Pesticides, household cleaners, and air fresheners are of interest in breast cancer research because many contain ingredients that are mammary gland carcinogens in animals 1 or endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs), including compounds that affect growth of estrogen-sensitive human breast cancer cells 2 or affect mammary gland development 3 . Mammary gland tumors have been observed in animal studies of pesticides such as dichlorvos, captafol, and sulfallate; methylene chloride (in some fabric cleaners); nitrobenzene (soaps, polishes); and perfluorinated compounds (stain-resistant, waterproof coatings) 1 4 5 . Phthalates, alkylphenols, parabens, triclosan, and polycyclic musks used as surfactants, solvents, preservatives, antimicrobials, and fragrances have shown weak estrogenic or anti-androgenic effects in both in vitro and in vivo tests 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . Pesticides identified as EDCs include dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane (DDT), chlordane, methoxychlor, atrazine, lindane (lice control), vinclozolin and benomyl (fungicides), and several current use insecticides such as cypermethin 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . When given early in life, atrazine, nonylphenol, perfluorinated compounds, and the plastics monomer bisphenol A influence rat mammary gland development in a way that may affect tumor susceptibility 14 15 16 17 18 . These chemicals are widely used and many have been detected in blood and urine from a representative sample of the US population; concentrations vary over several orders of magnitude 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 . In household air and dust and women's urine tested in the Cape Cod Breast Cancer and Environment Study, we detected an average of 26 EDCs per home, including 27 pesticides and a variety of estrogenic phenols from household cleaners 27 . Taken together, the laboratory studies of biological activity and evidence of widespread human exposure suggest that use of products containing mammary gland carcinogens or EDCs may contribute to breast cancer in humans.

No epidemiological studies we know of have reported on the relationship between cleaning product use and breast cancer, and previous breast cancer studies of pesticides have been largely limited to organochlorine compounds 28 . Organochlorine studies have been mostly null, but interpretation is limited because proxies of exposure were measured in blood taken years after the compounds were banned in the US, often in older women and after diagnosis 29 . In a study that avoids these limitations by using archived blood collected from young women in 1959 to 1967, Cohn et al. 30 reported five-fold higher breast cancer risk among women who had the highest residues of DDT and were exposed before they were 14 years old. In addition, the Long Island Breast Cancer Study found 30% higher breast cancer risk among women who reported the highest home pesticide use 31 . Self-reported product use, such as the Long Island measures, has the potential to represent exposure over many years to a wide range of compounds; although retrospective reports may be biased by differential reporting accuracy between cases and controls 32 .

To investigate the relationship between use of cleaning and pesticide products and risk of breast cancer, while considering possible recall bias, we conducted a case-control study of breast cancer and self-reported product use on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, in which we also measured beliefs about breast cancer causation, a possible source of recall bias. Cape Cod is a coastal peninsula where breast cancer incidence has been elevated. Annual female breast cancer incidence in 2002 - 2006 was 151.0 per 100,000 (95% CI 142.6 - 159.8) 33 . The pattern of higher incidence in Cape Cod towns than elsewhere in Massachusetts dates to the initiation of the state cancer registry in 1982 34 . In the Collaborative Breast Cancer Study, risk was elevated among Cape Cod women compared with other Massachusetts participants after controlling for breast cancer risk factors 35 . In the Cape Cod Breast Cancer and Environment Study case-control study, longer years of residence on Cape Cod was associated with higher risk after controlling for established breast cancer risk factors 36 .

Study participants were predominantly white (98%), 60-80 years of age (60%) with high school or higher education (94%); more cases (25%) than controls (19%) reported a family history of breast cancer. Characteristics of participants are shown in Table 1. Participants in this analysis of product use were demographically similar to characteristics previously reported for all cases and controls, except for being younger and more educated, due to exclusion of proxy interviews 37 .

Women with the highest combined cleaning product use had two-fold increased breast cancer risk compared to those with the lowest reported use. Use of air fresheners and products for mold and mildew control were associated with increased risk. To our knowledge, this is the first published report on cleaning product use and risk of breast cancer.

