Environmental Causes Of Breast Cancer Research Articles

Introduction to environmental causes of breast cancer

Introduction to environmental causes of breast cancer

Risk Belief and Attitude Formation From Translated Scientific Messages About PFOA, an Environmental Risk Associated With Breast Cancer

ABSTRACTEvidence regarding possible environmental causes of breast cancer is advancing. Often, however, the public is not informed about these advances in a manner that is easily understandable. This research translates findings from biologists into messages at two literacy levels about perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a possible environmental contributor to breast cancer. The Heuristic Systematic Model (HSM) was used to investigate how ability, motivation, and systematic and heuristic processing lead to risk beliefs and, ultimately, to negative attitudes for individuals receiving translated scientific messages about PFOA. Participants (N = 1,389) came from the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation’s Army of Women. Findings indicated that ability, in the form of translated messages, predicted systematic processing, operationalized as knowledge gain, which was negatively associated with formation of risk beliefs that led to negative attitudes toward PFOA. Heuristic processing cues, operationalized as perceived message quality and source credibility, were positively associated with risk beliefs, which predicted negative attitudes about PFOA. Overall, more knowledge and lower literacy messages led to lower perceived risk, while greater involvement and ratings of heuristic cues led to greater risk perceptions. This is an example of a research, translation, and dissemination team effort in which biologists created knowledge, communication scholars translated and tested messages, and advocates were participants and those who disseminated messages.

Abstract 3330: Genomic profiling of breast cancers in women with protracted exposure to low doses of radiation from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident

Abstract Exposure to ionizing radiation is one of the only known environmental causes of breast cancer, but most evidence for this relationship is derived from studies of high-dose exposures delivered at high-dose rates. Radiation exposure at low doses protracted over time is a more common pattern, yet the association of such exposure with breast cancer risk is understudied. In a population-based case-control study of women living in Bryansk Oblast, Russia, exposed to relatively low-doses of radiation from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident over about 20 - 30 years, we characterized 468 breast cancer patients (25 - 55 years old, mean = 46.7 years). Preliminary estimates of individual radiation doses to the breast from internal and external exposure to Chernobyl fallout ranged from 0.1 mGy to 279 mGy (mean = 6.8 mGy, median = 1.1 mGy). The majority of the breast cancer patients in this cohort had node-positive disease (60%), were ER/PR positive (77% and 67% respectively) and HER2 negative (74%). We performed global profiling of gene expression using the Illumina WG-DASL assay on 442 tumors and defined their intrinsic subtypes (Hu Z, et al., 2003). Among those tumors, 22% were Basal-like, 11% Her2-enriched, 30% Luminal A, 20% Luminal B, and 17% Normal-breast-like. We compared gene expression between the quartile of patients with the highest individual doses (N = 109, mean = 23.7 mGy, median = 16.5 mGy) and the lowest (N = 109, mean and median = 0.5 mGy) and identified genes differentially expressed between the groups. Although there is evidence in the literature from studies of women exposed to high doses of radiation at high-dose rates that suggests a positive association between basal-like cancer and radiation exposure, our preliminary analyses found a higher rate of basal-like cancers in the low exposure group (26.9%) compared with the high exposure group (19.2%). Triple negative cancers identified by IHC were also more common in the low than in the high exposure group (17.0% vs. 6.7%), though neither of these trends was significant. EGFR expression, a marker of basal-like cancers, was seen in 17.7% of tumors in patients with low exposure compared with 7.4% in the high exposure group (p = 0.07). Further, studies suggest radiation exposure prior to puberty is associated with specific tumor marker expression. In our study, 14.4% of the patients were prepubescent at the time of the Chernobyl accident (ATA). We observed a statistically significant association between Her2 and pubescence: patients who were prepubescent ATA were more likely to have Her2-positive tumors than those who were not prepubescent (40% vs 24%, p = 0.007). This unique study of a large cohort of women with protracted exposure to low doses of radiation provides one of the first opportunities to assess the effect of such exposure on the molecular characteristics of breast tumors. Citation Format: Jamie Guenthoer, Lynn Onstad, Xiaoyu Chai, Nikolai B. Rivkind, Irina V. Kurnasova, Vladislav P. Troshin, Margarita Makarova, Elena A. Korchagina, Valeriy F. Stepanenko, Irina Beluhka, Sergei M. Kulikov, Nikita E. Shklovsky-Kordi, Li Hsu, Paul Voillequé, Kenneth J. Kopecky, Scott Davis, Peggy L. Porter. Genomic profiling of breast cancers in women with protracted exposure to low doses of radiation from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2015 Apr 18-22; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(15 Suppl):Abstract nr 3330. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2015-3330

