Departure from multiplicative interaction for catechol-O-methyltransferase genotype and active/passive exposure to tobacco smoke among women with breast cancer
Brian D Bradbury1, Jemma B Wilk2, Ann Aschengrau3, Timothy L Lash4
1 Department of Epidemiology, Amgen Inc., 1 Amgen Center Drive MS: 24-2-A, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320, USA
2 Deparment of Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine, 715 Albany St. B601, Boston, MA 02118, USA
3 Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, 715 Albany St. T3E, Boston, MA 02118, USA
4 Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, 715 Albany St. T3E, Boston, MA 02118; Geriatrics Section, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, 715 Albany St. B2, Boston, MA 02118, USA
|Date of Submission||09-May-2005|
|Date of Acceptance||17-Jan-2006|
|Date of Web Publication||17-Jan-2006|
Timothy L Lash
Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, 715 Albany St. T3E, Boston, MA 02118; Geriatrics Section, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, 715 Albany St. B2, Boston, MA 02118
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Background: Women with homozygous polymorphic alleles of catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT-LL) metabolize 2-hydroxylated estradiol, a suspected anticarcinogenic metabolite of estrogen, at a four-fold lower rate than women with no polymorphic alleles (COMT-HH) or heterozygous women (COMT-HL). We hypothesized that COMT-LL women exposed actively or passively to tobacco smoke would have higher exposure to 2-hydroxylated estradiol than never-active/never passive exposed women, and should therefore have a lower risk of breast cancer than women exposed to tobacco smoke or with higher COMT activity.
Methods: We used a case-only design to evaluate departure from multiplicative interaction between COMT genotype and smoking status. We identified 502 cases of invasive incident breast cancer and characterized COMT genotype. Information on tobacco use and other potential breast cancer risk factors were obtained by structured interviews.
Results: We observed moderate departure from multiplicative interaction for COMT-HL genotype and history of ever-active smoking (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.7, 3.8) and more pronounced departure for women who smoked 40 or more years (aOR = 2.3, 95% CI: 0.8, 7.0). We observed considerable departure from multiplicative interaction for COMT-HL genotype and history of ever-passive smoking (aOR = 2.0, 95% CI: 0.8, 5.2) or for having lived with a smoker after age 20 (aOR = 2.8, 95% CI: 0.8, 10).
Conclusion: With greater control over potential misclassification errors and a large case-only population, we found evidence to support an interaction between COMT genotype and tobacco smoke exposure in breast cancer etiology.
|How to cite this article:|
Bradbury BD, Wilk JB, Aschengrau A, Lash TL. Departure from multiplicative interaction for catechol-O-methyltransferase genotype and active/passive exposure to tobacco smoke among women with breast cancer. J Carcinog 2006;5:3
|How to cite this URL:|
Bradbury BD, Wilk JB, Aschengrau A, Lash TL. Departure from multiplicative interaction for catechol-O-methyltransferase genotype and active/passive exposure to tobacco smoke among women with breast cancer. J Carcinog [serial online] 2006 [cited 2019 Apr 21];5:3. Available from: http://www.carcinogenesis.com/text.asp?2006/5/1/3/42161
| Background|| |
A major focus in breast cancer research has been the carcinogenic role of estrogens. In addition to investigating breast cancer risk factors that influence lifetime exposure to estrogen ( e.g . age at menarche and age at menopause) [1,2], research is beginning to examine the environmental and genetic factors that affect estrogen metabolism . It is known that naturally occurring estrogen (17β-estradiol) is hydroxylated at different sites by cytochrome P450 enzymes to form catechol estrogens including 2–hydroxylated (30–40%) and 16α-hydroxlated catechol estrogen (10–12%) . 16α-hydroxylated catechol estrogen has been implicated in cell transformation and genotoxic damage [5,6] whereas 2-hydroxylated catechol estrogen has been postulated as a potentially anti-carcinogenic estrogen metabolite [7-9]. Both metabolites compete with estrogen for the estrogen receptor protein, but only the 16α-hydroxylated form has estrogenic activity [10-12]. Michnovicz et al .  found that active cigarette smoking results in a substantial increase in 2–hydroxylation but little change in 16α-hydroxylation, contributing to a higher ratio of 2–hydroxlyated/16α-hydroxylated estradiol. Findings from recent studies support the hypothesis that a higher 2–/16α-metabolite ratio is protective against breast cancer development [14-17].