Some common ingredients of air fresheners and products for mold and mildew have been identified as EDCs or carcinogens, supporting the biological plausibility of the elevated odds ratios we observed 1 15 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 . EDCs such as synthetic musks and phthalates are commonly used in air fresheners 19 25 26 27 43 48 52 53 54 and antimicrobials, phthalates, and alkylphenolic surfactants are often in mold and mildew products 19 22 23 24 26 27 41 42 44 47 49 55 . In addition, air fresheners may contain: terpenes, which can react with background ozone to form formaldehyde, a human carcinogen 50 ; benzene and styrene 51 , which are animal mammary gland carcinogens 1 ; and other chemicals whose mechanisms of action are not understood 56 . Although exposure levels may be low and EDCs are typically less potent than endogenous hormones, limited knowledge of product formulations, exposure levels, and the biological activity and toxicity of chemical constituents alone and in combination make it difficult to assess risks associated with product use. Additionally, the products we assessed may be proxies for other products that we did not include, and mold/mildew products may be proxies for exposure to mycotoxins, some of which are EDCs 2 57 58 59 .

Our results do not corroborate the findings of a Long Island, NY, case-control study 31 . The Long Island study found increased breast cancer risk associated with self-reported overall pesticide use and use of lawn and garden pesticides, but we did not. Neither study found associations for nuisance pest control (roaches, ants, etc.). While we observed increased risk with frequent use of insect repellent, the Long Island study did not. Differences between the studies may be due to differences in pesticide practices in the two regions, greater statistical power in the Long Island study, or differences in the survey instruments. Phthalates and permethrins, which are in some insect repellents, have been identified as EDCs 10 13 46 60 .

Using interviews to assess product-related exposures, as we did in this study, has several advantages. It is inexpensive, noninvasive, and integrates exposures over many years and to frequently-occurring chemical mixtures. Currently available biological measures cannot achieve these important characteristics.

However, self-reported exposures are subject to multiple sources of error resulting in misclassification. Our questions were cognitively demanding in that they asked participants to report behaviors occurring months to years before. Responses failed to capture use by others, including residues from before the participant moved into the residence; exposures specific to critical periods such as adolescence; exposures outside the home; or all products that contain the chemicals of interest. Although we asked about the first and most recent years of pesticide use, we considered the quality of these data inadequate to evaluate effects of duration of use. Much of the error resulting from limitations in exposure measurement is likely nondifferential, biasing odds ratios toward the null.

Self-reports are also vulnerable to bias from differential recall between cases and controls. Women diagnosed with breast cancer may have searched their history for explanations, priming greater recall of product use than for controls. Werler 39 , among others, hypothesizes that this type of bias occurs when cases are aware of the study hypothesis, resulting in higher exposure reporting and, consequently, an elevated odds ratio. We empirically investigated this possibility by stratifying odds ratios by beliefs about breast cancer causes, and, consistent with Werler's hypothesis, we observed higher odds ratios for product use among women who believe chemicals and pollution contribute "a lot" to breast cancer than among others.

However, the family history odds ratios stratified by beliefs suggest another interpretation. The much higher family history odds ratios for women who said heredity contributes "a lot" is unlikely to be primarily due to recall bias, given that self-reporting of first degree family members with breast cancer is generally accurate 61 62 63 64 65 66 . Previous research indicates that over-reporting of first degree breast cancer family history is negligible 63 65 66 and that some under-reporting by controls in comparison with cases is likely to occur (and could bias odds ratios), but this effect is unlikely to be substantial 64 65 66 . More likely, our results are primarily driven by cases who formed their belief that heredity does not contribute "a lot" after their own diagnosis, based on their own lack of relatives with breast cancer. Our data support this idea: 36% of cases with no family history said heredity contributes "a lot" to breast cancer compared with 61% of cases who did have a family history (Table 7). In this situation, an odds ratio for women who do not think heredity contributes "a lot" over-represents cases with no family history, lowering the effect estimate. Thus, our results support Weiss's argument 40 that limiting estimates to a subgroup based on beliefs about disease causation may introduce error. Among the group who do not believe heredity contributes "a lot" to breast cancer, the odds ratio of 0.7 (95% CI: 0.5, 1.1) contrasts sharply with the pooled odds ratio of 2.1 (95% CI: 2.0, 2.2) for first degree family history of breast cancer from previous studies 67 . Generally, Weiss argues, effect estimates based on one belief or knowledge subgroup lack precision and may underestimate the true effect, since they are limited to smaller numbers and not representative of the study population 40 .

The divergent odds ratios in the stratified analysis for family history, which is not likely affected much by recall bias, warns us that the elevated odds ratios for cleaning products should not be too quickly dismissed as resulting from recall bias, since an alternative interpretation is that women's beliefs about disease causation result from their experience. Women who have been intensive product users and are then diagnosed with breast cancer may form the belief that chemicals influenced their risk, or they may be sensitized to news media stories about associations between chemicals and disease and form beliefs from this experience. Social scientists have studied the phenomenon of health beliefs formed from experience in a variety of settings, including the emergence of beliefs about environmental causation among breast cancer activists 68 .

