Limits...
Dietary fat and breast cancer risk revisited: a meta-analysis of the published literature.

Boyd NF, Stone J, Vogt KN, Connelly BS, Martin LJ, Minkin S - Br. J. Cancer (2003)

Bottom Line: Descriptive data from each study were extracted with an estimate of relative risk and its associated 95% confidence interval (CI), and were analysed using the random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird.Significant summary relative risks were also found for saturated fat (RR, 1.19; 95% CI: 1.06-1.35) and meat intake (RR, 1.17; 95% CI 1.06-1.29).Case-control and cohort studies gave similar results.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Division of Epidemiology and Statistics, Ontario Cancer Institute, 610 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1K9. boyd@uhnres.otoronto.ca

ABSTRACT
Animal experiments and human ecological studies suggest that dietary fat intake is associated with a risk of breast cancer, but individual-based studies have given contradictory results. We have carried out a meta-analysis of this association to include all papers published up to July 2003. Case-control and cohort studies that examined the association of dietary fat, or fat-containing foods, with risk of breast cancer were identified. A total of 45 risk estimates for total fat intake were obtained. Descriptive data from each study were extracted with an estimate of relative risk and its associated 95% confidence interval (CI), and were analysed using the random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird. The summary relative risk, comparing the highest and lowest levels of intake of total fat, was 1.13 (95% CI: 1.03-1.25). Cohort studies (N=14) had a summary relative risk of 1.11 (95% CI: 0.99-1.25) and case-control studies (N=31) had a relative risk of 1.14 (95% CI 0.99-1.32). Significant summary relative risks were also found for saturated fat (RR, 1.19; 95% CI: 1.06-1.35) and meat intake (RR, 1.17; 95% CI 1.06-1.29). Combined estimates of risk for total and saturated fat intake, and for meat intake, all indicate an association between higher intakes and an increased risk of breast cancer. Case-control and cohort studies gave similar results.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Relative risks for (A) meat (B) milk and (C) cheese intake and breast cancer risk. CIs are 95%. Closed diamond=relative risk adjusted for energy intake. Open diamond=relative risk unadjusted for energy intake. Grey diamond=summary relative risk results of the meta-analysis.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2394401&req=5

fig2: Relative risks for (A) meat (B) milk and (C) cheese intake and breast cancer risk. CIs are 95%. Closed diamond=relative risk adjusted for energy intake. Open diamond=relative risk unadjusted for energy intake. Grey diamond=summary relative risk results of the meta-analysis.

Mentions: The 37 studies that examined food consumption in relation to breast cancer risk, 25 case–control and 12 cohort in design, included a total of 20 571 cases and over 490 000 control or comparison subjects. The 37 studies contained 31 estimates of risk for meat, 16 for milk and 11 for cheese. There is some overlap, as 16 studies reported risk in relation to consumption of both nutrients and foods, and are therefore included in both Figures 1 and 2Figure 2


Dietary fat and breast cancer risk revisited: a meta-analysis of the published literature.

Boyd NF, Stone J, Vogt KN, Connelly BS, Martin LJ, Minkin S - Br. J. Cancer (2003)

Relative risks for (A) meat (B) milk and (C) cheese intake and breast cancer risk. CIs are 95%. Closed diamond=relative risk adjusted for energy intake. Open diamond=relative risk unadjusted for energy intake. Grey diamond=summary relative risk results of the meta-analysis.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2394401&req=5

fig2: Relative risks for (A) meat (B) milk and (C) cheese intake and breast cancer risk. CIs are 95%. Closed diamond=relative risk adjusted for energy intake. Open diamond=relative risk unadjusted for energy intake. Grey diamond=summary relative risk results of the meta-analysis.
Mentions: The 37 studies that examined food consumption in relation to breast cancer risk, 25 case–control and 12 cohort in design, included a total of 20 571 cases and over 490 000 control or comparison subjects. The 37 studies contained 31 estimates of risk for meat, 16 for milk and 11 for cheese. There is some overlap, as 16 studies reported risk in relation to consumption of both nutrients and foods, and are therefore included in both Figures 1 and 2Figure 2

Bottom Line: Descriptive data from each study were extracted with an estimate of relative risk and its associated 95% confidence interval (CI), and were analysed using the random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird.Significant summary relative risks were also found for saturated fat (RR, 1.19; 95% CI: 1.06-1.35) and meat intake (RR, 1.17; 95% CI 1.06-1.29).Case-control and cohort studies gave similar results.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Division of Epidemiology and Statistics, Ontario Cancer Institute, 610 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1K9. boyd@uhnres.otoronto.ca

ABSTRACT
Animal experiments and human ecological studies suggest that dietary fat intake is associated with a risk of breast cancer, but individual-based studies have given contradictory results. We have carried out a meta-analysis of this association to include all papers published up to July 2003. Case-control and cohort studies that examined the association of dietary fat, or fat-containing foods, with risk of breast cancer were identified. A total of 45 risk estimates for total fat intake were obtained. Descriptive data from each study were extracted with an estimate of relative risk and its associated 95% confidence interval (CI), and were analysed using the random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird. The summary relative risk, comparing the highest and lowest levels of intake of total fat, was 1.13 (95% CI: 1.03-1.25). Cohort studies (N=14) had a summary relative risk of 1.11 (95% CI: 0.99-1.25) and case-control studies (N=31) had a relative risk of 1.14 (95% CI 0.99-1.32). Significant summary relative risks were also found for saturated fat (RR, 1.19; 95% CI: 1.06-1.35) and meat intake (RR, 1.17; 95% CI 1.06-1.29). Combined estimates of risk for total and saturated fat intake, and for meat intake, all indicate an association between higher intakes and an increased risk of breast cancer. Case-control and cohort studies gave similar results.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus