Abstract:Breast cancer is the leading cancer diagnosis among reproductive-aged women worldwide (1). Parity is recognized as a protective factor for breast cancer overall, but this may largely apply to the peak ages of incidence (after age 60 years) and may not be true for younger women. Previous studies have reported that recent childbirth confers a short-term increase in breast cancer risk (213), which may last 10 or more years (6, 11, 1416) and be amplified in women who are older at first birth (6, 11, 15, 16). Evidence for this increased risk often comes from national registry linkage studies in Scandinavian countries (2, 4, 6, 17). Information about such behaviors as breastfeeding is often not available or comes from casecontrol studies (811), where potential risk factors are assessed after diagnosis and parenting responsibilities could differentially deter study participation. We used combined data from 15 cohort studies to assess breast cancer risk after childbirth. The use of international, prospective data offers a new opportunity to assess the strength and duration of associations between recent childbirth and breast cancer risk while considering the effect of such factors as breastfeeding and family history of breast cancer (5, 18). It also enables evaluation of risk that is specific to breast cancer subtypes that may be differentially influenced by reproductive history (12, 13, 19). Understanding these patterns may have implications for identifying risk-reducing strategies and vulnerable subgroups. Methods We used data from the Premenopausal Breast Cancer Collaborative Group, a pooling project involving 20 prospective cohort studies (20). This work was approved by the relevant institutional review boards. In brief, participating studies contributed data from women aged younger than 55 years who did not have breast cancer at enrollment; these women were followed prospectively through direct contact or linkage with cancer registries (described previously [20]). Studies contributed (as available) age at enrollment and end of follow-up, demographic characteristics, lifestyle factors, reproductive history, medical conditions, and first-degree family history of breast cancer at enrollment and each round of follow-up. Data harmonization and quality control were done by the study coordinating centers in North Carolina and London. Across 15 cohorts that provided information on women's ages at childbirth (2135), 890269 women (96% of participants) had available information on total number of births and age at most recent birth or were nulliparous. We excluded women who reported a first birth before age 13 years (n= 82), were 50 years or older at study entry and at most recent birth (n= 60), or reached parity greater than 10 births before enrollment (n= 183). These events were considered to have greater potential for data errors. This left 889944 women for analysis (Supplement Figure 1). Supplement. Supplementary Material Attained age, ages at first and most recent births, and parity at study enrollment were available in all 15 studies (2135). Twelve studies (2127, 29, 31, 3335) assessed pregnancy history in at least 1 follow-up questionnaire after enrollment; the remaining 3 provided pregnancy information at enrollment only. Breastfeeding status was available in 12 studies (2123, 2527, 2934) and family history in 13 (2127, 29, 3135). Thirteen studies (2123, 2527, 2935) reported breast cancer stage and estrogen receptor (ER) status. Statistical Analysis Parity, time since most recent birth, breastfeeding, and family history of breast cancer were analyzed as time-varying exposures over follow-up. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for the association between time since most recent birth and breast cancer, with attained age as the underlying time scale (17, 36). Follow-up started at age at study enrollment or the first available follow-up round with information on age at most recent birth and ended at breast cancer diagnosis, death, last follow-up, or age 55 years, whichever occurred first. During follow-up, women were censored at the age at which they reached parity greater than 10 births (n= 22) or the age at which they had a birth at age 50 years or older (n= 9) (Supplement Figure 1). Proportional hazards assumptions were assessed by Schoenfeld residuals (37) and were not significantly violated. We first examined study-specific estimates and calculated a pooled estimate across studies using a random-effects model that weighted estimates by the inverse of the study-specific variance (3840). Because we detected no significant heterogeneity between studies with the Cochran Q test or I 2 statistic (4143) (Supplement Figure 2), we pooled individual-level data and did an aggregated analysis stratified by study cohort. Supplement Table 1 gives characteristics of the individual cohorts. Time since most recent birth and parity were modeled as time-varying exposures in 1-year and 1-birth increments, respectively. We accounted