4.3 Article

Intake of Energy-Dense Foods, Fast Foods, Sugary Drinks, and Breast Cancer Risk in African American and European American Women

期刊

NUTRITION AND CANCER-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
卷 66, 期 7, 页码 1187-1199

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01635581.2014.951737

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [P01 CA151135, R01 CA100598, K22 CA138563, P30CA072720, N01PC-2010-00027]
  2. U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command [DAMD-17-01-1-0334]
  3. Breast Cancer Research Foundation
  4. National Program of Cancer Registries of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [1US58DP003931-01]
  5. State of New Jersey

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Limiting energy-dense foods, fast foods, and sugary drinks that promote weight gain is a cancer prevention recommendation, but no studies have evaluated intake in relation to breast cancer risk in African American (AA) women. In a case-control study with 1692 AA women (803 cases and 889 controls) and 1456 European American (EA) women (755 cases and 701 controls), odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for risk were computed, stratifying for menopausal and estrogen receptor (ER) status. Among postmenopausal EA women, breast cancer risk was associated with frequent consumption of energy-dense foods (OR = 2.95; 95% CI: 1.66-5.22), fast foods (OR = 2.35; 95% CI: 1.38-4.00), and sugary drinks (OR = 2.05; 95% CI: 1.13-3.70). Elevated risk of ER+ tumors in EA women was associated with energy-dense (OR = 1.75; 95% CI: 1.14-2.69) and fast foods (OR = 1.84; 95% CI: 1.22-2.77). Among AA women, frequent fast food consumption was related to premenopausal breast cancer risk (OR = 1.97; 95% CI: 1.13-3.43), and with ER+ tumors. Energy adjustment attenuated risk estimates in AA women, while strengthening them among EA women. Frequent consumption of energy-dense and fast foods that have poor nutritive value appeared to increase breast cancer risk in AA and EA women, with differences by menopausal status and ER status.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据