Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

Indoor air pollution exposure from use of indoor stoves and fireplaces in association with breast cancer: a case-control study

  • 1Email author,
  • 2,
  • 3,
  • 4,
  • 5,
  • 6,
  • 1,
  • 7,
  • 8,
  • 9 and
  • 1
Environmental Health201413:108

https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-13-108

  • Received: 10 July 2014
  • Accepted: 8 December 2014
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

Previous studies suggest that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) may adversely affect breast cancer risk. Indoor air pollution from use of indoor stoves and/or fireplaces is an important source of ambient PAH exposure. However, the association between indoor stove/fireplace use and breast cancer risk is unknown. We hypothesized that indoor stove/fireplace use in a Long Island, New York study population would be positively associated with breast cancer and differ by material burned, and the duration and timing of exposure. We also hypothesized that the association would vary by breast cancer subtype defined by p53 mutation status, and interact with glutathione S-transferases GSTM1, T1, A1 and P1 polymorphisms.

Methods

Population-based, case-control resources (1,508 cases/1,556 controls) were used to conduct unconditional logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Breast cancer risk was increased among women reporting ever burning synthetic logs (which may also contain wood) in their homes (OR = 1.42, 95% CI 1.11, 1.84), but not for ever burning wood alone (OR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.77, 1.12). For synthetic log use, longer duration >7 years, older age at exposure (>20 years; OR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.02, 2.67) and 2 or more variants in GSTM1, T1, A1 or P1 (OR = 1.71, 95% CI 1.09, 2.69) were associated with increased risk.

Conclusions

Burning wood or synthetic logs are both indoor PAH exposure sources; however, positive associations were only observed for burning synthetic logs, which was stronger for longer exposures, adult exposures, and those with multiple GST variant genotypes. Therefore, our results should be interpreted with care and require replication.

Keywords

  • Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
  • GST
  • p53
  • Cancer
  • Breast

Background

Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed among women in the United States (U.S.) [1]. Experimental research indicates that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) increase development of mammary tumors [2]. The association between PAHs and human breast cancer, however, remains unclear [3].

PAHs are formed from the incomplete combustion of organic material [4]. The main sources of ambient PAH exposure in the general population include tobacco smoke, outdoor air pollution, indoor stoves and/or fireplaces, and the intake of grilled and smoked foods[2]. PAHs are established carcinogens to the lung and may also be carcinogenic to the mammary gland [5].

Previous studies have often relied on measuring PAH exposure with the biomarker PAH-DNA adducts [69]. However, this body burden measure likely reflects a host’s susceptibility to PAH as well as exposure levels [3]. Also, adducts represent PAH exposure in the short-term (e.g., several months to several years), which may not be the relevant time period as breast cancer is thought to develop over many years [10]. There is no PAH biomarker that reflects longer-term (e.g., more than a few years) exposure to PAH sources [10].

Indoor air pollution, or household air pollution, from indoor stoves/fireplaces is an important ambient PAH source and is of significant world-wide public health concern [5]. Previous research on indoor air pollution from solid fuel burning has predominantly focused on respiratory health effects or cancer outcomes in developing countries where exposure levels are high compared to the U.S. [11]. Indoor air pollution from burning of wood or coal has been associated with cancers of the lung in an international pooled study [12] and upper aero-digestive tract in India [13], but no studies thus far have investigated the association between indoor air pollution or stove/fireplace use with breast cancer [11]. Open fireplaces in the home have been associated with bulky DNA adduct levels [14] which are known to be relevant for breast cancer risk [69].

Environmental exposures that occur early in life, or during hypothesized biological windows of susceptibility may be more strongly associated with the risk of breast cancer [15]. For example, previous breast cancer research has suggested that exposure to ionizing radiation is most important before age 20 years [16]. However, it is unknown whether PAH exposure during breast development is associated with subsequent breast cancer risk [15].

Specific base substitutions and other transitions and transversions in the tumor suppressor gene p53 have been associated with PAH exposure [17]. Thus, it is plausible that the association with PAH exposure may be evident when we consider breast cancer subtype defined by p53 mutation status of the index tumor. Similarly, because PAH have been shown to have estrogenic properties [18], the association with indoor stove/fireplace use may be more pronounced among certain breast cancer subtypes defined by hormone receptor status.

Glutathione S-transferase (GST) enzymes aid in the metabolism of PAHs and polymorphisms in the GST genes may alter individual’s ability to metabolize PAH compounds, and to remove reactive intermediates from the body [19]. GST variants are hypothesized to interact with PAH exposures, although previous research has been inconclusive on a possible interaction between GSTs and PAH with respect to breast cancer [20, 21].

Here we report on the association between use of indoor stoves and fireplaces and breast cancer risk. We hypothesized that this association would be modestly elevated for all types of material burned, stronger with increasing years of exposure and for early-life exposure and that it may vary by the timing of exposure and among susceptible subgroups defined by GST gene variants, hormone receptor subtype and p53 tumor mutations.

Methods

Our investigation builds upon population-based case-control resources from the Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project (LIBCSP). Parent study methods have been previously described in detail [22]. IRB approval was obtained from all participating institutions.

Study population

The LIBCSP included English-speaking women residing in Nassau and Suffolk counties on Long Island, New York. Cases were women newly diagnosed with a first primary in situ or invasive breast cancer between August 1, 1996 and July 31, 1997. Cases were ascertained by daily/weekly contact with pathology departments of all 28 hospitals on Long Island and three tertiary care hospitals in New York City.

Controls were randomly selected female residents from the two source counties who had no history of breast cancer and were frequency matched to cases based on the expected case age distribution by 5-year age group. Potential controls were identified by random digit dialing for those less than 65 years of age and by Health Care Finance Administration rosters for those 65 years and older. The response rate for women <65 years was 76.1% and for women >65 years was 43.3% [22].

Written signed informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to interview. A total of 1,508 cases and 1,556 controls (82% and 62.7%, respectively, of all eligible subjects) completed the interview. Participants ranged in age from 20 to 98 years, with one third 65 years of age or older at the time of diagnosis (for cases) or identification (for controls), and 67% were postmenopausal. In addition, 94% self-identified as white, 5% black, and 2% other, which reflects the underlying racial distribution of these two Long Island counties at the time the study was conducted.

Questionnaire assessment of indoor air pollution from stoves/fireplaces

Indoor stove/fireplace use was assessed using a structured questionnaire. The LIBCSP case-control interview occurred in the respondents’ homes and, for cases, within several months of the diagnosis of the first primary breast cancer. All participants were administered the main case-control questionnaire, a comprehensive assessment of known and suspected risk factors for breast cancer. This instrument included a question asking whether a participant used an indoor stove or fireplace ≥3 times a year for each residence lived at on Long Island; and, if yes, whether they burned wood, coal, gas and/or synthetic logs. Synthetic logs also contain wood; therefore, it is important to note that future references to wood-burning exclude synthetic logs use. The date and/or ages of participants at time of living in each residence was used to calculate exposure duration and timing. Exposure frequency or exposures to stove/fireplace use at non-residences or residences outside of Long Island were not captured.

