Research Results
Beta Version
Use the search bar below to find studies, or apply one or more filters to narrow your results. See our list of keywords to guide your search.
Search by keyword
Select
Select
- All Risk Factors
- Air Pollution
- Alcohol
- Antimicrobials
- Artificial sweeteners
- Bisphenols
- Body Weight
- Breast Density
- Chemical Mixtures
- Chemicals in products
- Cleaning Products
- Diet
- Exercise
- Family History
- Furniture & Electronics
- Genetics
- Gut Health
- Hair Dye
- Hormones
- Inflammation
- Job
- Light at night
- Metals
- Neighborhood
- Night Shift Work
- Noise
- Non-stick Pans & Waterproof Gear
- Oral Contraceptives
- PAHs
- Parabens
- PCBs
- Personal Care Products
- Pesticides
- PFAS
- Pharmaceuticals
- Place-based
- Plastic
- Pregnancy & Breastfeeding
- Processed Food
- Puberty Age
- Race/Ethnicity
- Radiation
- Red meat
- Scented Products & Soft Plastic
- Sleeping Patterns
- Soda
- Stress
- Sugar
- Sunscreen
- Tobacco
- Vitamin D
Select
Select
Select
Select
Select the Chemical Agents
- All Chemical Agents
- 1,1,2,2-TCA
- 1,3-Butadiene
- Acrolein
- Aldrin
- Alkylphenols
- Antimicrobials
- Antimicrobials: QACs, Triclosan, Triclocarban
- Aromatic Amines
- Arsenic
- Artificial Sweeteners
- Atrazine
- Benzene
- Bisphenols
- Cadmium
- Chlordane
- Chlorpyrifos
- DDT
- Dibutyl Phthalate
- Dichlorvos
- Dieldrin
- Dioxins
- ell/
- Ethanol (alcohol)
- Ethyl Benzene
- Ethylene Oxide
- Flame Retardants
- Food
- Formaldehyde
- Glyphosate
- Heptachlor
- Hormones
- Insulin
- Lead
- Light at Night
- Mercury
- Metals
- Methoxyclor
- Naphthalene
- Night Shift Work
- Nitrogen Dioxide
- Noise
- Oral Contraceptives
- Organochlorine Pesticides
- Organophosphate Pesticides
- Ozone
- PAHs
- Parabens
- Particulate Matter
- PCBs
- Pesticides
- PFAS
- Phenols
- Phthalates
- Processed Food
- PVC
- Radiation: Ionizing
- Radiation: Non-Ionizing
- Soda
- Stress
- Sugar
- Tobacco
- Toluene
- Trichloroethylene
- Triclosan
- Ultraviolet Radiation
- UV Filters
- Vinyl Chloride
Select the Study Tags
Sort By
- Relevance
- Title (A to Z)
- Title (Z to A)
- Publication Year (Ascending)
- Publication Year (Descending)
- Authors (A to Z)
- Authors (Z to A)
2025
Saudi Med J
A systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 studies including 92,555 women found no evidence that hormonal fertility medications increase breast cancer risk, with pooled risk ratio analysis showing no association (RR=1.00, 95% CI: 0.97-1.02) and hazard ratio analysis initially suggesting a protective effect that became non-significant after accounting for study heterogeneity. The analysis revealed low heterogeneity in risk ratio studies but substantial heterogeneity in hazard ratio studies, which the authors attributed to methodological differences between studies rather than true variation in effects. These findings provide reassuring evidence for women considering or undergoing fertility treatment, though the authors caution that results should be interpreted carefully given the study heterogeneity and note that longer-term follow-up studies with standardized methodologies are needed to definitively establish the safety profile of hormonal fertility medications with respect to breast cancer risk, particularly for specific medication types, dosages, and treatment durations.
2022
Front Endocrinol
A meta-analysis of 8 studies (5 cohort and 3 case-control studies) examined whether fertility treatments increase breast cancer risk in genetically susceptible women, including those with a family history of breast cancer or BRCA mutations. The analysis found no significant increase in breast cancer risk associated with fertility treatments in genetically susceptible women overall (OR 1.18), women with a family history of breast cancer (OR 1.35), or BRCA mutation carriers (OR 1.02), with similarly reassuring results across subgroups including BRCA1 carriers, BRCA2 carriers, and women treated with specific fertility medications like in vitro fertilization, clomiphene citrate, or gonadotropins. This first meta-analysis on this topic provides reassuring evidence that fertility treatments do not significantly increase breast cancer risk even in women with hereditary susceptibility, though the authors note that larger prospective studies with more detailed information are needed to fully understand potential risks. Future research should examine whether risks vary by breast cancer subtype, explore the genetic mechanisms underlying hormone-related breast cancer, and investigate the relationship between BRCA mutations and hormone receptor-positive breast cancer specifically.