The 2–hydroxylated catechol estrogen is metabolized by catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) into non-genotoxic methyl ethers that are excreted from the body. There are two COMT alleles, the wild-type allele is related to high activity (COMT-H), and the polymorphic allele (COMT-L) in its homozygous form is related to an approximately four-fold lower activity [18,19]. The COMT-L allele results from a single nucleotide polymorphism in the COMT gene, a G → A mutation at codon 158, which leads to a substitution of methionine for valine . Individuals homozygous for the polymorphism (COMT-LL) have low COMT activity, individuals homozygous for the wild-type allele (COMT-HH) have high COMT activity, and heterozygous individuals (COMT-HL) have intermediate COMT activity . Thus, the COMT alleles have a codominant (or additive) effect on metabolic activity level
This variability in methyltransferase activity related to the polymorphism has prompted research investigating the association between COMT genotype and breast cancer risk. The epidemiologic studies that have examined the association have produced inconsistent results [21-37]. A few studies have found an elevated breast cancer risk for women with low COMT activity [21-26]. Others have reported no association between COMT activity and breast cancer risk [25-35], and a few have found a decreased breast cancer risk for women with low COMT activity [32,37]. A recent meta-analysis concluded that there was no major association between COMT polymorphisms and breast cancer risk .
Four earlier studies have examined the association between COMT activity and the risk of breast cancer within sub-groups of tobacco exposure [21, 24, 25, 28]. Two found that the elevated breast cancer risk for women with low COMT activity was greater among non-smokers than smokers [21,24] and two found no meaningful difference in risk of breast cancer by COMT activity across smoking groups [25,28].
We collected genetic and behavioral information on 502 cases of incident breast cancer arising in five different sites across the United States. We used a case-only design to examine the potential interaction between methylation status - as measured by COMT genotype - and active or passive smoking status among women with breast cancer. We hypothesized that women who have low COMT activity and are exposed to tobacco smoke should have an enriched concentration of 2–hydroxylated catechol estrogen, and should therefore have a lower smoking-related risk of breast cancer than women with high COMT activity. The case-only design is optimal for assessing departure from multiplicative interaction when the genotype and environmental exposure are independent of one another. This investigation is the largest case-only study to date to examine the interaction between COMT genotype and tobacco exposure history as it relates to breast cancer.
| Methods|| |
The cases of female breast cancer included in this analysis were identified as parts of two study populations [38,39]. The first population includes cases of invasive breast cancer diagnosed between 1987 and 1993 among residents of eight towns in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and who were reported to the Massachusetts Cancer Registry. The second population includes cases of pathologically confirmed, stage I or stage II breast cancer that were diagnosed from December 1996 to September 1999 at hospitals in Rhode Island, North Carolina, Minnesota, or Los Angeles, California. The study was conducted with the approval of the Boston University Medical Campus Institutional Review Board.
Buccal cell samples for genotyping
Breast cancer cases were mailed introductory letters in 2001 and 2002. A trained interviewer followed the letter with a telephone call to answer questions and solicit participation. Cases who agreed to participate were sent an enrollment package containing an introductory letter, summary information about the study, a consent form, instructions for submitting a mouthwash sample, a safety-sealed sample of mouthwash, and a wide-mouth sample collection bottle. Participants collected the sample and returned it in a postage-paid box along with their informed consent. Buccal cells were precipitated by centrifugation and stored at –70°C until a batch of 90 samples had been collected. Batches were sent by overnight delivery on dry ice to Qiagen Genomics (Bothell, WA) for DNA extraction and genotyping.
Qiagen genomics applied proprietary Masscode technology to measure Masscode tags, which are low molecular weight compounds linked to the DNA via a photocleavable linker. The tag is cleaved in flow into a mass spectrometer, and a Microsoft Access database converts the raw analytical data into statistically generated genotype calls. The assay has been validated in over one million genotypes. Existing primers were used to characterize COMT genotypes at the codon 158 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in each buccal cell sample. The Qiagen genotyping data characterized each participant as homozygous wild-type, heterozygous, or homozygous polymorphic at the SNP.
Cases were interviewed on the telephone by trained interviewers using a structured interview to obtain information on demographic characteristics, history of active and passive exposure to cigarette smoke, and known or suspected risk factors for breast cancer. Cases from the Cape Cod population were interviewed between March 1997 and March 1998. Cases from the second population were interviewed approximately forty months after their date of diagnosis to gather the variables used in this analysis. Most of the exposure information related to early life characteristics and events, so the differential delay between diagnosis and interview should have little impact on the results.
