nature of the breast cancer studies may have
several explanations. Breast
cancer is a multifactorial disease, meaning that many different genetic,
lifestyle, and environmental factors contribute to the development of
an individual case of cancer. This makes it difficult to pin down any
one exposure amid the multiplicity of possible factors, and link it specifically
to the disease. Genetic
and environmental factors may also interact, so that some women may be
more susceptible to environmental toxicants. If researchers do not know
how to separate out the more susceptible women from the less susceptible,
studies may appear to find conflicting results. Breast
cancer also has a very long latency period -- probably several decades
elapse between the causal factors and the eventual appearance of disease.
Some researchers believe that changes occur to the developing breast tissue
during the prenatal period or in childhood that may predispose to breast
cancer decades later (Trichopoulos
1990). It is very difficult to evaluate what a woman was exposed to
early in life when most studies first interview women or evaluate exposures
in adulthood.
Although
genetics have received a lot of attention in breast cancer research, mutations
in the known genes that confer increased susceptibility to breast cancer,
BRCA1 and BRCA2, are estimated to be present in less than 10% of cases
of the disease (Nicoletto
et al. 1991). A study of twins that compared cancer risks
of identical twins and fraternal twins estimated the proportion of cancer
that is due to inherited genetic factors vs. environmental factors. In
this study, an estimated 27% of breast cancer could be explained by inherited
genetic factors. The range of estimates of possible genetic risks for
breast cancer in this study was fairly broad, spanning 4-41% (Lichtenstein
et al. 2000). That leaves a large proportion of breast
cancer—probably two-thirds or more of cases— unexplained by
inherited genetic factors.
Factors
known to be associated with higher risk of developing breast cancer include
early age at menarche (the first onset of the menstrual cycle), late age
at menopause, shorter menstrual cycles, late age at first full-term pregnancy,
fewer children, not breastfeeding, and obesity after menopause (Key
et al. 2001). These risk factors are unified by most researchers
into the theory that longer and higher-level exposures to the hormone
estrogen, and perhaps also to progesterone, are associated with increased
risk of breast cancer (Davis
et al. 1997). This theory makes sense because many types
of breast cancer cells are known to proliferate in response to estrogen.
Menstrual cycling causes women to go through the so-called luteal phase
(premenstrual phase) every month when the levels of both estrogen and
progesterone in their bodies are quite high. Each monthly cycle therefore
exposes the breast to a burst of hormones that can promote the growth
of a cancer. The risk factor of obesity
after menopause also fits into the estrogen hypothesis. Fat cells convert
androgens from the adrenal gland into estrogens. Hormone replacement therapy
has also been shown to increase risk of breast cancer by 25-50% after
five years of treatment, as would be expected from the associations between
estrogen and progesterone and breast cancer (Writing
Group 2002).
Exposure
before birth to the artificial estrogen diethylstilbesterol (DES), a drug
widely used in the 1950’s and 1960’s, has been shown to increase
breast cancer risk by 2.5-fold, indicating that prenatal exposures to
estrogens may predispose to breast cancer many decades later (Palmer
et al. 2002). The prenatal estrogen exposure hypothesis is
supported by various other observations, including that twins and women
with higher birthweights are at higher risk of breast cancer. Twin pregnancies
and higher birthweight babies are both associated with higher estrogen
levels in pregnant women (Potischman
and Troisi 1999). In
addition to the estrogenic effects discussed above, pregnancy and breastfeeding
cause the breast to fully mature. Until pregnancy, the cells in the milk
ducts, and milk producing structures of the breast remain immature. Immature
cells are more susceptible to cancerous changes compared to fully developed
cells. The estrogen hypothesis is further supported by the fact that higher
levels of estrogen have also been associated with breast cancer in men
(Meguerditchian
et al. 2002).
Some
researchers have reported that girls are showing signs of puberty at an
earlier age today than they did in the past (Herman-Giddens
et al. 1997). If menstrual cycling begins at an earlier age,
then breast cancer risk is likely to rise since early menarche is a known
risk factor for breast cancer. It is not yet clear why the age at puberty
may be declining in girls. Researchers have proposed a variety of hypotheses
ranging from dietary factors, to exposures to estrogenic chemicals in
cosmetic products and the environment.