Tumor p53 mutation analysis

To consider breast cancer subtype, we utilized data on p53 mutation status of the tumor. Archived paraffin-embedded tumor tissue was obtained and DNA was extracted (n = 859). Mutations were detected in exons 5-8 of p53, described in detail in Rossner et al. [23]. Samples were amplified using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and the Surveyor Mutation Detection Kit (Transgenomic, Omaha, NE, USA) was used to screen for p53 mutations. Positively identified samples were confirmed and identified using PCR amplification and sequencing using an ABI 3100 capillary sequencer (Applied Biosystems Inc., Foster City, CA, USA).

Hormone receptor subtype

Breast cancer subtype defined by hormone receptor status was obtained from medical records [22]. Cases (97.7%) signed a medical record release form for the abstraction of clinical characteristics of breast cancer. For 95.2% of cases, medical records were successfully located and abstracted. Hormone receptor status of the first primary breast cancer was available from the medical record for 990 cases (65.6%).

GST laboratory assays

To consider potential interactions between indoor stove/fireplace exposure and GST polymorphisms, we utilized genotyping data, which was assayed as follows. Blood samples were obtained from 73% of cases and controls [22] and DNA was isolated. GSTM1 and GSTT1 were genotyped using multiplex polymerase chain reaction method [24]. GSTP1 Ile105Val (rs1695) and GSTA1 (three linked based substitutions in promoter at -567, -69 and -52) genotyping were completed using high-throughput MALDI-TOF [24, 25].

Other covariate assessment

To consider potential confounders and/or effect modifiers, responses to other sections of the questionnaire, including reproductive and menstrual histories, education, life course body size, cigarette smoking and race, were used. Distributions of known risk factors among the LIBCSP population have been described [22].

Statistical analyses

We undertook four analytic steps: (1) estimated the association between breast cancer risk and residential indoor stove/fireplace use, with consideration given to potential confounders; (2) explored associations with more detailed exposure information, including material burned and timing of exposure; (3) explored associations with breast cancer subtype; and (4) considered effect modification by GST polymorphisms, menopausal status and smoking history.

First, we used unconditional logistic regression [26] to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) for associations between breast cancer and ever using an indoor stove/fireplace at a Long Island residence. All statistical models were adjusted for the frequency matching factor, 5-year age group. Other potential confounders were identified from a directed acyclic graph [27] and included parity, education, marital status, active/passive smoking, age at menarche, religion, race, lifetime alcohol intake, physical activity (total average hours/week), body mass index, history of lactation, age at first birth, exogenous hormone use, and family history of breast cancer. Both multi-variable adjusted and age-adjusted models are included in the results. All analyses were completed using SAS 9.2 (Cary, NC).

Second, associations between breast cancer risk and detailed exposure characteristics, including stove/fireplace type, duration, and timing, were also considered using unconditional logistic regression. For example, we used indicator variables to assess the association for each material burned (wood, synthetic logs, coal or gas); subanalyses, however, were limited to wood and synthetic logs due to the limited sample sizes of women reporting burning coal or gas. To assess possible correlation between women who reported burning wood and those who reported burning synthetic logs, a kappa statistic was calculated [28]. We used information on the time spent living in a Long Island residence where an indoor stove/fireplace was ever used to determine an estimate of exposure duration; categories were a priori defined based on quartiles among the controls and women with no stove/fireplace use were the referent group. Separate models were fitted for any stove/fireplace use, wood burning and synthetic log burning. Tests for trend were calculated using a Mantel test statistic for the continuous variable [29]. When examining associations for exposures <20 vs ≥20 years of age, analyses were restricted to women who lived on Long Island prior to age 20 years, given LIBCSP participants were only queried about their residences on Long Island. We considered whether an indoor stove/fireplace was used during a possibly biologically susceptible period, <20 years of age (exposed participants could be classified as exposed for <20 years of age, ≥20 years of age or both); timing was further assessed by whether the participant specifically burned wood or synthetic logs.

Third, associations with the cases categorized by breast cancer subtypes, defined by p53 mutation status and hormone receptor status, were examined using polytomous logistic regression [30], which simultaneously yields effect estimates for the associations among multiple case groups (e.g., multiple breast cancer subtypes) and a single control group. The ratio of the ORs and 95% CI for associations were used as a measure of heterogeneity [31] when comparing the ORs among breast cancer subtypes, defined either by p53 mutation status (p53+ vs. p53-), or combined estrogen receptor progesterone receptor (ERPR) status (ER+ PR+ vs. all other subtypes, and ER-PR- vs. all other subtypes). We performed additional analyses using a case-case approach [32] with age-adjusted unconditional logistic regression to investigate associations between p53 mutation type and indoor stove/fireplace use, stratifying by burning either wood or synthetic logs.

Fourth, to consider possible effect modification by GST polymorphisms, menopausal status or active/passive smoking status, unconditional logistic regression was used. Effect measure modification on a multiplicative scale was assessed by comparing multivariable models with and without cross-product terms of the exposure and menopausal status (pre-, post-menopause) and active/passive smoking (neither active nor passive, passive only, active only, active and passive) as well as using the approach described below for each GST polymorphism separately, as well as number of GST variants [30]. For possible modification on the additive scale, interaction contrast ratios (ICRs) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated [33]. GSTM1 and GSTT1 genotypes were classified as ‘present’ or ‘null’ as determined by the presence or absence of the allele, using a dominant model approach. For GSTP1, the AA genotype was considered common and either AG or GG genotypes were considered variants. For GSTA1*A and GSTA1*B genetic polymorphism, GSTA1*B was classified as the variant and GSTA1*A as the common polymorphism [20, 25]. The reference group for each polymorphism was defined as GSTT1 present, GSTM1 present, GSTP1 common and GSTA1 common. We considered each polymorphism separately and also by an individual’s number of variant alleles (<2 variants, ≥2 variants), as previously described [20].