We considered a woman a fast methylator if she was homozygous for the COMT-H wild-type allele (COMT-HH), an intermediate methylator if she was a heterozygote (COMT-HL, carrying both the COMT-H wild-type allele and the COMT-L polymorphic allele), and a slow methylator (COMT-LL) if she was homozygous for the COMT-L polymorphic allele. Women who were COMT-LL were the reference genotype for all analyses.
We considered a woman an active smoker if she reported smoking 100 or more cigarettes in her lifetime. We considered a woman a passive smoker if she reported living with someone who was a smoker but was never herself a smoker. For women who reported smoking 100 or more cigarettes in their lifetime or who lived with someone who smoked, information on duration, intensity and timing of exposure to tobacco smoke (active/passive) was also collected. Women who were neither active nor passive smokers were labeled never active/never passive smokers and were the tobacco exposure reference group for all analyses.
In addition to smoking information, we collected information on health and behavioral risk factors including alcohol use, body mass index (BMI), family history of breast cancer, history of benign breast disease, and parity. BMI was calculated as weight divided by the square of height (kg/m 2 ). A woman was considered to have a first-degree family history of breast cancer (yes/no) if she reported that her mother, sister(s) or daughter(s) was diagnosed with breast cancer. We defined alcohol use according to the number of drinks a woman reported that she "usually" had before her diagnosis: non-drinker, ≤ one drink/month, few drinks/month, few drinks/week, almost every day, and unknown.
We examined departure from multiplicative interaction for the association between methylation status and exposure to cigarette smoke (gene-environment interaction) among women with breast cancer. We used logistic regression analysis in SAS (Cary, NC) to quantify departure from multiplicative interaction. In these analyses, the odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between smoking status and methylation status estimate the departure of the gene and environment joint effect from multiplicative interaction. We examined the associations separately for active and passive smokers. We assessed the interaction between tobacco exposure and COMT genotype separately for high (COMT-HH) and intermediate COMT (COMT-HL) activity as compared to low COMT activity (COMT-LL). Women classified as both COMT-LL and never active/never passive smokers were the reference category for all analyses. We controlled for the potential influence of breast cancer risk factors including age at breast cancer diagnosis, alcohol consumption, BMI, first-degree family history of breast cancer, geographic location (state where breast cancer diagnosis was made, which also controls for study sample), and history of benign breast disease using multiple variable logistic regression. We did not assess the influence of race in the analysis since 97% of the women in our case population were white.
We also evaluated departure from multiplicative interaction for variables describing duration, intensity and timing of active and passive smoking exposure. For active smokers, we examined the association between methylation status and the number of packs of cigarettes smoked per day, duration of smoking (in years), age at onset of smoking, and time since quitting. For passive smokers, we examined the duration of passive exposure (in years) and the age at first passive exposure.
| Results|| |
Among the Cape Cod population, 330 of 483 eligible cases agreed to receive a sample collection kit and the remainder refused or were unable to be contacted. Of the 330 who received a kit, 272 returned a sample and 269 samples yielded DNA that could be genotyped. Among the second study population, 372 of 410 eligible cases agreed to receive a sample collection kit and the remainder refused or were unable to be contacted. Of the 372 who received a kit, 321 returned a sample and 233 had samples that yielded DNA that could be genotyped and had the requisite interview data. In both studies, 56% of eligible participants were genotyped and included in the analysis. The proportion of smokers among non-participants was not significantly different than among participants in either study population. The mean age was greater among non-participants than among participants (mean age 66 versus 61 years in the Cape Cod population, p = 0.0001; mean age 74 versus 73 years in the second study population, p = 0.03), reflecting greater losses-to-follow-up and refusals among older women. Age was not, however, associated with genotype among the participants. Furthermore, the proportions of participants who were COMT-LL, COMT-HL, COMT-HH, active smokers, and passive smokers did not vary significantly with their site of enrollment. Among the genotyped controls in the Cape Cod study, the odds ratio associating methylation status (homozygotes versus heterozygotes) with exposure to tobacco smoke (ever-active smoking versus all others) equaled 1.10 (p = 0.80). This finding is consistent with earlier studies [24,40] in which COMT genotype and active smoking were not significantly associated among controls.
There were 502 cases of breast cancer available for analysis. Eighty women (16%) were COMT-LL, 248 (49%) were COMT-HL and 174 (35%) were COMT-HH. [Table 1] provides demographic and risk factor characteristics of the breast cancer cases according to COMT genotype. The distribution of breast cancer risk factors did not differ materially according to COMT genotype.
