4.3 Article

Dietary patterns and breast cancer risk among Chinese women

期刊

CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 115-124

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10552-010-9681-8

关键词

Dietary pattern; Breast cancer; Factor analysis; Food frequency questionnaire

资金

  1. Centre of Research and Promotion of Women's Health of the School of Public Health and Primary Care of the Chinese University of Hong Kong

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study aimed to examine the relationship between dietary patterns and breast cancer risk among Chinese women. Four hundred and thirty-eight cases with histologically confirmed primary breast cancer and 438 controls were consecutively recruited. Cases were frequency matched to controls on 5-year age group and rural-urban residence. A validated food frequency questionnaire was used to assess dietary intake by face-to-face interviews. Dietary patterns were identified by factor analysis. Multivariate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using unconditional logistic regression adjusted for various potential confounders. Two diet patterns were identified: vegetable-fruit-soy-milk-poultry-fish pattern and refined grain-meat-pickle pattern. After adjustment for confounders, a 74% decreased risk was observed among women in the highest quartile of the vegetable-fruit-soy-milk-poultry-fish dietary pattern relative to the lowest quartile (OR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.17-0.42). The refined grain-meat-pickle pattern was positively associated with breast cancer risk (OR = 2.58, 95% CI = 1.53, 4.34). Women with a high intake of the vegetable-fruit-soy-milk-poultry-fish pattern and a low intake of the refined grain-meat-pickle pattern showed a decreased risk of breast cancer (adjusted OR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.17-0.41). These results indicated that a diet characterized by a high consumption of vegetable/fruit/soy/milk/poultry/fish and a low consumption of refined grain/red meat/pickle is associated with a lower risk of breast cancer in Chinese women.

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