Results

Case-control participant characteristics, stratified by any stove/fireplace use, are displayed in Table 1. Distributions of stove/fireplace users and non-users were similar across demographic and breast cancer risk factors.
Table 1

Case-control participant characteristics, stratified by indoor stove/fireplace use, among Long Island, NY women, LIBCSP 1996-1997

 

Stove/fireplace non-users

Stove/fireplace users

Characteristics

Cases

Controls

Cases

Controls

Categorical variables

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Age

        

<35

20

2.6

19

2.4

18

2.4

26

3.4

35-44

77

10.2

100

12.8

104

13.9

144

18.8

45-54

149

19.7

185

23.7

248

33.2

237

30.9

55-64

191

25.2

221

28.3

181

24.2

181

23.6

65-74

217

28.7

170

21.8

146

19.5

138

18.0

75+

103

13.6

86

11.0

50

6.7

42

5.5

Education

        

< High school

132

17.6

103

13.2

50

6.7

46

6.0

High school graduate

308

41.0

309

39.7

228

30.6

215

28.0

Some college

158

21.0

185

23.8

201

26.9

228

29.7

College graduate

72

9.6

98

12.6

119

16.0

138

18.0

Post-college education

82

10.9

84

10.8

148

19.8

140

18.3

Religion

        

Protestant

166

22.0

168

21.6

193

25.8

205

26.7

Catholic

435

57.7

468

60.1

422

56.5

445

57.9

Jewish

134

17.8

128

16.4

124

16.6

108

14.1

None or other

19

2.53

15

1.93

8

1.07

10

1.3

Race

        

White

691

91.6

695

89.0

717

96.0

728

94.8

Black

47

6.2

64

8.2

21

2.8

20

2.6

Other

16

2.1

22

2.8

9

1.2

20

2.6

Marital status

        

Never

38

5.0

41

5.3

26

3.5

28

3.7

Ever

718

95.0

740

94.8

721

96.5

740

96.4

Lifetime alcohol intake

        

Non-drinkers

356

47.0

366

47.0

240

32.1

233

30.4

<15 gram/day

318

42.0

320

41.1

372

49.8

414

54.0

15-30 gram/day

55

7.3

47

6.0

91

12.2

72

9.4

>30 gram/day

28

3.7

46

5.9

44

5.9

48

6.3

Physical activity (hours/week)

        

0

258

35.7

256

35.1

163

23.5

156

21.6

<0.69

170

23.6

151

20.7

168

24.2

181

25.0

0.7-2.6

153

21.2

169

23.2

178

25.6

197

27.2

≥2.6

141

19.5

154

21.1

186

26.8

190

26.2

Smoking history

        

Neither active nor passive

108

14.7

110

14.5

58

7.9

72

9.6

Ever passive

228

31.1

270

35.7

254

34.6

224

29.9

Ever active

77

10.5

66

8.7

58

7.9

77

10.3

Both active and passive

320

43.7

311

41.1

364

49.6

377

50.3

Breastfeeding

        

Never

542

71.6

537

68.8

484

64.8

461

60.0

Ever

215

28.4

244

31.2

263

35.2

307

40.0

Postmenopausal hormone use

        

Never

573

75.9

592

75.9

520

69.8

562

73.2

Ever

182

24.1

188

24.1

225

30.2

206

26.8

First degree family history

        

No

579

79.6

668

87.9

584

80.0

648

86.3

Yes

148

20.4

92

12.1

146

20.0

103

13.7

Menopausal status

        

Premenopausal

179

24.1

206

27.4

292

40.0

295

40.3

Postmenopausal

565

75.9

547

72.6

438

60.0

438

59.8

Age At first birth & parity

        

Nulliparous

93

12.3

88

11.3

104

13.9

82

10.7

First birth before age 21

107

14.1

127

16.3

90

12.1

101

13.2

First birth between 21- <25

253

33.4

266

34.1

229

30.7

279

36.3

First Birth Between 25- < 29

174

23.0

173

22.2

170

22.8

185

24.1

First birth between 29- < 32

78

10.3

74

9.5

85

11.4

68

8.9

First birth after age 32

52

6.9

53

6.8

68

9.1

53

6.9

Continuous variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Age at menarche

12.6

1.6

12.6

1.7

12.5

1.5

12.6

1.7

Body mass index

27.4

6.0

25.3

7.2

25.7

5.2

26.1

5.7

In the LIBCSP population, 747 cases (49.5%) and 768 controls (49.4%) reported using a fireplace or indoor stove at least 3 times per year in one of their Long Island residences (Table 2). The predominant material burned in stoves/fireplaces was wood (44.8% of cases and 45.1% controls). The second most common fuel source used was synthetic logs, with 246 cases (16.4%) and 202 controls (13.0%) burning synthetic logs, followed by coal use (5.8% of cases and 4.9% of controls) and gas use (1.5% of cases and 1.4% of controls).
Table 2

Association between indoor stove/fireplace use and breast cancer risk a

Exposure Status

Controls

Cases

Age-adjusted OR (95% CI)

Multivariable-adjusted OR (95% CI)b

N (%)

N (%)

Ever use of any indoor stove/fireplace c

    

 Never

781 (50.4)

757 (50.3)

1.00 (ref)

1.00 (ref)

 Ever

768 (49.4)

747 (49.5)

1.05 (0.91, 1.21)

1.05 (0.88, 1.25)

Material burned d

    

 None

781 (50.4)

757 (50.3)

1.00 (ref)

1.00 (ref)

 Wood

699 (45.1)

674 (44.8)

0.93 (0.79, 1.08)

0.93 (0.77, 1.12)

 Synthetic Logs

202 (13.0)

246 (16.4)

1.45 (1.17, 1.80)

1.42 (1.11, 1.84)

 Coal

76 (4.9)

87 (5.8)

1.27 (0.92, 1.76)

1.28 (0.88, 1.86)

 Gas

22 (1.4)

22 (1.5)

1.08 (0.59, 1.96)

0.86 (0.42, 1.73)

aAmong Long Island, NY women, LIBCSP 1996-1997.

bMultivariate OR adjusted for age, age at menarche, history of breastfeeding, hormone therapy use, family history of breast cancer, parity, age at first birth, BMI at reference, education, smoking history, alcohol intake, physical activity, race, religion, marital status.

cUse of any indoor stove or fireplace regardless of the material used.

dMaterials burned categories are not mutually exclusive. Wood burning excludes synthetic logs.

As shown in Table 2, breast cancer risk was increased by 42% in association with ever burning synthetic logs in the fireplace or indoor stove (OR = 1.42, 95% CI 1.11, 1.84). However, there was no increase in risk for burning wood (OR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.77, 1.12), or when we combined all types of residential indoor fireplace/stove exposure (OR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.88, 1.25). A non-significant association with breast cancer was observed for burning coal (OR = 1.28, 95% CI 0.88, 1.86). The variables representing women who reported burning wood and those burning synthetic logs were not strongly correlated and correlations were similar among cases (k = 0.28) and controls (k = 0.22).

