Advertisement

Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 29, Issue 4–5, pp 399–404 | Cite as

Residential traffic noise and mammographic breast density in the Diet, Cancer, and Health cohort

  • Nina Roswall
  • Zorana Jovanovic Andersen
  • My von Euler-Chelpin
  • Ilse Vejborg
  • Elsebeth Lynge
  • Steen Solvang Jensen
  • Ole Raaschou-Nielsen
  • Anne Tjønneland
  • Mette Sørensen
Brief report
  • 143 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

Traffic is the most important source of community noise, and it has been proposed to be associated with a range of disease outcomes, including breast cancer. As mammographic breast density (MD) is one of the strongest risk factors for developing breast cancer, the present study investigated whether there is an association between residential exposure to traffic noise and MD in a Danish cohort.

Methods

We included women with reproductive and lifestyle information available from the Diet, Cancer, and Health cohort, who also participated in the Copenhagen Mammography Screening Programme (n = 5,260). Present and historical addresses from 1987 to 2011 were found in national registries, and traffic noise was modeled 5 years before mammogram. Analyses between residential traffic noise and MD were performed using logistic regression.

Results

We found no association between residential road and railway noise exposure 5 years before mammogram, and having a mixed/dense versus a fatty mammogram, and no interaction with menopausal status, BMI, HRT use, and railway noise exposure, for analyses on road traffic noise.

Conclusion

The present study does not suggest an association between residential traffic noise exposure and subsequent MD in a cohort of middle-aged Danish women.

Keywords

Traffic noise Mammographic breast density Cohort study 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the European Research Council, EU 7th Research Framework Programme [Grant Number 281760].

