Publication Cover
Chronobiology International
The Journal of Biological and Medical Rhythm Research
Volume 30, 2013 - Issue 9
433
Views
36
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Chronotype and Breast Cancer Risk in a Cohort of US Nurses

, , , , &
Pages 1181-1186 | Received 25 Dec 2012, Accepted 24 May 2013, Published online: 20 Aug 2013
 

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the relation between chronotype and breast cancer risk. We analyzed the association between chronotype (definite morning type, probable morning type, probable evening type, definite evening type, or neither morning nor evening type) and breast cancer risk among 72 517 women in the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS II). Chronotype was self-reported in 2009, and 1834 breast cancer cases were confirmed among participants between 1989 and 2007; a 2-yr lag period was imposed to account for possible circadian disruptions related to breast cancer diagnosis. Age- and multivariable-adjusted logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Participants who self-reported as neither morning nor evening type had a 27% increased risk of breast cancer (multivariable-adjusted OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.04–1.56), compared with definite morning types. None of the other chronotypes were significantly associated with breast cancer risk (multivariable-adjusted OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.87–1.12 for probable morning versus definite morning types; OR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.84–1.09 for probable evening versus definite morning types; and OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.98–1.34 for definite evening versus definite morning types). Overall, chronotype was not associated with breast cancer risk in our study. A modestly increased risk among neither morning nor evening types may indicate circadian disruption as a potentially underlying mechanism; however, more studies are needed to confirm our results.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the participants and staff of the NHS II cohort for their valuable contributions as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, WY. In addition, this study was approved by the Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH) Human Investigations Committee. Certain data used in this publication were obtained from the DPH. The authors assume full responsibility for analyses and interpretation of these data.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.