for additional births during follow-up by resetting time since birth to 0 at the time of each birth. The Supplement gives additional detail on these methods. Quadratic splines (44) were used to examine time since birth as a continuous, nonlinear exposure, defining time with knots at the 5th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 95th percentiles for the distribution of time since most recent birth for women with a breast cancer diagnosis before age 55 years. In spline models, time since most recent birth was set to 0 for nulliparous women and an indicator term for parity allowed the risk at 0 years since most recent birth to differ between nulliparous and parous women. As an approximation of the 95% CI (in years since most recent birth) for the point where the HR crossed 1.0, we used the points where the lower and upper bounds of the 95% CI for the spline regression crossed 1.0. In categorical models, exposure was defined as nulliparous or 0 to 2.9, 3 to 4.9, 5 to 9.9, 10 to 14.9, 15.0 to 19.9, 20.0 to 24.9, 25.0 to 29.9, or 30 or more years since most recent birth. Covariates considered as potential confounders were parity, age at first birth, breastfeeding, infertility, education, oral contraceptive use, and birth cohort. We identified confounding variables using a directed acyclic graph (45, 46) and the prior literature (Supplement Figure 3); the minimally sufficient adjustment set was parity and breastfeeding. All models were adjusted for attained age (as the time scale; continuous), study, and parity (1 to 10 births; time-varying). Adjustment for breastfeeding was possible only in analyses limited to the 12 studies with available breastfeeding data. We evaluated potential effect modification by parity (primiparous [1 birth], biparous [2 births], or multiparous [3 births]), age at first birth (<25, 25 to 34, or 35 to 39 years), breastfeeding, and family history of breast cancer. Interactions between these factors and time since most recent birth were assessed using likelihood ratio tests (47). We examined risk for invasive nonmetastatic disease (stage I to III breast cancer) by treating breast cancer of stage 0 (in situ) or IV as a censoring event. Augmentation models were used to assess differences in HRs by ER status by using the Wald test (48). In additional analyses, we restricted the cohort to parous women only, censored follow-up at age 45 years or the last age at which pregnancy history was assessed if younger than 45 years (to minimize the potential for additional pregnancies after the most recent questionnaire), excluded each study in turn to identify potentially influential studies, and excluded women with multiple births (for example, twins). We also calculated the weighted cumulative incidence of breast cancer according to attained age for categories of time since most recent childbirth (nulliparous and 0 to 2.9, 3 to 6.9, 7 to 14.9, 15 to 24.9, and 25 or more years), adjusted for the distribution of parity in the overall pooled sample using an inverse probability of exposure approach, described further in Supplement Figure 4 (49). Because our data were left-truncated, we also provided a standardized weighted cumulative incidence function calculated over a common age interval that had participants in each category of time since most recent birth. The standardized weighted cumulative incidence function starts at 0 at the beginning of the common age interval and cumulates throughout the interval, which allows comparison of the cumulative incidence across categories of time since most recent birth (Supplement Figure 5). Analyses were done with SAS, version 9.3 (SAS Institute); figures were produced in SAS and R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Role of the Funding Source The funding sources for this analysis had no role in the design, conduct, or interpretation of the study. Results During 9625727 person-years of follow-up (mean, 10.8 years [SD, 6.4]), 18826 incident cases of breast cancer were diagnosed before age 55 years among 889944 women. At enrollment, 720555 women were parous; 71609 women contributed 1 or more births during follow-up. The mean age at study entry was 41.8 years (range, 16.0 to 54.9 years). The last update of pregnancy information occurred at a mean age of 50.0 years (range, 16.0 to 76.7 years). Overall, 12.4% of person-years were contributed by women who reported a family history of breast cancer (Table). For parous women, 72.9% of person-years were contributed by women who reported breastfeeding. Table. Distribution of Person-Years Among 889944 Women in 15 Prospective Cohort Studies, by Exposure Characteristics* Figure 1 shows the association between time since most recent birth and breast cancer risk, modeled nonlinearly as a continuous exposure. Compared with nulliparous women, parous women had an HR for breast cancer associated with time since most recent birth that peaked 4.6 years after birth (HR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.63 to

