. 2021 May 26;129(5):057012. doi: 10.1289/EHP8419

Table 3.

Epidemiological studies dealing with the exposure to nitrogen dioxide ( ${NO}_{2}$ ) and the incidence of breast cancer.

Study						Participants			Exposure
Name	Reference	Design	Country	Enrollment	Follow-up period (y)	Mean age (y)	Cases	Overall	Assessment method	Residential history^d	$Mean \pm SD$ ( ${μ g / m}^{3}$ )
AOK PLUS	Datzmann et al. (2018)	Cohort^c	Germany	2007–2014	5	68.8	9,577	1,021,032	LUR^c	No	20.4
CCSPBCM1	Crouse et al. (2010)	Case–control	Canada	1996–997	NC	NA	383	799	LUR	No	23.9^e
CCSPBCM2	Goldberg et al. (2017)	Case–control	Canada	2008–2011	NC	61.7	681	1,277	LUR	No	$22.7 \pm 5.1$ ^e
CEANS^a	Andersen et al. (2017b)	Cohort	Sweden	1992–2002	9.5	59.8	226	5,997	LUR	No	$11.8 \pm 5.0$
CECILE	Lemarchand et al. (2021)	Case–control	France	2005–2007	NC	55.3	1,165	2,436	DM	10 y	$17.0 \pm 7.0$
CNBSS	Goldberg et al. (2019)	Cohort	Canada	1980–1985	25	NA	6,503	126,599	LUR	No	$28.7 \pm 12.0$ ^e
DCH	Andersen et al. (2017b)	Cohort	Denmark	1993–1997	15	57.7	1,054	15,835	LUR	No	$16.5 \pm 7.0$
DNC	Andersen et al. (2017a)	Cohort	Denmark	1993 or 1999	16	52.9	1,145	22,877	CTM	3 y	12.5
EPIC-E3N	Andersen et al. (2017b)	Cohort	France	1993–1996	12.8	57.2	267	5,319	LUR	No
EPIC-NL^b	Andersen et al. (2017b)	Cohort	Netherlands	1993–1997	11.5	58.6	542	12,837	LUR	No	$26.3 \pm 5.0$
EPIC-Oxford	Andersen et al. (2017b)	Cohort	United Kingdom	1993–2001	13.2	59.7	319	7,299	LUR	No	$22.9 \pm 7.0$
EPIC-San Sebastian	Andersen et al. (2017b)	Cohort	Spain	1992–1995	12.3	55.3	57	1,776	LUR	No	$24.1 \pm 6.7$
EPIC-Turin	Andersen et al. (2017b)	Cohort	Italy	1993–1998	12.8	55.2	76	1,950	LUR	No	$53.0 \pm 10.3$
EPIC-Umeå	Andersen et al. (2017b)	Cohort	Sweden	1992–1996	13.5	54.4	175	3,762	LUR	No	$5.4 \pm 2.5$
EPIC-Varese	Andersen et al. (2017b)	Cohort	Italy	1993–1997	11.0	56.6	201	4,727	LUR	No	$44.2 \pm 17.4$
HUBRO	Andersen et al. (2017b)	Cohort	Norway	2000–2001	8.6	57.2	68	1,931	LUR	No	$19.6 \pm 7.2$
MEC	Cheng et al. (2020)	Cohort	United States	1993–1996	14.7	NA	2,590	57,589	LUR	15 y	NA
NECSS	Hystad et al. (2015)	Case–control	Canada	1994–1997	NC	57.2	1,569	3,193	LUR	18 y	22.6^e
ONPHEC	Bai et al. (2020)	Cohort^c	Canada	2001–2015	15	53.7	91,146	2,564,340	LUR^c	3 y	33.7^e
Sister Study	White et al. (2019a)	Cohort	United States	2003–2009	8.4	55.6	2,817	47,433	LUR	No	NA
VHM&PP	Andersen et al. (2017b)	Cohort	Austria	1985–2005	16.4	65.1	628	13,387	LUR	No	$20.4 \pm 5.5$
Overall	—	—	—	—	—	—	121,189	3,922,395	—	—	29.6^f

Note: AOK PLUS, Statutory health insurance database in Saxony; CCSPBCM1, Case–control study for postmenopausal breast cancer in Montreal 1; CCSPBCM2, Case–control study for postmenopausal breast cancer in Montreal 2; 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; NECSS, National Enhanced Cancer Surveillance System; ONPHEC, Ontario Population Health and Environment Cohort; SD, standard deviation; VHM&PP, Vorarlberg Health Monitoring and Prevention Program.

^{^a}

Pool 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).

^{^b}

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

^{^c}

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

^{^d}

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

^{^e}

${NO}_{2}$ levels in ppb were converted in micrograms per cubic meter using the ratio: $1 ppb = 1.88 {μ g / m}^{3}$ .

^{^f}

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