BACKGROUND: Reduced rank regression (RRR) has been used to identify dietary patterns that predict variation in a selected risk factor and may be useful in describing dietary exposures associated with glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL). OBJECTIVE: To estimate breast cancer risk, we compared the relative utility of RRR-derived dietary patterns predictive of GI and GL with those of simple GI and GL. DESIGN: RRR was used to identify dietary patterns predicting GI and GL from food-frequency data obtained in the Western New York Exposure and Breast Cancer Study (1166 cases, 2105 controls). Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were estimated with unconditional logistic regression, adjusted for energy and nondietary breast cancer risk factors. RESULTS: Sweets, refined grains, and salty snacks explained 34% of the variance in GI and 68% of the variance in GL. In general, breast cancer risks were not associated with GI, GL, or dietary pattern score. However, we observed a significant reduction in postmenopausal breast cancer risk with GI and GL pattern scores combined (OR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.50, 0.93), especially in women with a body mass index (in kg/m(2)) >or=25 (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.44, 0.93). Conversely, in premenopausal women, increased risks were associated with high GL pattern scores only for women with a body mass index >or=25 (OR: 2.21; 95% CI: 1.04, 4.69). CONCLUSIONS: Although RRR may be useful in studies of diet and disease, our results suggest that RRR dietary patterns based on GI and GL provide similar information regarding the association between breast cancer, GI, and GL.
BACKGROUND: Reduced rank regression (RRR) has been used to identify dietary patterns that predict variation in a selected risk factor and may be useful in describing dietary exposures associated with glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL). OBJECTIVE: To estimate breast cancer risk, we compared the relative utility of RRR-derived dietary patterns predictive of GI and GL with those of simple GI and GL. DESIGN: RRR was used to identify dietary patterns predicting GI and GL from food-frequency data obtained in the Western New York Exposure and Breast Cancer Study (1166 cases, 2105 controls). Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were estimated with unconditional logistic regression, adjusted for energy and nondietary breast cancer risk factors. RESULTS: Sweets, refined grains, and salty snacks explained 34% of the variance in GI and 68% of the variance in GL. In general, breast cancer risks were not associated with GI, GL, or dietary pattern score. However, we observed a significant reduction in postmenopausal breast cancer risk with GI and GL pattern scores combined (OR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.50, 0.93), especially in women with a body mass index (in kg/m(2)) >or=25 (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.44, 0.93). Conversely, in premenopausal women, increased risks were associated with high GL pattern scores only for women with a body mass index >or=25 (OR: 2.21; 95% CI: 1.04, 4.69). CONCLUSIONS: Although RRR may be useful in studies of diet and disease, our results suggest that RRR dietary patterns based on GI and GL provide similar information regarding the association between breast cancer, GI, and GL.
Authors: Matthias B Schulze; Kurt Hoffmann; JoAnn E Manson; Walter C Willett; James B Meigs; Cornelia Weikert; Christin Heidemann; Graham A Colditz; Frank B Hu Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Stephanie A Navarro Silvera; Meera Jain; Geoffrey R Howe; Anthony B Miller; Thomas E Rohan Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2005-04-20 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Eunyoung Cho; Donna Spiegelman; David J Hunter; Wendy Y Chen; Graham A Colditz; Walter C Willett Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: D J Jenkins; T M Wolever; R H Taylor; H Barker; H Fielden; J M Baldwin; A C Bowling; H C Newman; A L Jenkins; D V Goff Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 1981-03 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Carolyn R Jonas; Marjorie L McCullough; Lauren R Teras; Kimberly A Walker-Thurmond; Michael J Thun; Eugenia E Calle Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Michelle A Mendez; Maria Isabel Covas; Jaume Marrugat; Joan Vila; Helmut Schröder Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2008-12-03 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Teresa T Fung; Matthias B Schulze; Frank B Hu; Susan E Hankinson; Michelle D Holmes Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2012-01-06 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Meng-Hua Tao; Joel B Mason; Catalin Marian; Susan E McCann; Mary E Platek; Amy Millen; Christine Ambrosone; Stephen B Edge; Shiva S Krishnan; Maurizio Trevisan; Peter G Shields; Jo L Freudenheim Journal: Nutr Cancer Date: 2011-09-14 Impact factor: 2.900
Authors: Kelly A Hirko; Walter C Willett; Susan E Hankinson; Bernard A Rosner; Andrew H Beck; Rulla M Tamimi; A Heather Eliassen Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Andrea Y Arikawa; Holly E Jakits; Andrew Flood; William Thomas; Myron Gross; Kathryn H Schmitz; Mindy S Kurzer Journal: Nutr Res Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: James M Shikany; David T Redden; Marian L Neuhouser; Rowan T Chlebowski; Thomas E Rohan; Michael S Simon; Simin Liu; Dorothy S Lane; Lesley Tinker Journal: Nutr Cancer Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 2.900
Authors: Patrick T Bradshaw; Sharon K Sagiv; Geoffrey C Kabat; Jessie A Satia; Julie A Britton; Susan L Teitelbaum; Alfred I Neugut; Marilie D Gammon Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2009-04-23 Impact factor: 2.506