Abstract:Objective: Epidemiologic studies regarding the association between parity and risk of type 2 diabetes have yielded inconsistent results. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis to determine the relation between parity and type 2 diabetes risk. Methods: We searched PubMed and Embase for published epidemiologic studies that assessed the relation between parity and risk of type 2 diabetes up to 31 March 2016. A dose-response random-effects model was used to combine study-specific relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Potential sources of heterogeneity were explored by meta-regression and subgroup analyses. Results: Seven cohort studies, 1 case-control study and 9 cross-sectional studies including 296 923 participants were eligible for inclusion. The combined RR for the highest versus lowest category of parity indicated a 54% increment in type 2 diabetes risk (95% CI: 29–83%). In the cubic spline model, a nonlinear association was found between parity and risk of type 2 diabetes (P = 0.02 for nonlinearity). Compared with nulliparous women, the estimated RR (95% CI) of type 2 diabetes for women with one to seven children was 1.01 (0.96–1.07), 1.08 (1.00–1.16), 1.20 (1.12–1.30), 1.32 (1.22–1.42), 1.37 (1.27–1.48), 1.39 (1.26–1.52) and 1.39 (1.23–1.57) respectively. Conclusions: Higher parity is significantly associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. Further studies are warranted to fully adjust for the potential confounders and explore the causality between parity and type 2 diabetes risk. Introduction The prevalence of diabetes mellitus has increased substantially in recent decades in both developed and developing countries (1). According to data of the International Diabetes Federation, the number of people living with diabetes is 415 million in 2015 (a number previously forecast for 2030), and will escalate to 642 million by 2040 (2). Diabetes is also a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease which is still the leading cause of death and imposes a significant public health as well as financial burden on society (3). Thus, the primary prevention of diabetes is clearly imperative. Review Correspondence should be addressed to W Yang or L Liu Email lgliu@mails.tjmu.edu.cn or yw8278@hotmail.com Downloaded from Bioscientifica.com at 09/07/2018 06:51:04AM via free access www.eje-online.org Eu ro p ea n J o u rn al o f En d o cr in o lo g y 175:5 R232 Review P Li and others Parity and type 2 diabetes Pregnancy is an essential stage of life for most women. In this stage, women are prone to alter their composition of diet, increase energy intake, reduce the duration and intensity of physical activity; these changes of lifestyle may impact on women’s health including insulin resistance, fat accumulation, redistribution, dyslipidemia and inflammation, especially on the risk of diabetes and other cardiometabolic disease in future life (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). Among the different reproductive factors that have been investigated, parity (the number of live births in a woman’s lifetime) is less prone to recall bias and misclassification (10). Until now, many studies have focused on the role of parity in the development of type 2 diabetes, suggesting that parity might be independently associated with glucose tolerance (11, 12), impaired fasting glucose (11, 13) and type 2 diabetes (13, 14, 15, 16). But it remains controversial since other studies have found no relationship between parity and risk of type 2 diabetes (17, 18, 19). Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of current available epidemiologic studies to quantify the association between parity and risk of type 2 diabetes. Methods Search strategy We conducted a systematic literature search on the PubMed (Medline) and Embase databases from inception to March 2016 for studies investigating the association between parity and diabetes mellitus. PubMed search terms were (parity OR reproductive history OR live birth OR gravidity) AND (“Diabetes Mellitus” [Mesh] OR “diabetes” [All Fields]). Similar search terms were used for Embase. In addition, we also scrutinized reference from relevant original papers to identify further pertinent studies. No language restrictions were imposed. We followed the standard guidelines for conducting meta-analysis of observational studies and reporting the results (20). Study selection Published studies were included in this meta-analysis if they met the following criteria: the exposure of interest was parity; the outcome was type 2 diabetes; and the study reported adjusted relative risks (RRs), odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for at least three quantitative categories of parity number or provided risk estimates per live birth in original. We excluded nonhuman studies, reviews, commentaries, editorials, letters, meeting abstracts, case reports and studies that did not include parity as the exposure and type 2 diabetes as the outcome. We also excluded studies in which the association of parity with impaired glucose tolerance/impaired fasting glucose, but not the association of parity with type 2 diabetes, was examined. If a study provided raw data which may contribute to the calculation of unadjusted risk estimates, but was not able to derive the adjusted risk estimates, we excluded it due to the lack of controlling for potential effects from confounding factors such as age or body mass index (BMI) on the risk estimates. Two investigators (P L and M X) independently screened all studies by title or abstract and then by full-text assessment. Any disagreements were solved by discussion with the senior reviewer (Z S). Data extraction and quality assessment For each eligible study, the following data were extracted: authors, year of publication, study design, study name, country of origin, study period and years of follow-up (for cohort study), participants’ age, number of participants and cases, exposure and outcome assessment, covariates adjusted in the multivariable models, parity number categories, the corresponding risk estimates (with their 95% CIs) and number of cases along with participants or person-years for all categories of parity number. If multiple estimates of the association were available, we abstracted the estimate that adjusted for most potentially confounding variables. If the appropriate data were not readily available, we requested the data from the study’s original authors. For cohort and case-control studies, quality assessments were performed according to the NewcastleOttawa Quality Assessment Scale (21). This scale awards a maximum of 9 points to each cohort study: 4 for selection of participants and measurement of exposure, 2 for comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis and 3 for assessment of outcomes and adequacy of follow-up. Similar items were performed for casecontrol studies. We assigned scores of 0–3, 4–6 and 7–9 for low, moderate and high quality of studies respectively. Assessment involving 11 items recommended by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality was used for cross-sectional studies (22). The quality of the studies was evaluated according to the established questions which awards a maximum of 11 points. For each item, 1 point was awarded if the answer was ‘yes’ while 0 point if the answer was ‘no’, ‘unable to determine’ or ‘not applicable’. Downloaded from Bioscientifica.com at 09/07/2018 06:51:04AM via free access Eu ro p ea n J o u rn al o f En d o cr in o lo g y www.eje-online.org 175:5 R233 Review P Li and others Parity and type 2 diabetes Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted independently by two investigators (P L and L Z); any discrepancy between the two authors was solved by discussion with the senior reviewer (Z S). Statistical analysis In this meta-analysis, we used the RRs and 95% CIs as the effect size for all included studies. Since the incidence of diabetes is adequately low in human, the ORs and HRs were considered equivalent to RRs, thereby we used RRs representing all of these measures for simplicity. For studies that did not use the category of lowest parity number as referent, we used the valid count method proposed by Hamling et al. (23) to recalculate the relative risks. Moreover, as for study that reported results separately according to different age groups, races or geographic regions, we treated it as independent reports. First, we evaluated the summary RR and 95% CIs for the highest versus the lowest categories of parity number. Given that significant heterogeneity was evident in this analysis, the risk estimates were pooled using the randomeffects model (DerSimonian and Laird method) (24). Then, we explored the possible linear or nonlinear relationship between parity number and risk of type 2 diabetes using a random-effects dose-response meta-analysis according to the method proposed by Greenland and Longnecker (25) and Orsini et al. (26). Nearly half of the reports have investigated the linear relation between parity and type 2 diabetes, and provided RR per live birth in original. Thus, we explored the possible linear relationship at first. For reports that did not explore the linear relationship, we computed an RR with 95% CIs for an increased number of parity according to the existing data. The distribution of cases and person-years/number of participants and the RRs with 95% CIs for at least three quantitative exposure categories were extracted according to the method. For each study, the median or mean level of exposure category was assigned to the corresponding RR. If the median or mean exposure level was not reported in the study, we assigned the midpoint of upper and lower boundaries in each category as the value of exposure. When the highest category was open-ended, we assumed that the lower boundary plus 25% increment was the median level. To further examine the shape of the associat