Breast Cancer and Occupation: The Need for Action: APHA Policy Statement Number 20146, Issued November 18, 2014.

Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer among women in the United States and other countries, making it a major public health concern. Despite significant scientific evidence about its known or suspected causes, research and prevention measures to identify and eliminate occupational and other environmental hazards and risk factors for breast cancer remain largely overlooked. As a result, hazards continue unabated for women generally, especially those who work outside the home. The science linking breast cancer and occupation in particular is growing. Researchers have identified commonly used chemicals that induce breast tumors in test animals. Animal studies link chemicals that mimic reproductive hormones to elevated breast cancer rates. Other animal and human studies link chemical exposures to increased breast cancer rates, including two recent investigations focused on occupational hazards. But the latter are the exception. Studies that attempt to identify and characterize workplace agents linked to breast cancer, as well as intervention studies focusing on the use of less toxic processes and substances, are limited. In what might be construed as a case of gender and social class bias, many research and funding agencies have ignored or downplayed the role of occupational studies despite their relevance to prevention efforts. Action required starts with making a national priority of promoting and supporting research on occupational and other environmental causes of breast cancer. Other public health actions include hazard surveillance and primary prevention activities such as reductions in the use of toxic materials, informed substitution, and green chemistry efforts. The original document is accessible at the APHA website, http://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2015/01/07/14/55/breast-cancer-and-occupation.

Abstract B05: Technical assistance as part of capacity building for collaborative research in breast cancer, the environment, and/or disparities.

Abstract Training and technical assistance efforts for community based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships have the potential to improve outcomes in both scientific rigor and collaboration. Successful competition for regional or national funding for CBPR represents a critical step in this trajectory. To this end, a collaboration funded through this NIEHS award has developed and implemented an intensive training program (Community Based Research Infrastructure to Better Science [CRIBS]) to build capacity among community-academic teams to conduct CBPR into disparities in breast cancer and/or environmental causes of breast cancer. The program includes face-to-face training; online training; mock grant review; and technical assistance (TA); and skill-building in creating CBPR partnerships; understanding the science of the environmental causes of and disparities in breast cancer; creating a pathway from vision to project; and writing successful grant applications. Participants in the training included 31 individuals in 12 partnerships with at least one community and one academic member in each. Fifty-five percent of participants identified as belonging to an ethnic or racial minority group; 81% identified as female; 58% identified as community partners; the mean age was 49.76 years old (median = 52; range = 23 to 71). Partnerships came from twelve locations across California. TA efforts began in the second month of F2F trainings and included: a) four, monthly, tailored, in-person consultations of up to 1.5 hrs in length; b) review of an 8-page concept paper prepared by each team; c) four, monthly, tailored one-hour phone consultations. TA was provided by CRIBS staff and representatives from national funding organizations with expertise in scientific and collaborative aspects of breast cancer research, as well as by experts in the field of CBPR, disparities, and the environment. Over time, improved clarity and specificity were evident in the research questions formulated across partnerships. Implications of tailored, technical assistance for partnerships embarking on CBPR in disparities are discussed. Citation Format: Senaida Fernandez, Marj Plumb, Catherine Thomsen, Braun Susan, Heather Sarantis, Juliana van Olphen, Emily Galpern, Marion Kavanaugh-Lynch. Technical assistance as part of capacity building for collaborative research in breast cancer, the environment, and/or disparities. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Fifth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2012 Oct 27-30; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012;21(10 Suppl):Abstract nr B05.