Furthermore, the substantial underestimate of risk for family history among women who said heredity does not contribute "a lot" cautions us against limiting product use analyses to a non-belief subgroup as a strategy for dealing with possible recall bias. In addition, the findings of elevated risk for some cleaning products and not others lends evidence that recall bias may not account for elevated risks, even if it contributes in part, since bias would be expected to similarly influence reporting for all the products.

Studies that rely on questionnaire data can sometimes assess the validity of self-reported data against another metric, such as chemical concentrations in relevant exposure media. For example, Colt et al. 69 found significant associations between self-reports of type of pest treated and concentrations of specific pesticides in house dust. We collected air, dust, and urine measurements for 120 homes and their residents, but comparison of these data with self-reports was not conducted for several reasons. The number of homes is small, the one-time environmental measurements may not correspond well with product use over years, measurements capture sources other than home product use, and our self-reports cover past residences as well as the sampled homes. Our ambiguous self-report findings point to the value of thoughtfully incorporating environmental chemical measurements into prospective cohort studies such as the National Children's Study and the Sister Study.

Overall strengths of our study are the population-based design with case identification from the MCR, extensive interviews allowing evaluation of possible confounding by established and hypothesized breast cancer risk factors, and assessment of exposures that extend years before diagnosis and encompass chemicals in use during the past 30 years as well as the more-studied banned organochlorines. Limitations include loss of information due to deaths of women with less treatable cancers. Also, we lack a truly unexposed reference group, limiting contrast in levels of exposure. The self-reported product use exposures have potential for differential and nondifferential error. We did not have adequate numbers to separately evaluate effects in younger women, though some other studies suggest that environmental pollutants may have greater influence on premenopausal disease 28 .

To our knowledge, this is the first epidemiological study to suggest an association between cleaning product use, in particular air fresheners and products for mold and mildew control, and elevated breast cancer risk. This association is biologically plausible based on ingredients of these products, such as musks, antimicrobials, and phthalates 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 70 71 72 73 , and these reported exposures may be proxies for other un-assessed causative exposures. The modest association and possibility of recall bias make interpretation tentative. Given widespread exposure to cleaning products and scented products, follow-up study is important. Prospective designs, which avoid differential recall, can be helpful. The difficulty of obtaining human evidence on environmental chemicals and breast cancer in the short-term means we must rely more on laboratory evidence as a basis for public health policies to control exposure.

Laboratory studies have found that many chemicals in home-use pesticides and household cleaning products are mammary gland carcinogens in rodents, influence the proliferation of estrogen-sensitive cells, or affect mammary gland development following prenatal exposure. These findings suggest effects of pesticide and cleaning product use on breast cancer risk, so we undertook a case-control study of breast cancer and self-reported product use. We found increased breast cancer risk among women reporting the highest use of cleaning products and air fresheners. We found little association with home pesticide use. The self-reported product use measures we used have the advantage of integrating exposure over many years to chemical mixtures. However, these measures remain incomplete, likely resulting in nondifferential misclassification, and they are open to recall bias. Investigators sometimes try to avoid the influence of recall bias by limiting analyses to participants who do not subscribe to the study hypothesis, but our results show this may not be a good strategy, given that in our study it would obscure the well-established association between family history and breast cancer risk. In order to avoid possible recall bias, we recommend further study of cleaning products and breast cancer using prospective self-reports and measurements in environmental and biological media.

CI: confidence interval; CMS: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; EDCs: endocrine-disrupting compounds; OR: odds ratio; MCR: Massachusetts Cancer Registry; PCE: tetrachloroethylene; Ref: reference; Adj OR: adjusted odds ratio; NY: New York; US: United States.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

ARZ conducted the statistical analyses and led drafting of the manuscript. AA designed and oversaw the PCE Study; contributed to the design, data collection, and epidemiological analysis of the Cape Cod Study; and collaborated on editorial issues. RAR contributed to the design, data collection, and analysis of the Cape Cod Study, particularly with respect to the toxicologic characteristics of exposures, and collaborated in drafting the manuscript. JGB led the design, implementation, and analysis of the Cape Cod Study and collaborated in drafting the manuscript; she conceptualized the comparative analysis of product use and family history odds ratios stratified by beliefs as a strategy for understanding possible response bias. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.