As shown in Table 3, the increased breast cancer risk associated with burning synthetic logs indoors was apparent among women reporting 7+ years of use (p for linear trend <0.05). For burning synthetic logs, there was no association with breast cancer for ≤6.9 years of exposure (OR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.68, 1.82), but risk was increased for exposure of 7.0-16.7 years (OR = 1.73, 95% CI 1.11, 2.70) and for >24.8 years (OR = 1.50, 95% CI 0.98, 2.31). Among women who reported burning wood in their indoor stoves/fireplaces, there was a modest suggested increase in breast cancer risk for those between 21.6-31.0 years of exposure (OR = 1.20, 95% CI 0.92-1.55); however, this association was not evident for exposures occurring for more than 31 years (OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.66, 1.17). When we considered any residential indoor stove/fireplace use, regardless of the material burned, no linear trend association with duration of use was noted. Study participant characteristics have been previously found to differ by whether or not the respondents reported living in the same home for 15 years or more [22]. However, a sensitivity analysis restricted to long-term Long Island residents (≥15 years) found a similar trend among any stove/fireplace and wood users and an increasing trend for women burning synthetic logs for 19 years or longer (see Additional file 1).
Table 3

Association between duration (years) of indoor stove/fireplace use and breast cancer risk a

Exposure

Years of exposure

Controls

Cases

Age-adjusted OR

Multivariable-adjusted ORb

(N)

(N)

(95% CI)

(95% CI)

Any indoor stove/fireplace use

No stove/fireplace use

781

757

1.00 (reference)

1.00 (reference)

≤11.6 years

190

183

1.13 (0.89, 1.43)

1.15 (0.87, 1.51)

11.7-21.6 years

190

172

1.02 (0.81, 1.30)

1.00 (0.76, 1.32)

21.7-30.7 years

190

208

1.18 (0.94, 1.47)

1.13 (0.87, 1.46)

>30.7 years

190

181

0.93 (0.74, 1.17)

0.95 (0.72, 1.25)

Wood burning c

No stove/fireplace use

781

757

1.00 (reference)

1.00 (reference)

≤11.0 years

173

159

1.08 (0.84, 1.38)

1.07 (0.80, 1.42)

11.1-21.4 years

173

156

1.03 (0.80, 1.31)

1.00 (0.75, 1.33)

21.5-30.9 years

173

199

1.23 (0.97, 1.55)

1.20 (0.92, 1.55)

>30.0 years

173

157

0.88 (0.69, 1.13)

0.88 (0.66, 1.17)

Synthetic log burning

No stove/fireplace use

781

757

1.00 (reference)

1.00 (reference)

≤6.9 years

50

41

0.98 (0.63, 1.52)

1.12 (0.68, 1.82)

7.0-16.7 years

50

69

1.69 (1.14, 2.50)

1.73 (1.11, 2.70)

16.7-24.8 years

50

58

1.31 (0.88, 1.95)

1.29 (0.82, 2.03)

>24.8 years

49

76

1.53 (1.05, 2.24)

1.50 (0.98, 2.31)

aAmong Long Island, NY women, LIBCSP 1996-1997.

bMultivariate OR adjusted for age, age at menarche, history of breastfeeding, hormone therapy use,

family history of breast cancer, parity, age at first birth, BMI at reference, education, smoking history,

alcohol intake, physical activity, race, religion, marital status.

cWood burning excludes synthetic logs.

As shown in Table 4, the increase in breast cancer risk associated with burning synthetic logs varied by the timing of the exposure. For example, stratifying by whether exposures occurred before or after 20 years of age, suggested that for synthetic logs, the increased risk is limited to the exposures occurring after age 20 years (OR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.02, 2.67), rather than exposure occurring prior to age 20 years (OR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.46, 2.59), which was imprecise due to large confidence intervals. In contrast, there was a suggested increase in breast cancer risk for exposure prior to 20 years of age for any stove/fireplace (OR = 1.28, 95% CI 0.89, 1.83) and for wood use (OR = 1.32, 0.91, 1.92), but no association for exposures occurring after age 20.
Table 4

Association between age period of exposure a of stove/fireplace use and breast cancer risk b

Exposure timing

Controls

Cases

Age-adjusted OR (95% CI)

Multivariable-adjusted OR (95% CI)c

N (%)

N (%)

Any indoor stove/fireplace

    

 Never

228

190

1.00 (reference)

1.00 (reference)

 <20 years of age

196

173

1.09 (0.82, 1.45)

1.28 (0.89, 1.83)

 ≥20 years of age

171

146

1.05 (0.78, 1.40)

1.07 (0.75, 1.52)

Wood burning d

    

 Never

228

190

1.00 (reference)

1.00 (reference)

 <20 years of age

175

156

1.10 (0.83, 1.48)

1.32 (0.91, 1.92)

 ≥20 years of age

167

141

1.03 (0.76, 1.38)

1.05 (0.73, 1.50)

Synthetic log burning

    

 Never

228

190

1.00 (reference)

1.00 (reference)

 <20 years of age

28

23

1.14 (0.63, 2.08)

1.09 (0.46, 2.59)

 ≥20 years of age

65

76

1.47 (1.00, 2.17)

1.65 (1.02, 2.67)

aExposure timing = age (in years) when exposed to indoor air pollution (time periods are not mutually exclusive, see text).

bAmong Long Island, NY women, 1996-1997.

cMultivariate OR adjusted for age, age at menarche, history of breastfeeding, hormone therapy use, family history of breast cancer, parity, age at first birth, BMI at reference, education, smoking history, alcohol intake, physical activity, race, religion, marital status.

dWood burning excludes synthetic logs.

We did not observe any statistically evident heterogeneity by p53 mutation status (see Additional file 1). Associations between specific p53 mutation types are also available in the supplemental material (see Additional file 1); due to small sample sizes, estimates shown are adjusted for only the frequency-matching factor, age. While the associations are imprecise, these results may warrant further investigation. When we considered breast cancer tumor subtype as defined by ER/PR status, we found little heterogeneity in the ORs for the association with indoor stove/fireplace use (data not shown).

As shown in Table 5, the association between synthetic log burning and breast cancer risk increased with number of GST variants; women with 2+ GST variants and who burned synthetic logs had a significant increased risk (OR = 1.71, 95% CI 1.09, 2.68). However, we observed no statistical effect modification by number of GST variants or with each individual GST variant (see Table 5; see Additional file 1). Further, there was no effect modification observed by menopausal status or active/passive smoking (data not shown).
Table 5

Interaction between the number of variant GST a genotypes and indoor stove/fireplace use and breast cancer b

Number of GSTavariants

Indoor stove/ fireplace use

Cases (n)

Controls (n)

Age-adjusted OR (95% CI)

Multivariable-adjusted OR (95% CI)c

 

Ever any

    

 <2 variants

No stove/fireplace

452

483

1.00 (reference)

1.00 (reference)

 

Ever any stove/fireplace

424

419

1.06 (0.96, 1.16)

1.04 (0.93, 1.16)

 ≥2 variants

No stove/fireplace

305

298

1.12 (0.93, 1.35)

1.08 (0.87, 1.35)

 

Ever any stove/fireplace

323

349

1.19 (0.89, 1.58)

1.13 (0.81, 1.57)

 

Wood burning d

    

 <2 variants

No stove/fireplace

452

483

1.00 (reference)

1.00 (reference)

 

Ever wood burning

378

377

1.05 (0.96, 1.16)

1.02 (0.91, 1.15)

 ≥2 variants

No stove/fireplace

305

298

1.11 (0.92, 1.35)