Environmental causes of breast cancer and radiation from medical imaging: findings from the Institute of Medicine report.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to perform a comprehensive review of environmental causes and risk factors for breast cancer. Interestingly, none of the consumer products (ie, bisphenol A, phthalates), industrial chemicals (ie, benzene, ethylene oxide), or pesticides (ie, DDT/DDE) considered could be conclusively linked to an increased risk of breast cancer, although the IOM acknowledged that the available evidence was insufficient to draw firm conclusions for many of these exposures, calling for more research in these areas. The IOM found sufficient evidence to conclude that the 2 environmental factors most strongly associated with breast cancer were exposure to ionizing radiation and to combined postmenopausal hormone therapy. The IOM's conclusion of a causal relation between radiation exposure and cancer is consistent with a large and varied literature showing that exposure to radiation in the same range as used for computed tomography will increase the risk of cancer. It is the responsibility of individual health care providers who order medical imaging to understand and weigh the risk of any medical procedures against the expected benefit.

Pastel Injustice: The Corporate Use of Pinkwashing for Profit

This article discusses the importance of recognizing pinkwashing, the practice of using the color pink and pink ribbons to indicate a company has joined the search for a breast cancer cure and to invoke breast cancer solidarity, even when the company may be using chemicals linked to cancer. This article argues that pinkwashing is a form of social injustice directed at women in the United States because the practice a) provides a vehicle for corporations to control the public experience of breast cancer, while simultaneously increasing profits and potentially contributing to the rising rate of the disease; b) obscures an environmental health discourse that recognizes the environmental causes of breast cancer; and c) co-opts or redirects women's experiences of the disease by narrowly defining what is possible.

Residential History and Groundwater Modeling: Gallagher et al. Respond

We thank Schaider et al. for their interest in our research on possible environmental causes of breast cancer in upper Cape Cod, Massachusetts (Gallagher et al. 2010). Our study was prompted by an earlier spatial analysis that revealed a geographic overlap between groundwater plumes in upper Cape Cod and an area of increased breast cancer risk. These plumes indicated areas of concern around landfills and wastewater facilities, large point sources of contaminants to groundwater, as shown in Figure 1 of our article (Gallagher et al. 2010). We determined that among these plumes, the plume associated with the Barnstable Wastewater Pollution Control Facility (BWPCF) was the only point source with the potential to impact the drinking water of our study population. The BWPCF treats both residential and commercial waste from a broad geographic area.

A Review of Advocate–Scientist Collaboration in Federally Funded Environmental Breast Cancer Research Centers

BackgroundThe Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project was the first federally funded study of environmental causes of breast cancer. Although advocates were expected to participate in this study, the details of their participation were not adequately clarified in project guidelines, which resulted in confusion over their role in the project. The Breast Cancer and Environment Research Centers (BCERCs) are funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Cancer Institute; these centers continue to conduct research into environmental links to breast cancer and to clarify advocate–scientist guidelines for collaboration.ObjectivesPractitioners in community-based participatory research (CBPR) are grappling with how to improve CBPR projects for all groups involved in breast cancer and environmental studies. The ever-growing body of literature on CBPR elaborates on a number of factors that make CBPR particularly challenging, specifically regarding partnerships between advocate and scientific communities. This study draws on CBPR principles to evaluate advocate–scientist collaboration in the BCERCs.MethodsWe conducted surveys at BCERC annual meetings in 2005 and 2007 and 11 in-depth open-ended interviews with key stakeholders such as primary investigators within the centers to assess the perceptions of the advocates and scientists regarding collaboration between advocates and scientists who were engaged in CBPR studies.ResultsWe found that although participatory guidelines were a focus of BCERCs, underlying differences between advocates and scientists with regard to paradigms of scientific inquiry, priorities, and desired outcomes need to be addressed for more effective collaboration to take place.ConclusionOur findings contribute to the broader CBPR literature by highlighting the role of underlying assumptions that may hinder the collaborative process and suggest the need for continued assessment research into participatory research projects on breast cancer and the environment.