Breast Cancer Risk after Recent Childbirth

Parity, breastfeeding, and breast cancer risk by hormone receptor status and molecular phenotype: results from the Nurses’ Health Studies

Parity and cumulative incidence rates of breast cancer in the Norwegian Woman and Cancer Study (NOWAC)

Abstract PO4-02-13: Parity and age first full term pregnancy affects the age of breast cancer diagnosis in breast cancer subtypes defined by estrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2

Pregnancy-Related Factors and Breast Cancer Risk for Women Across a Range of Familial Risk

Abstract P3-05-35: The impact of parity and age of first full term pregnancy on the prevalence of invasive lobular carcinoma in patients with breast cancer

HISTORY OF INFERTILITY AND RISK OF BREAST CANCER: A PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY

Which Has a Greater Impact on the Recurrence in Young Breast Cancer Patients: Recent Childbirth or Recent Breastfeeding?

Associations of Reproductive Time Events and Intervals with Breast Cancer Risk: a Report from the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study.

Parity Is A Risk Factor For Hepatobiliary Neoplasm: A Meta-Analysis Of 16 Studies

Reproductive Factors and Breast Cancer Risk among BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: Results from Ten Studies.

Parity and bladder cancer risk: a dose-response meta-analysis

Abstract 3442: Factors modifying the association between hormonal contraception and risk of early-onset breast cancer

Parity Correlates with the Timing of Developing Endometrial Cancer, But Not Subtype of Endometrial Cancer

Parity and Pancreatic Cancer Risk: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis of Twenty Epidemiologic Studies.

Parity and risk of type 2 diabetes : a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

Abstract P5-08-05: Conception and Pregnancy Among Young Breast Cancer Survivors

Breastfeeding Duration and Subsequent Risk of Mortality among US Women: A Prospective Cohort Study

Postpartum breast cancer: Analysis of factors related to pregnancy and identification of differential prognostic markers.

Age-specific patterns of association between breast cancer and risk factors in black women, ages 20 to 39 and 40 to 54

Associations of Reproductive Factors with Breast Cancer Prognosis and the Modifying Effects of Menopausal Status.