We observed moderate departure from multiplicative interaction for COMT-HL genotype and history of ever-active smoking (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.6, 95% CI: 0.7, 3.8) but minimal departure from multiplicative interaction for COMT-HH genotype and history of ever-active smoking (aOR = 1.2, 95% CI: 0.4, 3.1) compared to COMT-LL genotype [Table 2].
Estimates for the departure from multiplicative interaction between COMT genotype and the measures of intensity, duration and timing of active smoking were generally higher for COMT-HL genotype than for COMT-HH genotype. The departure from multiplicative interaction was greater than the null for women with COMT-HL genotype when they smoked one or more packs per day (aOR = 1.6, 95% CI: 0.6, 4.5), smoked for 40 or more years (aOR = 2.3, 95% CI: 0.8, 7.0), or started smoking before age 22 (aOR = 1.6, 95% CI: 0.5, 4.6). The departure from multiplicative interaction was greater than the null for women with COMT-HH genotype when they smoked one or more packs per day (aOR = 1.2, 95% CI: 0.4, 3.7) or smoked for 40 or more years (aOR = 1.4, 95% CI: 0.4, 4.9).
We observed considerable departure from multiplicative interaction for COMT-HL genotype and history of ever-passive smoking (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.0, 95% CI: 0.8, 5.2) and moderate departure from multiplicative interaction for COMT-HH genotype and history of ever-passive smoking (aOR = 1.6, 95% CI: 0.6, 4.5) compared to COMT-LL genotype [Table 3].
Estimates for the departure from multiplicative interaction between COMT genotype and the measures of intensity, duration and timing of passive smoking were generally of higher magnitude for COMT-HH activity than COMT-HL activity. The departure from multiplicative interaction was greater than the null for women with COMT-HL genotype who were passively exposed to tobacco smoke for 40 or more years (aOR = 5.1, 95% CI: 1.1, 23) and who first lived with a smoker after 20 years of age (aOR = 2.8, 95% CI: 0.8, 10). Similarly, the departure from multiplicative interaction was greater than the null for women with COMT-HH genotype who were passively exposed to tobacco for 40 or more years (aOR = 5.3, 95% CI: 1.0, 28) and who first lived with a smoker after 20 years of age (aOR = 3.3, 95% CI: 0.8, 13).
| Discussion|| |
This is the largest case-only study to evaluate the interaction between catechol- O -methyltransferase (COMT) activity and active/passive exposure to cigarette smoke and only the second to remove women passively exposed to tobacco smoke from the reference group, as has been recommended for studies of the relation between tobacco smoke and breast cancer risk . Our analysis found evidence to support a departure from multiplicative interaction between COMT activity and smoking status. The relative risk of breast cancer for women with the COMT-HL genotype and a history of ever-active smoking was 1.6–fold (95% CI: 0.7, 3.8) higher than the product of the relative risks associated with the genotype alone and smoking alone. Similarly, the relative risk of breast cancer for women with the COMT-HL genotype (aOR = 2.0, 95% CI: 0.8, 5.2) or the COMT-HH genotype (aOR = 1.6, 95% CI: 0.6, 4.5) and a history of residential exposure to passive smoke were higher than the product of their respective relative risks associated with the genotypes alone and passive exposure alone.
The analyses assessing the departure from multiplicative interaction between the genotypes and intensity, duration or timing of active and passive exposure to cigarette smoke yielded estimates consistent with a promotional role in breast cancer etiology for exposure to tobacco smoke. The relative risk of breast cancer among women with the COMT-HL or COMT-HH genotype who were actively or passively exposed to tobacco smoke for a long duration was higher than expected from the independent effects of the genotype and smoking exposure. These data are consistent with following hypothesis for the interaction between COMT genotype and exposure to tobacco smoke. First, tobacco smoke exposure increases 2–hydroxylation of 17β-estradiol , which leads to a higher ratio of 2–hydroxlyated/16α-hydroxylated estradiol and confers a protective effect against breast cancer development [14-17]. Second, COMT-HH or COMT-HL genotype yields greater capacity to metabolize 2-hydroxylated estradiol, compared with COMT-LL genotype. Our data suggest that women with long-term tobacco smoke exposure and with the COMT-HH or COMT-HL genotype have a higher risk of breast cancer than women with (a) long-term tobacco smoke exposure and the COMT-LL genotype - perhaps because these women have higher circulating concentrations of 2–hydroxylated estradiol due to their low COMT activity, or (b) no tobacco smoke exposure and the COMT-HH or COMT-HL genotypes - perhaps because these women have lower circulating concentrations of 2–hydroxylated estradiol due to the absence of tobacco smoke exposure.
