↓ Skip to main content

Environmental chemicals and breast cancer: An updated review of epidemiological literature informed by biological mechanisms

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Research, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#30 of 3,593)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
11 news outlets
twitter
91 tweeters
facebook
11 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 Mendeley
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
Environmental chemicals and breast cancer: An updated review of epidemiological literature informed by biological mechanisms
Published in
Environmental Research, January 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.envres.2017.08.045
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathryn M. Rodgers, Julia O. Udesky, Ruthann A. Rudel, Julia Green Brody

Abstract

Many common environmental chemicals are mammary gland carcinogens in animal studies, activate relevant hormonal pathways, or enhance mammary gland susceptibility to carcinogenesis. Breast cancer's long latency and multifactorial etiology make evaluation of these chemicals in humans challenging. For chemicals previously identified as mammary gland toxicants, we evaluated epidemiologic studies published since our 2007 review. We assessed whether study designs captured relevant exposures and disease features suggested by toxicological and biological evidence of genotoxicity, endocrine disruption, tumor promotion, or disruption of mammary gland development. We systematically searched the PubMed database for articles with breast cancer outcomes published in 2006-2016 using terms for 134 environmental chemicals, sources, or biomarkers of exposure. We critically reviewed the articles. We identified 158 articles. Consistent with experimental evidence, a few key studies suggested higher risk for exposures during breast development to dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), dioxins, perfluorooctane-sulfonamide (PFOSA), and air pollution (risk estimates ranged from 2.14 to 5.0), and for occupational exposure to solvents and other mammary carcinogens, such as gasoline components (risk estimates ranged from 1.42 to 3.31). Notably, one 50-year cohort study captured exposure to DDT during several critical windows for breast development (in utero, adolescence, pregnancy) and when this chemical was still in use. Most other studies did not assess exposure during a biologically relevant window or specify the timing of exposure. Few studies considered genetic variation, but the Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project reported higher breast cancer risk for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in women with certain genetic variations, especially in DNA repair genes. New studies that targeted toxicologically relevant chemicals and captured biological hypotheses about genetic variants or windows of breast susceptibility added to evidence of links between environmental chemicals and breast cancer. However, many biologically relevant chemicals, including current-use consumer product chemicals, have not been adequately studied in humans. Studies are challenged to reconstruct exposures that occurred decades before diagnosis or access biological samples stored that long. Other problems include measuring rapidly metabolized chemicals and evaluating exposure to mixtures.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 91 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 148 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 16%
Student > Master 20 14%
Student > Bachelor 19 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Other 12 8%
Other 31 21%
Unknown 29 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 9%
Environmental Science 13 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Other 29 20%
Unknown 42 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 153. 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 09 October 2019.
All research outputs
#97,745
of 13,754,975 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Research
#30
of 3,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,168
of 274,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Research
#1
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,754,975 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 274,391 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 141 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 99% of its contemporaries.