1.05 (0.83, 1.32)

 

Ever wood burning

296

322

1.17 (0.88, 1.57)

1.07 (0.76, 1.51)

 

Synthetic log burning

    

 <2 variants

No stove/fireplace

452

483

1.00 (reference)

1.00 (reference)

 

Ever synthetic log

146

112

1.22 (1.07, 1.38)

1.19 (1.03, 1.39)

 ≥2 variants

No stove/fireplace

305

298

1.48 (1.15, 1.91)

1.43 (1.06, 1.93)

 

Ever synthetic log

100

90

1.81 (1.24, 2.63)

1.71 (1.09, 2.68)

aNumber of GST variants = total number of variant genotypes from any of the GST SNPs considered in this study, including: GSTA1, GSTT1, GSTM1, GSTP1 (see text). Common alleles: GSTT1 present, GSTM1 present, GSTA1*A, GSTP1 (AA). Variant alleles: GSTT1 null, GSTM1 null, GSTA1*B, GSTP1 (AG or GG).

bAmong Long Island, NY women, LIBCSP, 1996-1997.

cMultivariate OR adjusted for age, age at menarche, history of breastfeeding, hormone therapy use,

family history of breast cancer, parity, age at first birth, BMI at reference, education, smoking history,

alcohol intake, physical activity, race, religion, marital status.

dWood burning excludes synthetic logs.

Discussion

In this population-based study, we found that women who burned synthetic logs at a Long Island residence were 45% more likely to have breast cancer compared to women who did not. This association appeared to be more pronounced for women who burned synthetic logs in their home for >7 years, for those exposed during their adult years or for those with multiple GST variant alleles. However, there was no association observed with wood burning in the home, or when all types of stove/fireplace burning material were considered together. Given that indoor exposure to PAHs occurs with burning either wood or synthetic logs but our findings were limited to synthetic logs, our results should be interpreted with care, as discussed below, and require replication.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the association between breast cancer risk and an important source of ambient PAH exposure, the use of indoor stoves/fireplaces, an indicator of indoor air pollution [34]. Our results have public health significance, given that a recent scientific review concluded that “estimating the effects of household solid-fuel combustion on cancers other than lung” and whether “genetic susceptibility modifies” the association were high priority research topics [11].

Use of solid fuels for indoor heating and cooking is most common in Africa and Southeast Asia, with a prevalence of use at approximately 60% and thus, most research on health impacts have been conducted in countries in these geographic areas [11, 35]. However, solid fuel remains as the primary heating source for approximately 6.5 million U.S. citizens, predominately those of low socioeconomic status [36], but may be used recreationally or as a supplemental heating source among non-low income homes [37]. Most stoves in the U.S. tend to only be used seasonally and have a flue to remove smoke from the home [36]. While we do not have measurements of indoor air concentrations from the LIBCSP, one study conducted in a Swedish residential area found wood burning homes had a median benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) level of 0.52 ng/m3[34]; orders of magnitude lower than the mean BaP in wood burning homes in India, 0.70 ug/m3 (equivalent to 700 ng/m3) [38]. This large discrepancy is likely due to the stove/fireplace type, limited ventilation and increased year-round duration of use. Overall, these differences suggest that exposure levels to PAHs from stoves/fireplaces would be likely lower in countries like the U.S. The association observed with breast cancer risk in this study with lower exposure levels to stove/fireplace use, suggest that if confirmed, this association may be even stronger in low or middle income countries where exposures are much higher. However, to the best of our knowledge no other study has investigated this research question either in the U.S. or elsewhere.

There has been limited testing on the emission profiles of synthetic logs, consisting of wax and sawdust, compared to natural logs. The increase in breast cancer risk we observed with synthetic log burning may be biologically plausible. A report by Gullet et al. [39] measured emission factors of various pollutants (including polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans, polychlorinated biphenyls, hexacholorbenzene, particulate matter and PAHs) from fireplace and woodstove combustion emissions. Synthetic log burning produced elevated levels of almost all measured PAHs compared to the combustion of wood, but not higher levels of the other pollutants measured [39]. Specific PAHs that were markedly high in concentration in the synthetic log emissions included chrysene/triphenylene, benzo(e)pyrene and retene [39]. Chrysene in particular is a documented tumorigenic PAH [2]. Two other emission analysis also reported higher PAH levels and a wider range of specific PAH compounds present in synthetic log emissions compared to wood emissions [40, 41]. These results suggest that PAHs may be one of the more relevant emission factors from synthetic log burning for breast cancer risk. However, other reports have found similar PAH levels across synthetic logs and natural wood logs or possibly lower PAH levels for synthetic logs [42, 43]. These inconsistencies could be due to differing synthetic log components or testing conditions, and thus variable emission characteristics [44].

Retrospective stove/fireplace use was collected in the mid-1990’s which would have reflected exposures before the Environmental Protection Agency began endorsing certified indoor stoves/fireplaces with lower emissions [45]. This, combined with the recent changes in composition of synthetic logs away from using petroleum wax [44], may result in this study population having higher exposure levels than those that exist today.

A Washington state department of health study estimated that 40% of people used some type of wood burning device (lower than the ~50% prevalence observed here) [46]. Among the Washington users of wood burning devices, approximately 50% used woodstoves, 50% used fireplaces and 17% used both devices [46]. Synthetic logs are manufactured to be used in open fireplaces, which tend to emit more PAHs than wood stoves per hour of operation [47]. In fact, an open fireplace burning natural wood can result in PAH concentrations comparable to those of ambient urban air [48]. Open fireplace use, but not indoor stove use, has also been associated with increased DNA adduct levels in both mothers and their newborns [14]. Thus, it is possible that the effect seen here is a surrogate measure for open fireplace use (regardless of material) as synthetic logs are not recommended to be used in indoor stoves. Collapsing indoor stove and fireplace use into one question is a limitation of this study questionnaire, and may have resulted in an attenuation of the result observed for wood use in the home. This interpretation would rely on natural wood being predominately burned in indoor stoves, which are generally closed and designed to be airtight, and thus, may release fewer emissions [47]. This hypothesis should be further investigated in future research.

PAHs may have both mutagenic and epigenetic possible mechanisms that are relevant to breast carcinogenesis [2]. PAHs can be rapidly absorbed into the human body after inhalation of indoor air pollution from indoor stoves/fireplaces, and are soon released into the general circulation [5]. PAHs are lipophilic and can accumulate in adipose tissue of the breast [8]. Phase 1 enzymes break down PAHs to reactive metabolites which can then be detoxified by Phase II metabolic pathways (e.g., the GSTs) [3]. When the exposure levels are high, or detoxification processes are not adequate, PAH metabolites can bind to DNA to form adducts [3]. If DNA repair processes are unable to rectify this DNA damage, it can ultimately lead to somatic mutations in breast cancer-related genes, an initiation step of carcinogenesis [2].