Diet
The
much higher rates of breast cancer in westernized countries has led to
some scrutiny of the dietary patterns in different regions. Immigrants
to the U.S. and other western countries often change their dietary habits
dramatically in the course of a generation. This change could contribute
to the dramatic increases in breast cancer risk seen when people emigrate
from low risk countries to the U.S. The traditional diet in many Asian
and African countries is low in fat and includes primarily complex carbohydrates.
When compared to women eating traditional diets, women consuming a western
diet have different hormone profiles. Women eating a high fat, high protein
diet with mostly refined carbohydrates and sugars have higher levels of
sex hormones in their blood, lower excretion of extrogens in their feces,
and lower levels of a protein called sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG)
(Adlercreutz 1990).
This protein attaches to estrogen, making the estrogen temporarily inactive.
High fiber diets have been shown to increase elimination of estrogen and
its metabolites in the feces, thereby lowering circulating estrogen levels
(Adlercreutz 1990).
The
traditional Asian diet also contains large amounts of natural estrogens,
known as phytoestrogens. These weak estrogens, found naturally in soy,
nuts, and whole grains, have received some attention in the breast cancer
community (Bradlow
and Sepkovic 2002). In adult or adolescent women, phytoestrogens may
modulate the effects of endogenous estrogens. Phytoestrogens also may
increase the levels of SHBG and may act on the hypothalamus and pituitary
gland, causing them to send the ovaries a signal to reduce production
of estrogens (Adlercreutz
2002). However, studies in animals and humans have failed to find
evidence that phytoestrogens protect against breast cancer (Adlercreutz
2002). In the fetus, the effects of phytoestrogens may be more clearly
adverse. In rodent studies, short-term exposures to phytoestrogens during
critical periods of fetal development can cause cancer (Newbold
et al. 2001).
Environmental Exposures
Ionizing
radiation, alcohol, and synthetic estrogens are known causes of breast
cancer. Many other environmental exposures are being studied as possible
breast carcinogens, but the data so far are conflicting and uncertain.
Electromagnetic fields and light at night have shown associations with
breast cancer in a few studies. Much research has focused on several pesticides,
including DDT and dieldrin, and on the polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
The data linking these chemicals to breast cancer in humans is conflicting.
Because estrogens are known to promote the development of breast cancers,
the finding that numerous pesticides, and chemicals in plastics, cosmetics,
and foods can mimic estrogen provides particular reason for concern. Although
endocrine disrupting chemicals are an important research question, with
the exception of estrogenic drugs such as diethylstilbesterol (DES), hormone
replacement therapy, and possibly the pesticide dieldrin, the links to
breast cancer remain mostly hypothetical in humans. Numerous common environmental
chemicals have been found to cause mammary gland tumors in laboratory
rats or mice. Only a few of these chemicals have been studied in humans,
and this is a fertile area for future research. The polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), chemicals found in soot and smoke, are known carcinogens
that have been linked to mammary tumors in animals. Several studies have
found associations between exposure to PAHs and breast cancer in humans.
All of these issues are discussed in greater detail below.
Ionizing
radiation, electromagnetic fields, and light at night
| |
Ionizing
radiation (the type found in X-rays, atomic bomb explosions, and
other nuclear materials) is an established cause of breast cancer
in humans. Survivors of the atomic bomb explosions in Japan have
an increased risk of breast cancer, and women who have undergone
medical treatments involving extensive radiation to the chest also
have an increased risk (John
and Kelsey 1993). The research on radiation has clearly established
the importance of the timing of environmental exposures to a carcinogen.
Radiation exposure after about age 40 has little detectable effect
on breast cancer risk, whereas before age 20, the effect is highly
significant, and up to a nine-fold increased risk has been reported
in some studies (Tokunaga
et al. 1987). This increased risk first becomes evident
about 10-15 years after the exposure and persists throughout the
individual’s lifetime (John
and Kelsey 1993). It appears that the breast is most sensitive
to radiation before the first pregnancy—a finding consistent
with the theory that the final development of the milk ducts that
occurs during pregnancy and lactation increases the resistance of
the cells to cancer.
An
electromagnetic field (EMF) is a form of non-ionizing radiation
emitted by electric power generation, power lines, and some appliances.
