Table 1.

Epidemiological studies dealing with the exposure to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter below $2.5\mathrm{\mu }\mathrm{m}$ (${\mathrm{PM}}_{2.5}$) and the risk of breast cancer.

Study						Participants			Exposure
Name	Reference	Design	Country	Enrollment	Follow-up period (y)	Mean age (y)	Cases	Overall	Assessment method	Residential historyd	$\text{Mean}\pm \text{SD}$ (${\mathrm{\mu }\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{m}}^3$)
CEANSa	Andersen et al. (2017b)	Cohort	Sweden		1992–2002	9.5	59.8	226	5,997	LUR	No	$7.3\pm 1.3$
CECILE	Lemarchand et al. (2021)	Case–control	France	2005–2007	NC	55.3	1,165	2,436	DM	10 y	$13.6\pm 1.3$
CNBSS	Villeneuve et al. (2018)	Cohort	Canada	1980–1985	25	NA	6,427	89,247	Satellite	No	9.5
DCH	Andersen et al. (2017b)	Cohort	Denmark	1993–1997	15	57.7	1,054	15,835	LUR	No	$11.3\pm 0.8$
DNC	Andersen et al. (2017a)	Cohort	Denmark	1993 or 1999	16	52.9	1,145	22,877	CTM	3 y	19.7
EPIC-NLb	Andersen et al. (2017b)	Cohort	Netherlands	1993–1997	11.5	58.6	542	12,837	LUR	No	$16.8\pm 0.5$
EPIC-Oxford	Andersen et al. (2017b)	Cohort	United Kingdom	1993–2001	13.2	59.7	319	7,299	LUR	No	$9.6\pm 1.0$
EPIC-Turin	Andersen et al. (2017b)	Cohort	Italy	1993–1998	12.8	55.2	76	1,950	LUR	No	$30.2\pm 1.6$
HUBRO	Andersen et al. (2017b)	Cohort	Norway	2000–2001	8.6	57.2	68	1,931	LUR	No	$8.9\pm 1.4$
MEC	Cheng et al. (2020)	Cohort	United States	1993–1996	14.7	NA	2,726	57,589	AQMS	15 y	NA
NHSII	Hart et al. (2016)	Cohort	United States	1989	19	47	3,416	115,921	AQMS	4 y	NA
ONPHEC	Bai et al. (2020)	Cohortc	Canada	2001–2015	15	53.7	91,146	2,564,340	Satellitec	3 y	10.8
Sister Study	White et al. (2019a)	Cohort	United States	2003–2009	8.4	55.6	2,820	47,433	LUR	No	NA
VHM&PP	Andersen et al. (2017b)	Cohort	Austria	1985–2005	16.4	65.1	628	13,387	LUR	No	$13.6\pm 1.2$
Overall	—	—	—	—	—	—	111,758	2,959,079	—	—	10.9 e

Note: AQMS, air quality monitoring system (permanent monitoring stations); CEANS, Cardiovascular Effects of Air pollution and Noise in Stockholm; CECILE, Breast cancer: epidemiological study on the environment in Côte d’Or and Ille-et-Vilaine; CNBSS, Canadian National Breast Screening Study; CTM, chemistry-transport model; DCH, Diet, Cancer and Health; DM, dispersion model; DNC, Danish Nurse Cohort; EPIC, European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition; HUBRO, Oslo Health Study; LUR, land-use regression; MEC, Multiethnic Cohort; NA, not available; NC, not concerned; NHSII, Nurses’ Health Study II cohort; ONPHEC, Ontario Population Health and Environment Cohort; SD, standard deviation; VHM&PP, Vorarlberg Health Monitoring and Prevention Program

^aPool of four cohorts from Stockholm analyzed as one: Swedish National Study on Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K), Stockholm Screening Across the Lifespan Twin study and TwinGene (SALT/TwinGene), Stockholm 60 Years Old/IMPROVE study (60YO/IMPROVE), and Stockholm Diabetes Prevention Program (SDPP).

^bPool of two Dutch cohorts analyzed as one: EPIC-Monitoring Project on Risk Factors and Chronic Diseases in Netherlands (EPIC-MORGEN) and EPIC-Prospect.

^cCohort based on health insurance database; exposure of participants was assessed at the postal code scale.

^dI.e., exposure assessment based on participants’ residential history (with the number of years considered) or without collection of changes in home addresses (“No”).

^eMean of air pollution exposure weighted by the number of participants in each study, when available.