SynthesisBMC cancer2024
Non-genetic factors and breast cancer: an umbrella review of meta-analyses.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Factors affecting survival in patients with colorectal cancer: an umbrella review.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A Five-Year Single-Center Retrospective Study of Neoadjuvant Therapy Response and Survival in Romanian Women with Breast Cancer.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Quercetin and Citreorosein fromCurrent pharmaceutical design · 2026Article
- Visceral and Subcutaneous Fat Deposits Exhibit Distinct Roles in the Initiation and Progression of Breast Cancer.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2026Article
- Ultra-processed food consumption and the risk of breast cancer incidence and death: a prospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluating Sex Disparity in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Risk in the UK Biobank Cohort.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025Article
- Histological types of invasive breast cancer in 830,000 women diagnosed in England during 1988-2016.The journal of pathology. Clinical research · 2025Article
- Cardiovascular Risk, Health Metrics, and Cancer Prediction: A Scoping Review.JACC. CardioOncology · 2025Article
- Long-term outcomes of Türkiye's first population-based mammography screening program: a decade of breast cancer detection and survival analysis in Bahçeşehir.BMC women's health · 2025Article
- Vitamins and minerals and their role in cancer: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Review
- History of Breast Cancer in Patients with Oral Lichen Planus: A Case-Control Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious research has found associations between various non-genetic factors and breast cancer (BrCa) risk. This study summarises and appraises the credibility of the available evidence on the association between non-genetic factors and BrCa risk.
methodsWe conducted an umbrella review of meta-analyses. Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane databases were systematically searched for meta-analyses examining non-genetic factors and BrCa incidence or mortality. The strength of the evidence was graded in four categories (i.e., weak, suggestive, highly suggestive, convincing).
resultsA total of 781 meta-analyses from 280 publications were evaluated and graded. We included exposures related to anthropometric measurements, biomarkers, breast characteristics and diseases, diet and supplements, environment, exogenous hormones, lifestyle and social factors, medical history, medication, reproductive history, and pregnancy. The largest number of examined associations was found for the category of diet and supplements and for exposures such as aspirin use and active smoking. The statistically significant (P-value < 0.05) meta-analyses were 382 (49%), of which 204 (53.4%) reported factors associated with increased BrCa risk. Most of the statistically significant evidence (n = 224, 58.6%) was graded as weak. Convincing harmful associations with heightened BrCa risk were found for increased body mass index (BMI), BMI and weight gain in postmenopausal women, oral contraceptive use in premenopausal women, increased androstenedione, estradiol, estrone, and testosterone concentrations, high Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) classification, and increased breast density. Convincing protective factors associated with lower BrCa risk included high fiber intake and high sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) levels while highly suggestive protective factors included high 25 hydroxy vitamin D [25(OH)D] levels, adherence to healthy lifestyle, and moderate-vigorous physical activity.
conclusionsOur findings suggest some highly modifiable factors that protect from BrCa. Interestingly, while diet was the most studied exposure category, the related associations failed to reach higher levels of evidence, indicating the methodological limitations in the field. To improve the validity of these associations, future research should utilise more robust study designs and better exposure assessment techniques. Overall, our study provides knowledge that supports the development of evidence-based BrCa prevention recommendations and guidance, both at an individual level and for public health initiatives.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022370675.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.