Because this type of radiation does not penetrate deep into the
body, it was initially thought harmless. More recently, it has become
controversial due to research linking EMF exposure with childhood
leukemia. Some researchers have theorized that EMF acts like visible
light by affecting the body’s daily fluctuations in the hormone
melatonin. Melatonin is normally secreted by the pineal gland in
the brain during the night. This hormone appears to modulate levels
of estrogen and also appears to have anti-cancer effects. Some
studies have reported up to a six-fold increased risk of male breast
cancer in electricians, telephone linemen, and electric power workers,
whereas other large, well-designed studies have failed to find any
such association (Ahlbom
et al. 2001). Because male breast cancer is such a
rare disease, few studies have the statistical power to detect or
confirm a small increased risk if such a risk exists. Studies
looking at female breast cancer and occupational exposure to EMF
are limited because of the lack of women in highly exposed populations.
Investigations of household EMF and breast cancer risk have mostly
been negative, but some have shown slightly elevated risks among
younger women (Ahlbom
et al. 2001). Several major studies on EMF and breast
cancer are ongoing and should help to clarify this issue.
Because
melatonin release occurs during the nighttime hours and is inhibited
by light, research has begun to focus on women who are exposed to
light at night (Poole
2002). Studies of nurses have found associations between a history
of shift work and breast cancer (Schernhammer
et al. 2001). The risk of breast cancer was reported
to increase slightly but significantly with increasing frequency
and duration of work in the middle of the night during the ten years
prior to diagnosis. Regular work on the graveyard shift was associated
with a 60% higher risk of breast cancer (Davis
et al. 2001). Studies asking about light in the bedroom
were less impressive, with only a slight increase in possible risk
among those women with the brightest bedrooms (Schernhammer
et al. 2001). |
Organochlorine
pesticides, PCBs, and dioxins
| |
Dozens
of studies have looked for possible links between breast cancer
and exposure to pesticides such as DDT and dieldrin, as well as
for links with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins. DDT
and dieldrin are pesticides that were banned in the late 1970’s
in the U.S. and in many other countries. These chemicals accumulate
in fatty tissues such as the breast, where they persist for decades.
PCBs also accumulate in fat and are persistent. These chemicals
were used as electrical insulators, fire retardants, and industrial
lubricants for many years, but were banned around the same time
as DDT. Dioxins, such as 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, are byproducts
of many industrial processes and incineration.
DDT,
dieldrin, and some PCBs have been shown to mimic estrogen and can
promote the growth of mammary tumor cells in laboratory dishes and
in rats (Shekhar
et al. 1997). Interestingly, the metabolic byproduct
of DDT, known as DDE, is not estrogenic but rather is an anti-androgen
(it blocks male hormones such as testosterone). Several small studies
in the 1980’s reported higher levels of DDE in the breast
fat of women with cancer. These findings spurred extensive research
into links between breast cancer and residues of organochlorines
in blood and breast fat. Most of the more recent and larger studies
have found no association between levels of DDE or PCBs and breast
cancer (Laden
et al. 2001; Gammon
et al. 2002). However, the
literature thus reveals a perplexing patchwork of positive and negative
studies without a clear explanation for the marked discrepancies
in the results (Snedeker
2001). Researchers have proposed many possible reasons for the
discordant findings. Some of the theories center around differences
in the analytic methods used in the studies, whether women were
exposed originally to estrogenic DDT itself from direct spraying,
or only to DDE from food residues, or whether DDE is acting as a
marker for a different, unknown, chemical that may be associated
with breast cancer.
One
California study indicated that racial differences may be important
with regard to DDT. In this study, no association was found between
DDE and breast cancer in white women, and an inverse association
was seen in Asian women. Black women, in marked contrast, had higher
levels of DDE in their bodies compared to the white women, and there
was an association between DDE levels and breast cancer (Krieger
et al. 1994). The racial differences persisted even
when the researchers took into account a long list of factors including
age, socioeconomic status, pregnancy history, place of birth, and
others. Many studies have consistently found that black women have
higher levels of DDE in their bodies compared with white women,
but no other studies have been done to confirm the association between
DDE and breast cancer in black women.
It
is possible that some women are more genetically susceptible to
organochlorine chemicals and may therefore be at risk of breast
cancer after exposure, whereas others are not susceptible (Wolff
and Weston 1997). Such a difference could explain the discordant
results reported in various studies, but such susceptibility factors,
if they exist, have not yet been identified. In addition, the timing
of exposure may be critical with these chemicals just as it is with
radiation.
