Sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) have become a cause of concern because of their growing consumption levels across age groups and associated chronic diseases such as diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular diseases and cancers. The aim of this review was to provide a detailed profile of the SSBs trends and associated health risk, with special focus on its role in breast cancer development. A review of current literature has depicted increased in-takes of SSBs across the globe with servings ranging from 3 to 11 per day in different countries, while children, adolescents and young adults report the highest intake levels. These increased intakes further contribute to different metabolic diseases via increased body adiposity, blood glucose and insulin levels, and increased post-menopausal estrogen levels, all of which contribute to chronic diseases, including cancers. Nutrition interventions including ones that target SSBs reduction seem to have a positive impact on reducing the development of these non-communicable diseases and are also associated with better prognosis and survival chances in cancer patients. However, the implementation of SSBs taxation and mass awareness campaign interventions remains poor due to lack of policy development and regulation for these beverages. The control of SSBs intake across the world requires rigorous research to construct efficient and practical policies to reduce the accessibility and marketing of SSBs while simultaneously increasing awareness in the public regarding the health risks of these beverages. To achieve this, a coordinated approach involving different public and private sectors is needed.

Background: The variation in breast cancer incidence rates across different regions may reflect disparities in breast cancer screening (BCS) practices. Understanding the factors associated with these screening behaviors is crucial for identifying modifiable elements amenable to intervention. This systematic review aims to identify common factors influencing BCS behaviors among women globally. Methods: Relevant papers were sourced from PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar. The included studies were published in English in peer-reviewed journals from January 2000 to March 2023 and investigated factors associated with BCS behaviors. Results: From an initial pool of 625 articles, 34 studies (comprising 29 observational and 5 qualitative studies) with 36,043 participants were included. Factors influencing BCS behaviors were categorized into nine groups: socio-demographic factors, health status history, knowledge, perceptions, cultural factors, cues to action, motivation, self-efficacy, and social support. The quality appraisal scores of the studies ranged from average to high. Conclusions: This systematic review highlights factors pivotal for policy-making at various levels of breast cancer prevention and assists health promotion professionals in designing more effective interventions to enhance BCS practices among women.

Background: This scoping review aimed to identify and present the evidence describing key motivations for breast cancer screening among women aged ≥ 75 years. Few of the internationally available guidelines recommend continued biennial screening for this age group. Some suggest ongoing screening is unnecessary or should be determined on individual health status and life expectancy. Recent research has shown that despite recommendations regarding screening, older women continue to hold positive attitudes to breast screening and participate when the opportunity is available. Methods: All original research articles that address motivation, intention and/or participation in screening for breast cancer among women aged ≥ 75 years were considered for inclusion. These included articles reporting on women who use public and private breast cancer screening services and those who do not use screening services (i.e., non-screeners). The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews was used to guide this review. A comprehensive search strategy was developed with the assistance of a specialist librarian to access selected databases including: the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline, Web of Science and PsychInfo. The review was restricted to original research studies published since 2009, available in English and focusing on high-income countries (as defined by the World Bank). Title and abstract screening, followed by an assessment of full-text studies against the inclusion criteria was completed by at least two reviewers. Data relating to key motivations, screening intention and behaviour were extracted, and a thematic analysis of study findings undertaken. Results: A total of fourteen (14) studies were included in the review. Thematic analysis resulted in identification of three themes from included studies highlighting that decisions about screening were influenced by: knowledge of the benefits and harms of screening and their relationship to age; underlying attitudes to the importance of cancer screening in women's lives; and use of decision aids to improve knowledge and guide decision-making. Conclusion: The results of this review provide a comprehensive overview of current knowledge regarding the motivations and screening behaviour of older women about breast cancer screening which may inform policy development.

Background: Endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs) are ubiquitous substances that are found in our everyday lives, including pesticides, plasticizers, pharmaceutical agents, personal care products, and also in food products and food packaging. Increasing epidemiological evidence suggest that EDCs may affect the development or progression of breast cancer and consequently lead to lifelong harmful health consequences, especially when exposure occurs during early life in humans. Yet so far no appraisal of the available evidence has been conducted on this topic. Objective: To systematically review all the available epidemiological studies about the association of the levels of environmental exposures of EDCs with breast cancer risk. Methods: The search was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. We retrieved articles from PubMed (MEDLINE) until 10 March 2021. The key words used in this research were: "Endocrine disruptor(s)" OR "Endocrine disrupting chemical(s)" OR any of the EDCs mentioned below AND "Breast cancer" to locate all relevant articles published. We included only cohort studies and case-control studies. All relevant articles were accessed in full text and were evaluated and summarized in tables. Results: We identified 131 studies that met the search criteria and were included in this systematic review. EDCs reviewed herein included pesticides (e.g. p,p'-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), p,p'-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE), atrazine, 2,3,7,8-tetrachloridibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD or dioxin)), synthetic chemicals (e.g. bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), parabens, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), contraceptive pills), phytoestrogens (e.g. genistein, resveratrol), and certain mycotoxins (e.g. zearalenone). Most studies assessed environmental EDCs exposure via biomarker measurements. Conclusion: We identified certain EDC exposures could potentially elevate the risk of breast cancer. As majority of EDCs are highly persistent in the environment and bio-accumulative, it is essential to assess the long-term impacts of EDC exposures, especially multi-generational and transgenerational. Also, since food is often a major route of exposure to EDCs, well-designed exposure assessments of potential EDCs in food and food packing are necessary and their potential link to breast cancer development need to be carefully evaluated for subsequent EDC policy making and regulations.

Purpose: This study aimed to review the association between antidepressive agent (AD) use and the incidence risk of breast cancer. Methods: CBM, WOS, Embase, PubMed and Cochrane Library were systematically searched in July 2019. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed through the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results: We included 19 studies from six countries or regions with relationships between breast cancer and ADs. Subgroup analysis showed no significant association in nested case–control or case–control studies; however, cohort studies revealed a significant association (odds ratio = 1.11; 95% CI: 1.04–1.17). Conclusions: This meta-analysis indicates that breast cancer was not associated with the use of ADs when considering all types of studies, but an association was observed if we considered cohort studies.