“A Lab of Our Own”

There are challenges to the dominant research paradigm in breast cancer science. In the United States, science and social activism create paradigmatic shifts. Using interviews, ethnographic observations, and an extensive review of the literature, we create a three-dimensional model to situate changes in scientific controversy concerning environmental causes of breast cancer. We identify three paradigm challenges posed by activists and some scientists: (1) to move debates about causation upstream to address causes; (2) to shift emphasis from individual to modifiable societal-level factors beyond an individual’s control; and (3) to allow direct lay involvement in research, which may raise new questions and change how questions are approached, the methods used, and the standards of proof. We use our model to examine controversies about doing scientific research, interpreting scientific results, and acting on science. Ultimately, we aim to understand what impedes construction of new methodologies and knowledge about environmental factors in human disease.

Making Progress on Breast Cancer

For the last two years, scientists across the country have been working together in a highly collaborative effort to uncover the links between exposure to environmental pollutants, puberty, and development of breast cancer. On 10–11 November 2005 the Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Centers (BCERCs), a joint effort of the NIEHS and the National Cancer Institute, came together in Michigan to share what they have accomplished to date. Each center reported on advances made over the past year in their two research components: 1) research on the basic biology of mammary gland development, and 2) epidemiologic studies of how environmental factors affect puberty in girls. The impetus for creation of the centers came from appeals from advocates, who urged the NIH to support a more comprehensive approach to research on the environmental causes of breast cancer. “We wanted a research approach that focused on environmental causes, and we wanted more involvement from the advocates’ perspective,” said Dale Eastman, vice president of the Alamo Breast Cancer Foundation. “The centers represent a great opportunity to conduct transdisciplinary science to explore the problem of breast cancer from many different perspectives, including the valuable perspective of [breast cancer survivor] advocates,” said Robert Hiatt, principal investigator for the BCERC at the University of California, San Francisco, which collaborates with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and serves as the coordinating center for the BCERC network. The other three centers are housed at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia (which collaborates with Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York and the University of Alabama at Birmingham), the University of Cincinnati in Ohio (which collaborates with Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center), and Michigan State University in East Lansing. Three important features characterize the BCERC program. First, the four centers work together as a network in which experimental methods are coordinated in order to maximize the pooling and comparison of the data generated. Second, to allow adequate time to track the subjects and collect comprehensive information on the onset and progress of puberty, the BCERCs will be funded for seven years, an unusually long time, given that most NIH grants are funded for a maximum of five years. Third, representatives of breast cancer survivor advocacy organizations are integral members of the centers. The advocate members participate in many aspects of the decision-making processes, collaborate with the Community Outreach and Translation Cores of the centers, and added much to the discussion at the annual meeting.

Print media coverage of environmental causation of breast cancer

Given the growing concern with breast cancer as a largely unexplained and common illness of our time, we would expect considerable print media coverage. An accurate portrayal of breast cancer would also include a good amount of attention to the potential environmental factors since many women with breast cancer and activists are pointing to such potential causes. Our examination of daily newspapers, newsweeklies, science periodicals, and women’s magazines showed that there was little coverage of possible environmental causation. There was also scant attention paid to corporate and governmental responsibility. Articles often focused on individual responsibility for diet, age at birth of first child, and other personal behaviours. Articles also emphasised genetic causation, even though this explained only a small fraction of breast cancer incidence. These factors combine to place personal responsibility on women for preventing the disease. Despite gains in understanding possible environmental causation and much scientific dialogue about it, especially in light of the endocrine disrupter hypothesis, and despite growing social activism, the print media have not paid much attention to environmental causation of breast cancer. Because the media have significant influence over public understanding and social action, this lack of attention may hold back scientific and activist pursuit of environmental causes of breast cancer.