Studies measuring levels of organochlorines in middle-aged women
probably do not accurately estimate the exposures to these women
during childhood. One study avoided this problem by looking at stored
blood samples taken between 1959 and 1967 from 262 women in California,
about half of whom had developed breast cancer. At the time of the
sampling, the average age of these women was 26 years. The study
demonstrated a strong, statistically significant association between
breast cancer and higher levels of DDT, but only among women who
were exposed to DDT before age 15 years. In addition, the researchers
found a negative association between breast cancer and levels of
DDE, demonstrating both the importance of the timing of exposure
and the major differences between DDT and DDE (Cohn
et al. 2002).
The
pesticide dieldrin, an unmeasured confounder in some of the PCB
and DDE studies, might be the missing breast cancer link. Two Danish
studies found significant associations between dieldrin and breast
cancer risk, including more aggressive disease and poorer survival
in women with higher dieldrin levels (Høyer
et al. 1998; Høyer
et al. 2000). These studies were well-designed and
the results appeared to be robust. However, a large study of breast
cancer on Long Island, NY failed to find any associations between
dieldrin levels in blood and breast cancer risk (Gammon
et al. 2002b). The overall situation regarding organochlorines
and breast cancer risk is confusing. The results on DDE in black
women, DDT exposure in early life, and the Danish studies on dieldrin
clearly all need further investigation.
Dioxin
is known to cause cancer in numerous different organs in both humans
and animals. However, dioxin is also anti-estrogenic, causing some
researchers to theorize that it is less likely to promote breast
cancer. These opposing properties of dioxin may explain why some
studies found an association between exposure to this chemical and
breast cancer, whereas other studies found no association between
exposure and risk. An initial study of women exposed to dioxins
from an industrial accident in Seveso, Italy initially found no
increased risk of breast cancer, but more recent follow-up studies
of this cohort of women that included measured levels of dioxin
body burdens reported a doubling in breast cancer risk starting
to appear twenty years after the accident (Warner
et al. 2002). Important research in the laboratory
indicates
that the timing of dioxin exposure may be critically important.
Rats exposed to small amounts of dioxin prenatally and in infancy
had altered development of the mammary glands in a manner that would
tend to predispose to cancer development (Fenton
et al. 2002). Over time, these abnormalities persisted
and the rats were more likely to develop tumors as they aged (Brown
et al. 1998). |
Soot
and Secondhand smoke
| |
Chemicals
found in soot and smoke are known to cause mammary gland tumors
in laboratory animals. These chemicals are known as polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) and aromatic amines. Most people are exposed
to PAHs from cigarette smoke, diesel exhaust, air pollution, and
to both PAHs and aromatic amines from residues on smoked, grilled
or charbroiled meats. PAHs are powerful mutagens (they attach to
DNA and cause damage to chromosomes), accumulate in breast tissue,
and are used experimentally to induce mammary tumors in lab rats
for research purposes. Several
studies have found links between PAHs and breast cancer. Various
studies have reported increased breast cancer risk of between 50%
and five-fold with exposures to PAHs (Rundle
et al. 2000; Gammon
et al. 2002a). The research is confusing because the
studies have found associations between measured levels of PAH-DNA
adducts in these women and breast cancer risk, but failed to find
significant associations between reported consumption of grilled
or charbroiled meat and breast cancer, or between air pollution
exposure and breast cancer. The PAH-DNA adducts are biological markers
of genetic damage from PAHs. The researchers theorize that some
women may be less able to deactivate and eliminate PAHs and may
therefore have more of the dangerous adducts, whereas others exposed
to PAHs may form fewer adducts and be less susceptible to cancer
from these chemicals.
Studies
specifically on exposure to cigarette smoke show an interesting
paradox. Smokers are not usually reported to have an elevated risk
of breast cancer, whereas secondhand smoke does appear to slightly
increase the risk of breast cancer (O'Connell
et al. 1987; Khuder
and Simon 2000). There are several possible explanations for
this counter-intuitive finding (Morris
and Seifter 1992). Sidestream cigarette smoke contains up to
ten times the concentration of toxic PAHs and benzene compared to
the smoke drawn through the filter. Smoking also appears to be anti-estrogenic,
since smokers often have early menopause and lower estrogen levels.