Only a few studies have assessed potential modification by cigarette smoking on the risk of breast cancer for women with COMT-LL as compared to COMT-HH. Lavigne et al .  found an elevated risk of breast cancer for COMT-LL women compared to COMT-HH women, and this increased risk was greater for non-smokers (OR = 2.8) than smokers (OR = 1.8), suggesting that cigarette smoking attenuates any increased risk of breast cancer for women with slow catechol-O-methyltransferase activity. These findings were based on 114 cases and controls and did not account for the influence of passive exposure to cigarette smoke. Yim et al .  found that never smokers with COMT-HL and COMT-LL genotypes were at greater breast cancer risk as compared to never smokers with COMT-HH genotype, OR = 2.0 and OR = 1.7, respectively. The two remaining studies found no evidence of an interaction between COMT activity and active [25,28] or passive  smoking.
Previous studies of the association between COMT genotype and breast cancer risk have compared women with one or more copies of the polymorphism to a reference group of women homozygous for the wild-type allele [21, 24, 25, 28]. In our study, we used women homozygous for the polymorphism as the reference group to clarify the interpretation of our effect estimates. Below the null departure from multiplicative interaction is difficult to interpret because it may reflect sub-multiplicative interaction that is still super-additive. In contrast, departure from multiplicative interaction above the null reflects positive interaction on both the additive and multiplicative scales.
The genotyping procedures employed in this analysis have superior accuracy compared to PCR-RFLP techniques employed in three of the previous studies [21, 24, 25]. Consequently, the rates of misclassification of methylation status in this study should be less than rates in the previous studies employing less accurate PCR-RFLP techniques. Misclassification of either variable involved in an assessment of interaction in case-control studies can give rise to the appearance of interaction when, in fact, there is none .
Our analysis of interaction using case-only data provides greater control over the impact of potential misclassification errors, because there are only two variables central to the analysis that are susceptible to misclassification - COMT genotype and smoking status. As described above, the impact of misclassification is less predictable in three of the previous case-control analyses. It is therefore possible that previous studies evaluating the interaction of COMT genotype and exposure to tobacco smoke in relation to breast cancer risk may have generated biased estimates of interaction. By using a more accurate genotyping method and by implementing a case-only design, this analysis provides a more valid assessment of departure from multiplicative interaction between COMT genotype and exposure to tobacco smoke in relation to breast cancer.
Weighing against this advantage of the case-only design is the limitation that only departure from multiplicativity can be assessed. Many epidemiologists weigh departure from additive interaction more heavily, arguing that the additive scale corresponds better to the biologic meaning of synergistic effects . A further limitation of the case-only design is its reliance on the assumption that the genetic polymorphisms and environmental exposure are independent of one another . Violations of this assumption can substantially distort the estimates of interaction. However, COMT polymorphisms and smoking history were not associated among the genotyped controls in the Cape Cod study or among the controls in earlier studies [24,40]. The absence of association supports the independence assumption required to validly estimate departure from multiplicativity with the case-only design.
Finally, these results must be interpreted with the following limitation in mind. Only 56% of eligible cases were available for analysis. Participation was not related to smoking status and although participation was related to age, age was not related genotype. We expect that the selection of participants introduced no substantial bias, although we acknowledge that our study of breast cancer survivors may have influenced the estimates of effect in ways that we are unable to anticipate.
| Conclusion|| |
This large case-only analysis is only the second to investigate the interaction between COMT genotype and exposure to tobacco smoke as related to breast cancer risk while removing women passively exposed to tobacco smoke from the reference group. The combination of the most complete genotyping data and the large case-only design provided important advantages in this study, whose results suggest potential interaction between COMT genotype and tobacco smoke exposure in breast cancer etiology, perhaps related to the coaction of smoking and genotype on the concentration of 2–hydroxylated catechol estrogen. Weighing against this interpretation is the potential for an unanticipated bias to have arisen by selection of breast cancer survivors from among the incident cases.
| List of abbreviations|| |
COMT = catechol-O-methyltransferase
COMT-HH = homozygous non-polymorphic
COMT-HL = heterozygous
COMT-LL = homozygous polymorphic
SNPs = single nucleotide polymorphisms
BMI = body mass index
OR = odds ratio
CI = confidence interval
aOR = adjusted odds ratio estimate of departure from multiplicativity
| Competing interests|| |
The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.