We did find a suggestive evidence that any indoor stove/fireplace use and wood burning prior to age 20 years, which encompasses age before first birth for approximately 90% of the LIBCSP study population, may be more relevant for future breast cancer risk than exposure that occurs after age 20 years. This is consistent with evidence from another PAH source, active smoking, which may be particularly important to breast cancer risk if the exposure is prior to the first pregnancy [49]. On the contrary, we observed that breast cancer risk was higher for exposure to synthetic log use after age 20 years. Synthetic logs were commercialized in 1931 with the petroleum-based synthetic logs being introduced in 1963 [50]. Thus, we cannot rule out the possibility that the older age of our population precluded many from being exposed to synthetic logs at an early age resulting in small sample sizes and unstable estimates. We are unable to take into account any stove/fireplace exposures from participant’s former residences that were not on Long Island due to the design of the original study questionnaire. While many in the study population have been long-term residents of Long Island [58% had lived in their current Long Island residence for 15 or more years [22], this makes it particularly challenging to estimate the effect of early life exposures from indoor stove/fireplace use.

Reporting the use of indoor stoves/fireplaces is a surrogate measure of indoor PAH exposure, but other factors (such as exterior air pollution from vehicular traffic in urban areas) may contribute to indoor air pollution levels [2]. Therefore, we cannot rule out the possibility of other PAH sources affecting indoor air pollution levels. Stove/fireplaces may also release pollutants in addition to PAHs that may be relevant to breast cancer risk [11]. For example, synthetic logs may emit polychlorinated biphenyls, particulate matter, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans, hexacholorbenzene, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds and formaldehyde [39, 43, 44]. However, none of these chemicals have been found to be consistently associated with breast cancer risk as is the case for PAHs across different exposure sources [51]. In addition, although we did assess duration of exposure, we did not assess frequency of exposure to indoor stove/fireplace burning, which makes identifying and quantifying the association with those who are most highly exposed very difficult. One report found that those who burned synthetic logs did so relatively frequently (at least several times per month) [39]. Having information on frequency of use would better inform the results reported here.

We did not find an association between stove/fireplace use and p53-mutation-positive tumors, which is consistent with previous results from the LIBCSP investigating other ambient PAH sources [52], but contrasts with other study populations in which cigarette smoking has been found to be associated with tumor p53 mutation status [53, 54]. This discrepancy could, among other potential factors, be due to intrinsic differences in the PAH sources being measured.

We observed no evidence for an interaction between individual variant GST alleles with indoor stove/fireplace use, despite the biologically plausibility [19]. However, there was some suggestion that multiple GST variant alleles interacted with synthetic log burning to increase breast cancer risk. Our results are consistent with a previous report investigating GST interactions with other multiple PAH sources in Long Island [20]. Both specific GSTs and number of GST variants have been previously associated with breast cancer in the LIBCSP and in other study populations, although results have been inconsistent [24, 25, 55, 56].

Differential recall bias is always a potential concern for case-control studies. However, our most prominent finding is among those that burned synthetic logs in their homes. It is unlikely at the time of data collection that cases would have suspected certain wood-based fuel materials would be more carcinogenic than others. In addition, this study population had many long-term users of synthetic logs which suggest these results are not just an artifact of differential recall. Despite this, it is still possible that this association may have been impacted by recall bias. There is also the possibility of the influence of selection bias, particularly among older control women who had a lower response rate. However, the mechanism by which stove/fireplace use would affect response rates among only elderly control women is unknown. Participations rates may vary by socioeconomic status. High socioeconomic status is a risk factor for breast cancer [1]; however, indoor stove/fireplace use is more common in low-income populations [36]. Thus, it is unlikely that stove/fireplace use is a proxy for socioeconomic status. There was also little existing literature on predictors of stove/fireplace use. Therefore, residual confounding may be present, either by the lack of inclusion of a confounder or imprecise measurement of a confounder included in the model. However, we included many known breast cancer risk factors in our adjustment sets in order to mitigate this concern. Another study concern is the low prevalence of some specific p53 mutations in our population such that, despite our fairly large sample size, we were unable to more precisely estimate the association of burning either coal or gas, or the associations with p53-defined breast cancer subtype. While imprecise and difficult to interpret, we believe these results could be useful for future studies when considering environmental exposures such as PAHs and breast cancer risk. The novel result of an increased breast cancer risk associated with synthetic log use, while biologically plausible, does require replication in other study population.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that residential indoor air pollution from burning synthetic logs, but not wood, may be associated with an increase in breast cancer risk. The high incidence of breast cancer in the U.S. and the relatively common prevalence of indoor stoves/fireplaces suggest that this research, if confirmed, may have considerable public health importance. Our results provides new information on an important ambient PAH exposure source, which has been understudied in populations with low exposure levels such as those found in the U.S., and may guide future research on the potential carcinogenicity of PAH exposure on the breast.

Abbreviations

(95%CI): 

95% confidence interval

(ERPR): 

Estrogen receptor progesterone receptor

(GST): 

Glutathione S-transferase

(IARC): 

International Agency for Research on Cancer

(ICR): 

Interaction contrast ratio

(LIBCSP): 

Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project

(OR): 

Odds ratio

(PAH): 

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

(U.S.): 

United States.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Supported in part by: National Institutes of Health grants CA/ES66572, ES07018, ES10126, ES019459, ES009089, CA102640; the UNC Lineberger Cancer Control Education Program (R25 CA57726); the Breast Cancer Research Foundation; and the Women at Risk Program.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, CB#7435, McGavran-Greenberg Hall, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7435, USA
(2)
Department of Preventative Medicine, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA
(3)
Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
(4)
Consulting in the Public Interest (CIPI), Lambertville, NJ, USA
(5)
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA
(6)
Exposure, Epidemiology and Risk Program, Department of Environmental Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
(7)
Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA
(8)
Department of Genetic Ecotoxicology, Institute of Experimental Medicine ASCR, Prague, Czech Republic
(9)
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

