4.7 Article

Dietary patterns and breast cancer risk in women participating in the Black Women's Health Study

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 90, 期 3, 页码 621-628

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.27666

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [CA58420]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: No studies have examined dietary patterns and breast cancer risk in a large cohort of African American women. Objective: We investigated the association between dietary patterns and breast cancer risk in the Black Women's Health Study. Design: This is a prospective cohort study of 50,778 participants followed biennially from 1995 through 2007. During 443,742 person-years of follow-up, 1094 incident cases of breast cancer were identified. Factor analysis was used to derive food patterns based on 69 food variables. We used Cox regression models to obtain incident rate ratios (IRRs) for breast cancer in relation to quintiles of each of the 2 dietary patterns, with adjustment for other breast cancer risk factors. Results: Through factor analysis, we identified 2 dietary patterns: Western (refined grains, processed meat, and sweets) and prudent (whole grains, vegetables, fruit, and fish). The prudent diet was weakly associated with lower breast cancer risk overall; P for trend = 0.06. In analyses stratified by body mass index (BMI; in kg/m(2)), the prudent dietary pattern was associated with a significantly lower risk of breast cancer in women with a BMI <25 (IRR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.43, 0.93; P for trend = 0.01). The prudent dietary pattern was also associated with a significantly lower risk of breast cancer in premenopausal women (IRR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.52, 0.96; P for trend = 0.01), and we found a significant inverse association for the prudent dietary pattern and estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer (IRR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.28, 0.94; P for trend <0.01). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the prudent dietary pattern may protect against breast cancer in some black women. Am J Clin Nutr 2009;90:621-8.

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

4.7
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