| Authors' contributions|| |
TL conceived of the study, collected genotyping samples, participated in data analysis, and drafted the manuscript. BB conducted data analysis and drafted the manuscript. JW analyzed the genotyping and drafted the manuscript. AA collected interview data from the Cape Cod population and drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
| Acknowledgements|| |
This project was primarily supported by grant K07 CA87724 from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. Interview data for the Cape Cod population was collected with support by grant number 2P42 ES07381 from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health with funds from Environmental Protection Agency. Interview data for the second population were collected with support from grants R01 CA/AG70818 from the National Cancer Institute and National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health. The publication's contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of NIEHS, NIH or the EPA.
| References|| |
|1.||Bernstein L: Epidemiology of endocrine-related risk factors for breast cancer. J Mammary Glan Biol Neoplasia 2002, 7: 3-15. |
|2.||Kelsey JL, Gammon MD, John EM: Reproductive factors and breast cancer. Epidemiol Rev 1993, 15: 36-47. |
|3.||Huber JC, Schneeberger C, Tempfer CB: Genetic modeling of the estrogen metabolism as a risk factor of hormone-related disorders. Maturitas 2002, 20: 1-12. |
|4.||Fishman J, Bradlow HL, Schneider J, Anderson KE, Kappas A: Radiometric analysis of biological oxidations in man: sex differences in estradiol metabolism. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 1980, 77: 4957-4960. |
|5.||Bradlow HL, Hershcopf RJ, Martucci CP, Fishman J: Estradiol 16α-hydroxylation in the mouse correlates with mammary tumor incidence and presence of murine mammary tumor virus: a possible model for the hormonal etiology of breast cancer in humans. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 1985, 82: 6295-6299. |
|6.||Telang NT, Suto A, Wong GY, Osborne MP, Bradlow HL: Estrogen metabolite 16α-hydroxyesterone induces genotoxic damage and aberrant cell proliferation in mouse mammary epithelial cells in culture. J Natl Cancer Inst 1992, 84: 634-638. |
|7.||Suto A, Bradlow HL, Wong GY, Osborne MP, Telang NT: Experimental down-regulation of intermediate biomarkers of carcinogenesis in mouse mammary epithelial cells. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1993, 27: 93-202. |
|8.||Li JJ, Li SA, Oberley TG, Parsons JA: Carcinogenic activities of various steroidal and nonsteroidal estrogens in the hamster kidney: relation to hormonal activity and cell proliferation. Cancer Res 1995, 55: 4347-4351. |
|9.||Bradlow HL, Telang NT, Sepkovic DW, Osborne MP: 2-hydroxyestrone: the 'good' estrogen. J Endocrinol 1996, 150: S259-S265. |
|10.||Fishman J, Martucci C: Biological properties of 16α-hydroxyesterone: implications in estrogen physiology and pathophysiology. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1980, 51: 611-615. |
|11.||Martucci CP, Fishman J: Impact of continuously administered catechol estrogens in uterine growth and leutenizing hormone secretion. Endocrinology 1979, 105: 1288-1292. |
|12.||Jellinck PH, Krey L, Davis PG, Kamel F, Luine V, Parsons B, Roy EJ, McEwen BS: Central and peripheral action of estradiol and catecholestrogens administered at low concentration by constant infusion. Endocrinology 1981, 108: 1848-1854. |
|13.||Michnovicz JJ, Hershcopf RJ, Naganuma H, Bradlow HL, Fishman J: Increased 2-hydroxylation of estradiol as a possible mechanism for the anti-estrogenic effect of cigarette smoking. N Engl J Med 1986, 315: 1305-1309. |
|14.||Muti P, Bradlow HL, Micheli A, Krogh V, Freudenheim JL, Schunemann HJ, Stanulla M, Yang J, Sepkovic DW, Trevisan M, Berrino F: Estrogen metabolism and risk of breast cancer: a prospective study of the 2:16α-hydroxyestrone ratio in premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Epidemiology 2000, 11: 635-640. |