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study complies with the current laws of Denmark, in which the study was performed. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Sorensen M, Ketzel M, Overvad K, Tjonneland A, Raaschou-Nielsen O (2014) Exposure to road traffic and railway noise and postmenopausal breast cancer: a cohort study. Int J Cancer 134(11):2691–2698.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.28592 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hegewald J, Schubert M, Wagner M, Droge P, Prote U, Swart E et al (2017) Breast cancer and exposure to aircraft, road, and railway-noise: a case-control study based on health insurance records. Scand J Work Environ Health.  https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3665 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Viswanathan AN, Schernhammer ES (2009) Circulating melatonin and the risk of breast and endometrial cancer in women. Cancer Lett 281(1):1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2008.11.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liu R, Fu A, Hoffman AE, Zheng T, Zhu Y (2013) Melatonin enhances DNA repair capacity possibly by affecting genes involved in DNA damage responsive pathways. BMC Cell Biol 14:1.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2121-14-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Esposito E, Cuzzocrea S (2010) Antiinflammatory activity of melatonin in central nervous system. Curr Neuropharmacol 8(3):228–242.  https://doi.org/10.2174/157015910792246155 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim KJ, Choi JS, Kang I, Kim KW, Jeong CH, Jeong JW (2013) Melatonin suppresses tumor progression by reducing angiogenesis stimulated by HIF-1 in a mouse tumor model. J Pineal Res 54(3):264–270.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-079X.2012.01030.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McEwen BS (1998) Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. N Engl J Med 338(3):171–179.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199801153380307 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Babisch W, Fromme H, Beyer A, Ising H (2001) Increased catecholamine levels in urine in subjects exposed to road traffic noise: the role of stress hormones in noise research. Environ Int 26(7–8):475–481CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Campen LE, Murphy WJ, Franks JR, Mathias PI, Toraason MA (2002) Oxidative DNA damage is associated with intense noise exposure in the rat. Hear Res 164(1–2):29–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Selander J, Bluhm G, Theorell T, Pershagen G, Babisch W, Seiffert I et al (2009) Saliva cortisol and exposure to aircraft noise in six European countries. Environ Health Perspect 117(11):1713–1717.  https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0900933 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boyd NF, Rommens JM, Vogt K, Lee V, Hopper JL, Yaffe MJ et al (2005) Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 6(10):798–808.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70390-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sherratt MJ, McConnell JC, Streuli CH (2016) Raised mammographic density: causative mechanisms and biological consequences. Breast Cancer Res 18(1):45.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-016-0701-9 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martin LJ, Minkin S, Boyd NF (2009) Hormone therapy, mammographic density, and breast cancer risk. Maturitas 64(1):20–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.07.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Perry NM, Allgood PC, Milner SE, Mokbel K, Duffy SW (2008) Mammographic breast density by area of residence: possible evidence of higher density in urban areas. Curr Med Res Opin 24(2):365–368.  https://doi.org/10.1185/030079908X260907 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Viel JF, Rymzhanova R (2012) Mammographic density and urbanization: a population-based screening study. J Med Screen 19(1):20–25.  https://doi.org/10.1258/jms.2011.011112 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Emaus MJ, Bakker MF, Beelen RM, Veldhuis WB, Peeters PH, van Gils CH (2014) Degree of urbanization and mammographic density in Dutch breast cancer screening participants: results from the EPIC-NL cohort. Breast Cancer Res Treat 148(3):655–663.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-3205-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yaghjyan L, Arao R, Brokamp C, O’Meara ES, Sprague BL, Ghita G et al (2017) Association between air pollution and mammographic breast density in the Breast Cancer Surveilance Consortium. Breast Cancer Res 19(1):36.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-017-0828-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huynh S, von Euler-Chelpin M, Raaschou-Nielsen O, Hertel O, Tjonneland A, Lynge E et al (2015) Long-term exposure to air pollution and mammographic density in the Danish Diet, Cancer and Health cohort. Environ Health: Glob Access Sci Source 14:31.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-015-0017-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tjonneland A, Olsen A, Boll K, Stripp C, Christensen J, Engholm G et al (2007) Study design, exposure variables, and socioeconomic determinants of participation in Diet, Cancer and Health: a population-based prospective cohort study of 57,053 men and women in Denmark. Scand J Public Health 35(4):432–441.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14034940601047986 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vejborg I, Olsen AH, Jensen MB, Rank F, Tange UB, Lynge E (2002) Early outcome of mammography screening in Copenhagen 1991-99. J Med Screen 9(3):115–119CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jensen SS, Hvidberg M, Pedersen J, Storm L, Stausgaard L, Becker T et al (2009) GIS-based national road and traffic database 1960–2005. National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University, RoskildeGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    D’Orsi CJ, Sickels EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA (2013) Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS), 5th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Olsen AH, Bihrmann K, Jensen MB, Vejborg I, Lynge E (2009) Breast density and outcome of mammography screening: a cohort study. Br J Cancer 100(7):1205–1208.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604989 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hodge R, Hellmann SS, von Euler-Chelpin M, Vejborg I, Andersen ZJ (2014) Comparison of Danish dichotomous and BI-RADS classifications of mammographic density. Acta Radiol Short Rep 3(5):2047981614536558.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2047981614536558 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Christensen JS, Raaschou-Nielsen O, Tjonneland A, Overvad K, Nordsborg RB, Ketzel M et al (2016) Road traffic and railway noise exposures and adiposity in adults: a cross-sectional analysis of the Danish diet, cancer, and health cohort. Environ Health Perspect 124(3):329–335.  https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409052 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I, De Stavola BL, Perry N, Vinnicombe S, Swerdlow AJ et al (2003) Life-course body size and perimenopausal mammographic parenchymal patterns in the MRC 1946 British birth cohort. Br J Cancer 89(5):852–859.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601207 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bertrand KA, Tamimi RM, Scott CG, Jensen MR, Pankratz V, Visscher D et al (2013) Mammographic density and risk of breast cancer by age and tumor characteristics. Breast Cancer Res 15(6):R104.  https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr3570 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pyko A, Eriksson C, Oftedal B, Hilding A, Ostenson CG, Krog NH et al (2015) Exposure to traffic noise and markers of obesity. Occup Environ Med 72(8):594–601.  https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2014-102516 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yaghjyan L, Mahoney MC, Succop P, Wones R, Buckholz J, Pinney SM (2012) Relationship between breast cancer risk factors and mammographic breast density in the Fernald Community Cohort. Br J Cancer 106(5):996–1003.  https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Larsen SB, Dalton SO, Schuz J, Christensen J, Overvad K, Tjonneland A et al (2012) Mortality among participants and non-participants in a prospective cohort study. Eur J Epidemiol 27(11):837–845.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-012-9739-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    von Euler-Chelpin M, Olsen AH, Njor S, Vejborg I, Schwartz W, Lynge E (2008) Socio-demographic determinants of participation in mammography screening. Int J Cancer 122(2):418–423.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.23089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rothman K, Greenland S (1998) Modern epidemiology, 2nd edn. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nina Roswall
    • 1
  • Zorana Jovanovic Andersen
    • 2
  • My von Euler-Chelpin
    • 2
  • Ilse Vejborg
    • 3
  • Elsebeth Lynge
    • 2
  • Steen Solvang Jensen
    • 4
  • Ole Raaschou-Nielsen
    • 1
    • 4
  • Anne Tjønneland
    • 1
  • Mette Sørensen
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Danish Cancer Society Research CenterCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Public Health, Center for Epidemiology and ScreeningUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Radiology, Diagnostic Imaging CentreCopenhagen University HospitalCopenhagenDenmark
  4. 4.Department of Environmental ScienceAarhus UniversityRoskildeDenmark
  5. 5.Department of natural Science and EnvironmentRoskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark

Personalised recommendations