↓ Skip to main content

Height and Breast Cancer Risk: Evidence From Prospective Studies and Mendelian Randomization

Overview of attention for article published in JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
13 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
109 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
184 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Height and Breast Cancer Risk: Evidence From Prospective Studies and Mendelian Randomization
Published in
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, August 2015
DOI 10.1093/jnci/djv219
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ben Zhang, Xiao-Ou Shu, Ryan J Delahanty, Chenjie Zeng, Kyriaki Michailidou, Manjeet K Bolla, Qin Wang, Joe Dennis, Wanqing Wen, Jirong Long, Chun Li, Alison M Dunning, Jenny Chang-Claude, Mitul Shah, Barbara J Perkins, Kamila Czene, Hatef Darabi, Mikael Eriksson, Stig E Bojesen, Børge G Nordestgaard, Sune F Nielsen, Henrik Flyger, Diether Lambrechts, Patrick Neven, Hans Wildiers, Giuseppe Floris, Marjanka K Schmidt, Matti A Rookus, Katja van den Hurk, Wim L A M de Kort, Fergus J Couch, Janet E Olson, Emily Hallberg, Celine Vachon, Anja Rudolph, Petra Seibold, Dieter Flesch-Janys, Julian Peto, Isabel Dos-Santos-Silva, Olivia Fletcher, Nichola Johnson, Heli Nevanlinna, Taru A Muranen, Kristiina Aittomäki, Carl Blomqvist, Jingmei Li, Keith Humphreys, Judith Brand, Pascal Guénel, Thérèse Truong, Emilie Cordina-Duverger, Florence Menegaux, Barbara Burwinkel, Frederik Marme, Rongxi Yang, Harald Surowy, Javier Benitez, M Pilar Zamora, Jose I A Perez, Angela Cox, Simon S Cross, Malcolm W R Reed, Irene L Andrulis, Julia A Knight, Gord Glendon, Sandrine Tchatchou, Elinor J Sawyer, Ian Tomlinson, Michael J Kerin, Nicola Miller, Georgia Chenevix-Trench, Christopher A Haiman, Brian E Henderson, Fredrick Schumacher, Loic Le Marchand, Annika Lindblom, Sara Margolin, Maartje J Hooning, John W M Martens, Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst, J Margriet Collée, John L Hopper, Melissa C Southey, Helen Tsimiklis, Carmel Apicella, Susan Slager, Amanda E Toland, Christine B Ambrosone, Drakoulis Yannoukakos, Graham G Giles, Roger L Milne, Catriona McLean, Peter A Fasching, Lothar Haeberle, Arif B Ekici, Matthias W Beckmann, Hermann Brenner, Aida Karina Dieffenbach, Volker Arndt, Christa Stegmaier, Anthony J Swerdlow, Alan Ashworth, Nick Orr, Michael Jones, Jonine Figueroa, Montserrat Garcia-Closas, Louise Brinton, Jolanta Lissowska, Martine Dumont, Robert Winqvist, Katri Pylkäs, Arja Jukkola-Vuorinen, Mervi Grip, Hiltrud Brauch, Thomas Brüning, Yon-Dschun Ko, Paolo Peterlongo, Siranoush Manoukian, Bernardo Bonanni, Paolo Radice, Natalia Bogdanova, Natalia Antonenkova, Thilo Dörk, Arto Mannermaa, Vesa Kataja, Veli-Matti Kosma, Jaana M Hartikainen, Peter Devilee, Caroline Seynaeve, Christi J Van Asperen, Anna Jakubowska, Jan Lubiński, Katarzyna Jaworska-Bieniek, Katarzyna Durda, Ute Hamann, Diana Torres, Rita K Schmutzler, Susan L Neuhausen, Hoda Anton-Culver, Vessela N Kristensen, Grethe I Grenaker Alnæs, Brandon L Pierce, Peter Kraft, Ulrike Peters, Sara Lindstrom, Daniela Seminara, Stephen Burgess, Habibul Ahsan, Alice S Whittemore, Esther M John, Marilie D Gammon, Kathleen E Malone, Daniel C Tessier, Daniel Vincent, Francois Bacot, Craig Luccarini, Caroline Baynes, Shahana Ahmed, Mel Maranian, Catherine S Healey, Anna González-Neira, Guillermo Pita, M Rosario Alonso, Nuria Álvarez, Daniel Herrero, Paul D P Pharoah, Jacques Simard, Per Hall, David J Hunter, Douglas F Easton, Wei Zheng

Abstract

Epidemiological studies have linked adult height with breast cancer risk in women. However, the magnitude of the association, particularly by subtypes of breast cancer, has not been established. Furthermore, the mechanisms of the association remain unclear. We performed a meta-analysis to investigate associations between height and breast cancer risk using data from 159 prospective cohorts totaling 5216302 women, including 113178 events. In a consortium with individual-level data from 46325 case patients and 42482 control patients, we conducted a Mendelian randomization analysis using a genetic score that comprised 168 height-associated variants as an instrument. This association was further evaluated in a second consortium using summary statistics data from 16003 case patients and 41335 control patients. The pooled relative risk of breast cancer was 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.15 to 1.19) per 10cm increase in height in the meta-analysis of prospective studies. In Mendelian randomization analysis, the odds ratio of breast cancer per 10cm increase in genetically predicted height was 1.22 (95% CI = 1.13 to 1.32) in the first consortium and 1.21 (95% CI = 1.05 to 1.39) in the second consortium. The association was found in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women but restricted to hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Analyses of height-associated variants identified eight new loci associated with breast cancer risk after adjusting for multiple comparisons, including three loci at 1q21.2, DNAJC27, and CCDC91 at genome-wide significance level P < 5×10(-8). Our study provides strong evidence that adult height is a risk factor for breast cancer in women and certain genetic factors and biological pathways affecting adult height have an important role in the etiology of breast cancer.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 181 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 13%
Student > Master 18 10%
Professor 11 6%
Student > Bachelor 11 6%
Other 32 17%
Unknown 58 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Engineering 5 3%
Other 22 12%
Unknown 65 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 119. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 June 2022.
All research outputs
#353,499
of 25,498,750 outputs
Outputs from JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
#230
of 7,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,201
of 277,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
#3
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,498,750 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,860 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,690 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.