PURPOSE: Research on the role of red meat and poultry consumption in breast carcinogenesis is inconclusive, but the evidence in African-American (AA) women is lacking. The association between consuming meat and breast cancer risk was examined in the Women's Circle of Health Study involving 803 AA cases, 889 AA controls, 755 Caucasian cases, and 701 Caucasian controls. METHODS: Dietary information was collected using a Food Frequency Questionnaire. Odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were obtained from logistic regression models adjusting for potential covariates. RESULTS: Comparing the fourth versus the first quartiles, among Caucasian women, processed meat (OR = 1.48; 95 % CI 1.07-2.04), unprocessed red meat (OR = 1.40; 95 % CI 1.01-1.94), and poultry intakes (OR = 1.42; 95 % CI 1.01-1.99) increased breast cancer risk. Risk associated with poultry intake was more dominant in premenopausal women (OR = 2.33; 95 % CI 1.44-3.77) and for women with ER- tumors (OR = 2.55; 95 % CI 1.29-5.03) in the Caucasian group. Associations in AA women were mostly null except for a significant increased risk trend with processed meat consumption for ER+ tumors (OR = 1.36; 95 % CI 0.94-1.97, p trend = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, associations between breast cancer risk and consumption of red meat and poultry were of different magnitude in AA and Caucasian women, with further differences noted by menopausal and hormone receptor status in Caucasian women. This is the first study to examine racial differences in meat and breast cancer risk and represents some of the first evidence in AA women.
PURPOSE: Research on the role of red meat and poultry consumption in breast carcinogenesis is inconclusive, but the evidence in African-American (AA) women is lacking. The association between consuming meat and breast cancer risk was examined in the Women's Circle of Health Study involving 803 AA cases, 889 AA controls, 755 Caucasian cases, and 701 Caucasian controls. METHODS: Dietary information was collected using a Food Frequency Questionnaire. Odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were obtained from logistic regression models adjusting for potential covariates. RESULTS: Comparing the fourth versus the first quartiles, among Caucasian women, processed meat (OR = 1.48; 95 % CI 1.07-2.04), unprocessed red meat (OR = 1.40; 95 % CI 1.01-1.94), and poultry intakes (OR = 1.42; 95 % CI 1.01-1.99) increased breast cancer risk. Risk associated with poultry intake was more dominant in premenopausal women (OR = 2.33; 95 % CI 1.44-3.77) and for women with ER- tumors (OR = 2.55; 95 % CI 1.29-5.03) in the Caucasian group. Associations in AA women were mostly null except for a significant increased risk trend with processed meat consumption for ER+ tumors (OR = 1.36; 95 % CI 0.94-1.97, p trend = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, associations between breast cancer risk and consumption of red meat and poultry were of different magnitude in AA and Caucasian women, with further differences noted by menopausal and hormone receptor status in Caucasian women. This is the first study to examine racial differences in meat and breast cancer risk and represents some of the first evidence in AA women.
Authors: Eunyoung Cho; Wendy Y Chen; David J Hunter; Meir J Stampfer; Graham A Colditz; Susan E Hankinson; Walter C Willett Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2006-11-13
Authors: F G K Vieira; P F Di Pietro; B C B Boaventura; C Ambrosi; G Rockenbach; Ma A Fausto; C G Crippa; E L Da Silva Journal: Nutr Hosp Date: 2011 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.057
Authors: Eleni Linos; Walter C Willett; Eunyoung Cho; Graham Colditz; Lindsay A Frazier Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-07-31 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: W Zheng; D R Gustafson; R Sinha; J R Cerhan; D Moore; C P Hong; K E Anderson; L H Kushi; T A Sellers; A R Folsom Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1998-11-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Christine B Ambrosone; Gregory L Ciupak; Elisa V Bandera; Lina Jandorf; Dana H Bovbjerg; Gary Zirpoli; Karen Pawlish; James Godbold; Helena Furberg; Anne Fatone; Heiddis Valdimarsdottir; Song Yao; Yulin Li; Helena Hwang; Warren Davis; Michelle Roberts; Lara Sucheston; Kitaw Demissie; Kandace L Amend; Paul Tartter; James Reilly; Benjamin W Pace; Thomas Rohan; Joseph Sparano; George Raptis; Maria Castaldi; Alison Estabrook; Sheldon Feldman; Christina Weltz; Margaret Kemeny Journal: J Oncol Date: 2009-10-25 Impact factor: 4.375
Authors: Andre E Kim; Abbie Lundgreen; Roger K Wolff; Laura Fejerman; Esther M John; Gabriela Torres-Mejía; Sue A Ingles; Stephanie D Boone; Avonne E Connor; Lisa M Hines; Kathy B Baumgartner; Anna Giuliano; Amit D Joshi; Martha L Slattery; Mariana C Stern Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Adana A M Llanos; Anna Rabkin; Elisa V Bandera; Gary Zirpoli; Brian D Gonzalez; Cathleen Y Xing; Bo Qin; Yong Lin; Chi-Chen Hong; Kitaw Demissie; Christine B Ambrosone Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 4.944
Authors: Sarah J O Nomura; Chiranjeev Dash; Lynn Rosenberg; Jeffrey Yu; Julie R Palmer; Lucile L Adams-Campbell Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2016-09-19 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Akihiro Nishi; Danny A Milner; Edward L Giovannucci; Reiko Nishihara; Andy S Tan; Ichiro Kawachi; Shuji Ogino Journal: Expert Rev Mol Diagn Date: 2015-12-04 Impact factor: 5.225
Authors: Elisa V Bandera; Kitaw Demissie; Bo Qin; Adana A M Llanos; Yong Lin; Baichen Xu; Karen Pawlish; Jesse J Plascak; Jennifer Tsui; Angela R Omilian; William McCann; Song Yao; Christine B Ambrosone; Chi-Chen Hong Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Traci N Bethea; Lynn Rosenberg; Chi-Chen Hong; Melissa A Troester; Kathryn L Lunetta; Elisa V Bandera; Pepper Schedin; Laurence N Kolonel; Andrew F Olshan; Christine B Ambrosone; Julie R Palmer Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2015-02-21 Impact factor: 6.466