References

  1. American Cancer Society: Breast Cancer Facts and Figures. 2013-2014, Atlanta, GA: American Cancer SocietyGoogle Scholar
  2. Boström CE, Gerde P, Hanberg A, Jernstrom B, Johansson C, Kyrklund T, Rannug A, Tornqvist M, Victorin K, Westerholm R: Cancer risk assessment, indicators, and guidelines for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the ambient air. Environ Health Perspect. 2002, 110: 451-488. 10.1289/ehp.02110s3451.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Gammon MD, Santella RM: PAH, genetic susceptibility and breast cancer risk: an update from the long island breast cancer study project. Eur J Cancer. 2008, 44: 636-640. 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.01.026.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Samanta SK, Singh OV, Jain RK: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: environmental pollution and bioremediation. Trends Biotechnol. 2002, 20: 243-248. 10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01943-1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. IARC: IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans/World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer. 2010, vol. 92, Some non-heterocyclic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and some related exposures,IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans,Google Scholar
  6. Li DH, Walcott FL, Chang P, Zhang WQ, Zhu JJ, Petrulis E, Singletary SE, Sahin AA, Bondy ML: Genetic and environmental determinants on tissue response to in vitro carcinogen exposure and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2002, 62: 4566-4570.Google Scholar
  7. Perera FP, Estabook A, Hewer A, Channing K, Rundle A, Mooney LA, Whyatt R, Phillips DH: Carcinogen-DNA adducts in human breast-tissue. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 1995, 4: 233-238.Google Scholar
  8. Rundle A, Tang DL, Hibshoosh H, Estabrook A, Schnabel F, Cao WF, Grumet S, Perera FP: The relationship between genetic damage from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in breast tissue and breast cancer. Carcinogenesis. 2000, 21: 1281-1289. 10.1093/carcin/21.7.1281.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Gammon MD, Sagiv SK, Eng SM, Shantakumar S, Gaudet MM, Teitelbaum SL, Britton JA, Terry MB, Wang LW, Wang Q, Stellman SD, Beyea J, Hatch M, Kabat GC, Wolff MS, Levin B, Neugut AI, Santella RM: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-DNA adducts and breast cancer: a pooled analysis. Arch Environ Health. 2004, 59: 640-649. 10.1080/00039890409602948.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Gammon MD, Santella RM, Neugut AI, Eng SM, Teitelbaum SL, Paykin A, Levin B, Terry MB, Young TL, Wang LW, Wang Q, Britton JA, Wolff MS, Stellman SD, Hatch M, Kabat GC, Senie R, Garbowski G, Maffeo C, Montalvan P, Berkowitz G, Kemeny M, Citron M, Schnabel F, Schuss A, Hajdu S, Vinceguerra V: Environmental toxins and breast cancer on long island. I. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon DNA adducts. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2002, 11: 677-685.Google Scholar
  11. Reid BC, Ghazarian AA, DeMarini DM, Sapkota A, Jack D, Lan Q, Winn DM, Birnbaum LS: Research opportunities for cancer associated with indoor air pollution from solid-fuel combustion. Environ Health Perspect. 2012, 120: 1495-1498. 10.1289/ehp.1204962.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Hosgood HD, Boffetta P, Greenland S, Lee YC, McLaughlin J, Seow A, Duell EJ, Andrew AS, Zaridze D, Szeszenia-Dabrowska N, Rudnai P, Lissowska J, Fabianova E, Mates D, Bencko V, Foretova L, Janout V, Morgenstern H, Rothman N, Hung RJ, Brennan P, Lan Q: In-home coal and wood use and lung cancer risk: a pooled analysis of the international lung cancer consortium. Environ Health Perspect. 2010, 118: 1743-1747. 10.1289/ehp.1002217.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Sapkota A, Gajalakshmi V, Jetly DH, Roychowdhury S, Dikshit RP, Brennan P, Hashibe M, Boffetta P: Indoor air pollution from solid fuels and risk of hypopharyngeal/laryngeal and lung cancers: a multicentric case-control study from India. Int J Epidemiol. 2008, 37: 321-328. 10.1093/ije/dym261.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Pedersen M, Wichmann J, Autrup H, Dang DA, Decordier I, Hvidberg M, Bossi R, Jakobsen J, Loft S, Knudsen LE: Increased micronuclei and bulky DNA adducts in cord blood after maternal exposures to traffic-related air pollution. Environ Res. 2009, 109: 1012-1020. 10.1016/j.envres.2009.08.011.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Hiatt RA, Haslam SZ, Osuch J, Breast C, the Environment Research C: The breast cancer and the environment research centers: transdisciplinary research on the role of the environment in breast cancer etiology. Environ Health Perspect. 2009, 117: 1814-1822.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. John EM, Kelsey JL: Radiation and other environmental exposures and breast cancer. Epidemiol Rev. 1993, 15: 157-162.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenblatt MS, Bennett WP, Hollstein M, Harris CC: Mutations in the p53 tumor suppressor gene: clues to cancer etiology and molecular pathogenesis. Cancer Res. 1994, 54: 4855-4878.Google Scholar
  18. Santodonato J: Review of the estrogenic and antiestrogenic activity of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: relationship to carcinogenicity. Chemosphere. 1997, 34: 835-848. 10.1016/S0045-6535(97)00012-X.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Hecht SS: Tobacco smoke carcinogens and lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999, 91: 1194-1210. 10.1093/jnci/91.14.1194.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. McCarty KM, Santella RM, Steck SE, Cleveland RJ, Ahn J, Ambrosone CB, North K, Sagiv SK, Eng SM, Teitelbaum SL, Neugut AI, Gammon MD: PAH-DNA adducts, cigarette smoking, GST polymorphisms, and breast cancer risk. Environ Health Perspect. 2009, 117: 552-558. 10.1289/ehp.0800119.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Rundle A, Tang D, Zhou J, Cho S, Perera F: The association between glutathione S-transferase M1 genotype and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-DNA adducts in breast tissue. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000, 9: 1079-1085.Google Scholar
  22. Gammon MD, Neugut AI, Santella RM, Teitelbaum SL, Britton JA, Terry MB, Eng SM, Wolff MS, Stellman SD, Kabat GC, Levin B, Bradlow HL, Hatch M, Beyea J, Camann D, Trent M, Senie RT, Garbowski GC, Maffeo C, Montalvan P, Berkowitz GS, Kemeny M, Citron M, Schnabe F, Schuss A, Hajdu S, Vincguerra V, Collman GW, Obrams GI: The long island breast cancer study project: description of a multi-institutional collaboration to identify environmental risk factors for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2002, 74: 235-254. 10.1023/A:1016387020854.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Rossner P, Gammon MD, Zhang YJ, Terry MB, Hibshoosh H, Memeo L, Mansukhani M, Long CM, Garbowski G, Agrawal M, Kalra TS, Gaudet MM, Teitelbaum SL, Neugut AI, Santella RM: Mutations in p53, p53 protein overexpression and breast cancer survival. J Cell Mol Med. 2009, 13: 3847-3857. 10.1111/j.1582-4934.2008.00553.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Steck SE, Gaudet MM, Britton JA, Teitelbaum SL, Terry MB, Neugut AI, Santella RM, Gammon MD: Interactions among GSTM1, GSTT1 and GSTP1 polymorphisms, cruciferous vegetable intake and breast cancer risk. Carcinogenesis. 2007, 28: 1954-1959. 10.1093/carcin/bgm141.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Ahn J, Gammon MD, Santella RM, Gaudet MM, Britton JA, Teitelbaum SL, Terry MB, Neugut AI, Eng SM, Zhang Y, Garza C, Ambrosone CB: Effects of glutathione S-transferase A1 (GSTA1) genotype and potential modifiers on breast cancer risk. Carcinogenesis. 2006, 27: 1876-1882. 10.1093/carcin/bgl038.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Selvin S: Statistical Analysis of Epidemiologic Data. 1996, New York: Oxford University Press, vol. SecondGoogle Scholar