|15.||Kabat GC, Chang CJ, Sparano JA, Sepkovie DW, Hu XP, Khalil A, Rosenblatt R, Bradlow HL: Urinary estrogen metabolites and breast cancer: a case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1997, 6: 505-509. |
|16.||Osborne MP, Bradlow HL, Wong GYC, Telang NT: Upregulation of estradiol C16α-hydroxylation in human breast tissue: a potential biomarker of breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993, 85: 1917-1920. |
|17.||Zheng W, Dunning L, Jin F, Holtzman J: Correspondence re: Kabat, G.C., Chang, C.J., Sparano, J.A., Sepkovic, D.W., Hu, X-P., Khalil, A., Rosenblatt, R., Bradlow, H.L. (1997) Urinary estrogen metabolites and breast cancer: a case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev , 6, 505-9. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 1998, 7: 85-86. |
|18.||Dawling S, Roodi N, Mernaugh RL, Wang X, Parl FF: Catechol- O -methyltransferase (COMT)-mediated metabolism of catechol estrogens: comparison of wild-type and variant COMT isoforms. Cancer Res 2001, 61: 6716-6722. |
|19.||Syvanen AC, Tilgmann C, Rimne J, Ulmanen I: Genetic polymorphism of catechol- O -methyltransferase (COMT): correlation of genotype with individual variation of S-COMT activity and comparison of the allele frequencies in the normal population and parkinsonian patients in Finland. Pharmacogenetics 1997, 7: 65-71. |
|20.||Lachman H, Papolos D, Saito T, Yu YM, Szumlanski CL, Weinshilboum RM: Human catechol- O -methyltransferase pharmacogenetics: description of a functional polymorphism and its potential application to neuropsychiatric disorders. Pharmacogenetics 1996, 6: 243-250. |
|21.||Lavigne JA, Helzlsouer KJ, Huang HY, Strickland PT, Bell DA, Selmin O, Watson MA, Hoffman S, Comstock GW, Yager JD: An association between the allele coding for a low activity variant of catechol- O -methyltransferase and the risk of breast cancer. Cancer Res 1997, 57: 5493-5497. |
|22.||Huang CS, Chern HD, Chang KJ, Cheng CW, Hsu SM, Shen CY: Breast cancer risk associated with genotype polymorphism of the estrogen-metabolizing genes CYP17, CYP1A1 and COMT: a multigenic study on cancer susceptibility. Cancer Res 1999, 59: 4870-4875. |
|23.||Mitrunen K, Kataja V, Eskelinen M, Kosma VM, Kang D, Benhamou S, Vainio H, Uusitupa M, Hirvonen A: Combined COMT and GST genotypes and hormone replacement therapy associated breast cancer risk. Pharmacogenetics 2002, 12: 67-72. |
|24.||Yim DS, Parkb SK, Yoo KY, Yoon KS, Chung HH, Kang HL, Ahn SH, Noh DY, Choe KJ, Jang IJ, Shin SG, Strickland PT, Hirvonen A, Kang D: Relationship between the Val158Met polymorphism of catechol- O -methyltransferase and breast cancer. Pharmacogenetics 2001, 11: 279-286. |
|25.||Sazci A, Ergul E, Utkan NZ, Canturk NZ, Kaya G: Catechol-O-methyltransferase Val 108/158 Met polymorphism in premenopausal breast cancer patients. Toxicology 2004, 204: 197-202. |
|26.||Park SK, Yim DS, Yoon KS, Choi IM, Choi JY, Yoo KY, Noh DY, Choe KJ, Ahn SH, Hirvonen A, Kang D: Combined effect of GSTM1, GSTT1, and COMT genotypes in individual breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2004, 88: 55-62. |
|27.||Millikan RC, Pittman GS, Tse CK, Duell E, Newman B, Savitz D, Moorman PG, Boissy RJ, Bell DA: Catechol- O -methyltransferase and breast cancer risk. Carcinogenesis 1998, 19: 1943-1947. |
|28.||Saintot M, Malaveille C, Hautefeuille A, Gerber M: Interactions between genetic polymorphisms of cytochrome p450-1B1, sulfotransferase 1A1, catechol-o-methyltransferase and tobacco exposure in breast cancer risk. Int J Cancer 2003, 107: 652-657. |
|29.||Bergman-Jungestr φm M, Wingren S: Catechol- O -methyltransferase ( COMT ) gene polymorphism and breast cancer risk in young women. Br J Cancer 2001, 85: 859-862. |
|30.||Hamajima N, Matsuo K, Tajima K, Mizutani M, Iwata H, Iwase T, Miura S, Oya H, Obata Y: Limited association between catechol- O -methyltransferase (COMT) polymorphism and breast cancer risk in Japan. Int J Clin Oncol 2001, 6: 13-18. |
