Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and risk of breast cancer in nonsmoking women. An updated review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Context: In 2006, we reviewed the evidence on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and breast cancer in nonsmoking women. Since then various studies and reviews have been published but opinion remains divided.

Objective: To provide an updated review.

Methods: We extracted study details, derived relative risk (RR) estimates with confidence intervals (CIs) for various ETS exposure indices, and conducted meta-analyses.

Results: The update increased the number of studies from 22 to 47. Using an index for each study most closely equivalent to “spouse ever smoked”, a weak but significant association was seen (random-effects RR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.07–1.23). However, the estimates were heterogeneous: higher for Asian studies than for North American or European studies, higher for studies adjusting for fewer potential confounding variables, and close to 1.0 for prospective studies, regardless of whether or not they asked detailed questions on ETS exposure. The RR for eight prospective studies asking detailed questions was 1.003, 95% CI = 0.96–1.05. Risk was increased in premenopausal women (RR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.15–1.60), but not postmenopausal women. Dose–response findings were similarly heterogeneous. No significant increase was seen for childhood or workplace exposure, but an increase was seen for total exposure (RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.09–1.37).

Conclusions: Increases mainly derived from case-control studies are prone to recall bias. Study weaknesses and possible publication bias limit interpretation. Considering also the weak association of smoking with breast cancer, and the much lower exposures from ETS than from smoking, our analyses do not clearly demonstrate that ETS exposure increases risk of breast cancer in nonsmokers. More research is needed.

Keywords:

• Breast cancer
• meta-analysis
• passive smoking
• publication bias
• recall bias
• smoking

Acknowledgements

We thank Barbara Forey for her helpful comments. We also thank Yvonne Cooper, Pauline Wassell and Diana Morris for their patient and accurate word-processing of the various drafts of this review. We also thank Alison Thornton for her work on earlier unpublished reviews.

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.

We are grateful to Japan Tobacco International, who gave financial support to the publication of this review, and to Philip Morris and the Tobacco Manufacturers Association who supported the earlier publication and earlier unpublished reviews. The execution of this review and interpretation of the findings were carried out independently of the sponsors.

Supplementary material available online