  27. Shrier I, Platt RW: Reducing bias through directed acyclic graphs. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008, 8: 70-10.1186/1471-2288-8-70.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Cohen J: A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960, 20: 37-10.1177/001316446002000104.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Mantel N: Chi-square tests with one degree of freedom; extensions of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. J Am Stat Assoc. 1963, 58: 690-700.Google Scholar
  30. Hosmer D, Lemeshow S: Applied Logsitic Regression. 1989, New York: John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  31. Schlesselman JJ: Case-Control Studies. 1982, New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  32. Begg CB, Zhang ZF: Statistical analysis of molecular epidemiology studies employing case-series. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1994, 3: 173-175.Google Scholar
  33. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S: Confidence interval estimation of interaction. Epidemiology. 1992, 3: 452-456. 10.1097/00001648-199209000-00012.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Gustafson P, Ostman C, Sallsten G: Indoor levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in homes with or without wood burning for heating. Environ Sci Technol. 2008, 42: 5074-5080. 10.1021/es800304y.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Bonjour S, Adair-Rohani H, Wolf J, Bruce NG, Mehta S, Pruss-Ustun A, Lahiff M, Rehfuess EA, Mishra V, Smith KR: Solid fuel use for household cooking: country and regional estimates for 1980-2010. Environ Health Perspect. 2013, 121: 784-790. 10.1289/ehp.1205987.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Rogalsky DK, Mendola P, Metts TA, Martin W: Estimating the number of Low-income Americans exposed to household Air pollution from burning solid fuels. Environ Health Perspect. 2014, 122: 806-810.Google Scholar
  37. Naeher LP, Brauer M, Lipsett M, Zelikoff JT, Simpson CD, Koenig JQ, Smith KR: Woodsmoke health effects: a review. Inhal Toxicol. 2007, 19: 67-106.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Bhargava A, Khanna R, Bhargava S, Kumar S: Exposure risk to carcinogenic PAHs in indoor-air during biomass combustion whilst cooking in rural India. Atmos Environ. 2004, 38: 4761-4767. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.05.012.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Gullett BK, Touati A, Hays MD: PCDD/F, PCB, HxCBz, PAH, and PM emission factors for fireplace and woodstove combustion in the San Francisco Bay region. Environ Sci Technol. 2003, 37: 1758-1765. 10.1021/es026373c.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Rogge WF, Hildemann LM, Mazurek MA, Cass GR, Simoneit BRT: Sources of fine organic aerosol. 9. Pine, oak and synthetic log combustion in residential fireplaces. Environ Sci Technol. 1998, 32: 13-22. 10.1021/es960930b.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Nolan J, Pitzman L, Eagle B, Smith R, Houck JE: Dioxin/Furan Air Emissions, General Emissions, and Fuel Composition of Duraflame Firelogs and Douglas Fir Cordwood. 2006Google Scholar
  42. Watson JG, Fujita E, Chow JC, Zielinska B: Northern Front Range Air Quality Study Final Report. 1998, Desert Research Institute,http://www.dri.edu/images/stories/editors/eafeditor/Watsonetal1998NFRAQSFinal.pdf,Google Scholar
  43. McDonald JD, Zielinska B, Fujita EM, Sagebiel JC, Chow JC, Watson JG: Fine particle and gaseous emission rates from residential wood combustion. Environ Sci Technol. 2000, 34: 2080-2091. 10.1021/es9909632.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Li VS, Rosenthal S: Content and emission characteristics of Artificial Wax Firelogs. Omni Environmental Services for EPA Reg 5/Environment Canada. 2006Google Scholar
  45. BurnWise Consumers -Frequent Questions.http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/faqconsumer.html#whatarefireplaceinserts,
  46. Smoke Gets in Your Eyes Wood Stoves, Fireplaces and Chronic Disease.http://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/Mtgs/2010/20101005-PR-20091005-PS-SmokeGetsInYourEyes.pdf,
  47. Traynor GW, Apte MG, Carruthers AR, Dillworth JF, Grimsrud DT, Gundel LA: Indoor air pollution due to emissions from wood-burning stoves. Environ Sci Technol. 1987, 21: 691-697. 10.1021/es00161a010.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Alfheim I, Ramdahl T: Contribution of wood combustion to indoor air pollution as measured by mutagenicity in Salmonella and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentration. Environ Mutagen. 1984, 6: 121-130. 10.1002/em.2860060203.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Gaudet MM, Gapstur SM, Sun J, Diver WR, Hannan LM, Thun MJ: Active smoking and breast cancer risk: original cohort data and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013, 105: 515-525. 10.1093/jnci/djt023.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Shook SR: Profile of the pacific coast manufactured firelog market. For Prod J. 1999, 49: 35-44.Google Scholar
  51. IOM (Institute of Medicine): Breast Cancer and the Environment: a Life Course Approach. 2012Google Scholar
  52. Mordukhovich I, Rossner P, Terry MB, Santella R, Zhang YJ, Hibshoosh H, Memeo L, Mansukhani M, Long CM, Garbowski G, Agrawal M, Gaudet MM, Steck SE, Sagiv SK, Eng SM, Teitelbaum SL, Neugut AI, Conway-Dorsey K, Gammon MD: Associations between polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-related exposures and p53 mutations in breast tumors. Environ Health Perspect. 2010, 118: 511-518.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Conway K, Edmiston SN, Cui L, Drouin SS, Pang J, He M, Tse CK, Geradts J, Dressler L, Liu ET, Millikan R, Newman B: Prevalence and spectrum of p53 mutations associated with smoking in breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2002, 62: 1987-1995.Google Scholar
  54. Van Emburgh BO, Hu JJ, Levine EA, Mosley LJ, Case LD, Lin HY, Knight SN, Perrier ND, Rubin P, Sherrill GB, Shaw CS, Carey LA, Sawyer LR, Allen GO, Milikowski C, Willingham MC, Miller MS: Polymorphisms in drug metabolism genes, smoking, and p53 mutations in breast cancer. Mol Carcinog. 2008, 47: 88-99. 10.1002/mc.20365.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Helzlsouer KJ, Selmin O, Huang HY, Strickland PT, Hoffman S, Alberg AJ, Watson M, Comstock GW, Bell D: Association between glutathione S-transferase M1, P1, and T1 genetic polymorphisms and development of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998, 90: 512-518. 10.1093/jnci/90.7.512.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. van der Hel OL, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, van Gils CH, Roest M, Slothouber B, Grobbee DE, Peeters PH: Cumulative genetic defects in carcinogen metabolism may increase breast cancer risk (The Netherlands). Cancer Causes Control. 2005, 16: 675-681. 10.1007/s10552-005-1227-0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate. Please note that comments may be removed without notice if they are flagged by another user or do not comply with our community guidelines.

Advertisement