|31.||Goodman JE, Lavigne JA, Wu K, Helzlsouer KJ, Strickland PT, Selhub J, Yager JD: COMT genotype, micronutrients in the folate metabolic pathway and breast cancer risk. Carcinogenesis 2001, 22: 1661-1665. |
|32.||Wen W, Cai Q, Shu XO, Cheng JR, Parl F, Pierce L, Gao YT, Zheng W: Cytochrome P450 1B1 and catechol-O-methyltransferase genetic polymorphisms and breast cancer risk in Chinese women: results from the shanghai breast cancer study and a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005, 14: 329-35. |
|33.||Ahsan H, Chen Y, Whittemore AS, Kibriya MG, Gurvich I, Senie RT, Santella RM: A family-based genetic association study of variants in estrogen-metabolism genes COMT and CYP1B1 and breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2004, 85: 121-31. |
|34.||Wedren S, Rudqvist TR, Granath F, Weiderpass E, Ingelman-Sundberg M, Persson I, Magnusson C: Catechol-O-methyltransferase gene polymorphism and post-menopausal breast cancer risk. Carcinogenesis 2003, 24: 681-7. |
|35.||Kocabas NA, Sardas S, Cholerton S, Daly AK, Karakaya AE: Cytochrome P450 CYP1B1 and catechol O-methyltransferase (COMT) genetic polymorphisms and breast cancer susceptibility in a Turkish population. Arch Toxicol 2002, 76: 643-9. |
|36.||Thompson PA, Shields PG, Freudenheim JL, Stone A, Vena JE, Marshall JR, Graham S, Laughlin R, Nemoto T, Kadlubar FF, Ambrosone CB: Genetic polymorphisms in catechol- O -methyltransferase, menopausal status, and breast cancer risk. Cancer Res 1998, 58: 2107-2110. |
|37.||Mitrunen K, Jourenkova N, Kataja V, Eskelinen M, Kosma VM, Benhamou S, Kang D, Vainio H, Uusitupa M, Hirvonen A: Polymorphic catechol- O -methyltransferase gene and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2001, 10: 635-640. |
|38.||Aschengrau A, Rogers S, Ozonoff D: Perchloroethylene-contaminated drinking water and the risk of breast cancer: additional results from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA. Environ Health Perspect 2003, 111: 167-173. |
|39.||Silliman RA, Guadagnoli E, Rakowski W, Landrum MB, Lash TL, Wolf R, Fink A, Ganz PA, Gurwitz J, Borbas C, Mor V: Adjuvant Tamoxifen Prescription in Women 65 Years and Older with Early Stage Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002, 20: 1680-1688. |
|40.||Goodman MT, Mcduffie K, Kolonel LN, Terada K, Donlon A, Wilkens LR, Guo C, Le Marchand L: Case-control study of ovarian cancer and polymorphisms in genes involved in catechol-estrogen formation and metabolism. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2001, 10: 209-16. |
|41.||Morabia A, Bernstein M, Heritier S, Khatchatrian N: Relation of breast cancer with passive and active exposure to tobacco smoke. Am J Epidemiol 1996, 143: 918-28. |
|42.||Greenland S: The effect of misclassification in the presence of covariates. Am J Epidemiol 1980, 112: 564-569. |
|43.||Greenland S, Rothman KJ: Concepts of Interaction. In Modern Epidemiology . Second edition. Edited by: Rothman K, Greenland S. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1998:332-336. |
|44.||Albert PS, Ratnasignghe D, Tangrea J, Wacholder S: Limitations of the case-only design for identifying gene-environment interactions. Am J Epidemiol 2001, 154: 687-693. |
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]
|This article has been cited by|
||Passive Cigarette Smoke Exposure During Various Periods of Life, Genetic Variants, and Breast Cancer Risk Among Never Smokers
| ||L. Mirea, H. Ozcelik, L. N. Anderson, M. Cotterchio, N. Kreiger |
| ||American Journal of Epidemiology. 2012; |
|[VIEW] | [DOI]|
||Cigarette smoking, cyclooxygenase-2 pathway and cancer
| ||Run-Yue Huang, George G. Chen |
| ||Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Reviews on Cancer. 2011; 1815(2): 158 |
|[VIEW] | [DOI]|
||Smoking and breast cancer: Correlation unquestionably negative? | [Tabagismo e carcinoma mammario: Correlazione ancora indiscutibilmente negativa?]
| ||Signora, M., Salvati, F. |
| ||Annali Degli Ospedali San Camillo e Forlanini. 2008; 10(1): 29-34 |