Some toxins in cigarette smoke, such as cyanide, can also inactivate
the cytochrome p450 enzymes that are responsible for activating
PAHs into more dangerous forms. These factors could help explain
why the breast cancer risk from second hand smoke equals or exceeds
the risks from direct smoking. Numerous chemicals that are present
in cigarette smoke cause mammary cancers in laboratory animals.
One review reported eleven constituents of cigarette smoke that
are known mammary gland carcinogens in animals. These chemicals
include benzo[a]pyrene, dibenzo[a,l]pyrene, 2-toluidine, 4-aminobiphenyl,
2-amino-3-methylimidazoquinoline, 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazopyridine,
butadiene, isoprene, nitromethane, ethylene oxide, and benzene (Hecht
2002).
Genetic
susceptibility may be at work in smokers also. A set of enzymes
known as the N-acetyl transferase (NAT) enzymes, are partially responsible
for the detoxification of hazardous agents such as the PAHs. Women
with a particular genetic variant in the NAT enzyme system (“slow
acetylators”) have a 70% increased risk of breast cancer if
they smoke. In contrast, the opposite genetic variant, or “fast
acetylators” have a doubling of breast cancer risk from exposure
to second hand smoke (Chang-Claude
et al. 2002). The
timing of exposure may also be particularly important in the case
of PAHs and other components of cigarette smoke. PAHs act somewhat
like radiation in that they cause genetic mutations that may initiate
cancerous changes in breast cells. It is likely that exposures early
in life may be the most significant in predisposing to breast cancer
development. The studies finding positive associations between cigarette
smoking and breast cancer, in fact, were those that looked specifically
at women who smoked during their teenage years (Wolff
et al. 1996). Therefore it is possible that exposures
to smoke, air pollution, diesel exhaust, and dietary PAHs in smoked,
grilled, and charbroiled meats may be of particular concern in young
girls and teens. |
Alcohol
and Solvents
| |
Organic
solvents include alcohols; aromatic solvents such as benzene and
toluene found in gasoline, glues, or paints; and chlorinated solvents
such as the perchloroethylene used in dry cleaning, or trichloroethylene,
which is a common drinking water contaminant. These chemicals are
volatile so they are easily inhaled, and they are absorbed through
the skin. They are attracted to fat, but do not persist for very
long in the body. Measured levels of solvents in the blood, urine,
or exhaled breath only reflect exposures during the past few hours
or days. Because of their short-lived nature, it has been difficult
to study links between solvent exposure and breast cancer.
Ethanol,
the substance in alcoholic beverages, is considered to be a known
breast carcinogen (Singletary
and Gapstur 2001). Consumption of two or more glasses of wine
per day has been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer by
about 50% (Horn-Ross
et al. 2002). Alcohol may increase breast cancer risk
by increasing estrogen and androgen levels, or by various other
mechanisms (Davis
et al. 1997). In addition, alcoholism is often associated
with dietary deficiencies that can increase susceptibility to carcinogens.
Several
solvents are known to cause tumors of the mammary gland in laboratory
rodents. These include benzene, 1,2-dibromoethane, 1,2-dichloroethane,
methylene chloride, styrene, 1,2,3-trichloropropane, and vinyl chloride
(Dunnick et
al. 1995). A few occupational studies have reported increased
breast cancer risk among women in solvent-exposed industries, although
most workplace studies did not report an increased risk (Labreche
and Goldberg 1997). The worker studies were not designed to
study breast cancer, and most contained very few women and used
broad occupational groupings as a proxy for exposure. Therefore
the data on organic solvents and breast cancer require additional
attention and further research. |
In
summary, breast cancer is a complex, multifactorial disease that is caused
by the interaction of genetic and environmental factors. Because the disease
is so common, and is on the rise, it is important to identify any contributing
environmental factors so that we can decrease exposures and prevent disease.
It is clear that some environmental factors, such as exposure to radiation
and synthetic estrogens, can cause breast cancer. The extensive research
into other possible causes has been confusing and conflicting, but has
revealed numerous possible contributing factors. The confusing nature
of the existing data calls for further research to attempt to sort out
some of the key unanswered questions, and also calls for precautionary
actions to prevent unnecessary exposures to avoidable factors that may
be associated with breast cancer.
|