Joshua Petimar1,2, Yong-Moon Mark Park3, Stephanie A Smith-Warner1,2, Teresa T Fung1,4, Dale P Sandler3. 1. Department of Nutrition and Department of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA. 3. Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC. 4. Department of Nutrition, Simmons University, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many epidemiologic studies have analyzed the relations of individual foods and nutrients and breast cancer risk with inconsistent results. Few studies have examined recommendation-based dietary indices and breast cancer risk. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine associations between recommendation-based dietary index scores and incident invasive breast cancer. METHODS: The Sister Study is a prospective cohort of 50,884 US women (baseline: 2003-2009) who had a sister with breast cancer but no prior breast cancer themselves. We created scores for the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, Alternative Mediterranean Diet (AMED), and Alternative Healthy Eating Index-2010 (AHEI-2010) from dietary intakes estimated by a baseline-validated Block food-frequency questionnaire (FFQ). We used Cox regression to estimate multivariable-adjusted HRs and 95% CIs for total invasive breast cancer risk and by estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) status. RESULTS: We documented 1,700 invasive breast cancer cases through 2015 (mean follow-up, 7.6 y). Individuals in the highest quartile of DASH scores had a lower risk of invasive breast cancer compared with those in the lowest quartile (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.90; P-trend = 0.001), with stronger associations for ER- (HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40, 0.94; P-trend = 0.006) as well as ER-/PR- and ER-/PR-/HER2- subtypes. AHEI-2010 (HR for highest compared with lowest quartile: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.78, 1.03; P-trend = 0.15) and AMED (HR for highest compared with lowest quartile: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.77, 1.06; P-trend = 0.07) were weakly and nonsignificantly associated with breast cancer risk, but after excluding alcohol, AHEI-2010 was inversely associated with risk of ER-/PR- (HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42, 0.98; P-trend = 0.04) and ER-/PR-/HER2- subtypes. We did not observe any significant interactions by menopausal status or other participant characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: DASH scores were inversely associated with breast cancer risk; DASH and AHEI-2010 scores excluding alcohol were particularly inversely associated with risk of ER-/PR- and ER-/PR-/HER2- breast cancers. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00047970. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society for Nutrition 2019.
BACKGROUND: Many epidemiologic studies have analyzed the relations of individual foods and nutrients and breast cancer risk with inconsistent results. Few studies have examined recommendation-based dietary indices and breast cancer risk. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine associations between recommendation-based dietary index scores and incident invasive breast cancer. METHODS: The Sister Study is a prospective cohort of 50,884 US women (baseline: 2003-2009) who had a sister with breast cancer but no prior breast cancer themselves. We created scores for the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, Alternative Mediterranean Diet (AMED), and Alternative Healthy Eating Index-2010 (AHEI-2010) from dietary intakes estimated by a baseline-validated Block food-frequency questionnaire (FFQ). We used Cox regression to estimate multivariable-adjusted HRs and 95% CIs for total invasive breast cancer risk and by estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and humanepidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) status. RESULTS: We documented 1,700 invasive breast cancer cases through 2015 (mean follow-up, 7.6 y). Individuals in the highest quartile of DASH scores had a lower risk of invasive breast cancer compared with those in the lowest quartile (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.90; P-trend = 0.001), with stronger associations for ER- (HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40, 0.94; P-trend = 0.006) as well as ER-/PR- and ER-/PR-/HER2- subtypes. AHEI-2010 (HR for highest compared with lowest quartile: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.78, 1.03; P-trend = 0.15) and AMED (HR for highest compared with lowest quartile: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.77, 1.06; P-trend = 0.07) were weakly and nonsignificantly associated with breast cancer risk, but after excluding alcohol, AHEI-2010 was inversely associated with risk of ER-/PR- (HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42, 0.98; P-trend = 0.04) and ER-/PR-/HER2- subtypes. We did not observe any significant interactions by menopausal status or other participant characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: DASH scores were inversely associated with breast cancer risk; DASH and AHEI-2010 scores excluding alcohol were particularly inversely associated with risk of ER-/PR- and ER-/PR-/HER2- breast cancers. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00047970. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society for Nutrition 2019.
Entities:
Keywords:
Alternative Healthy Eating Index; DASH diet; Mediterranean diet; breast cancer; cohort studies; dietary index
Authors: A Heather Eliassen; Sara J Hendrickson; Louise A Brinton; Julie E Buring; Hannia Campos; Qi Dai; Joanne F Dorgan; Adrian A Franke; Yu-tang Gao; Marc T Goodman; Göran Hallmans; Kathy J Helzlsouer; Judy Hoffman-Bolton; Kerstin Hultén; Howard D Sesso; Anne L Sowell; Rulla M Tamimi; Paolo Toniolo; Lynne R Wilkens; Anna Winkvist; Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; Wei Zheng; Susan E Hankinson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Molin Wang; Donna Spiegelman; Aya Kuchiba; Paul Lochhead; Sehee Kim; Andrew T Chan; Elizabeth M Poole; Rulla Tamimi; Shelley S Tworoger; Edward Giovannucci; Bernard Rosner; Shuji Ogino Journal: Stat Med Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Seungyoun Jung; Molin Wang; Kristin Anderson; Laura Baglietto; Leif Bergkvist; Leslie Bernstein; Piet A van den Brandt; Louise Brinton; Julie E Buring; A Heather Eliassen; Roni Falk; Susan M Gapstur; Graham G Giles; Gary Goodman; Judith Hoffman-Bolton; Pamela L Horn-Ross; Manami Inoue; Laurence N Kolonel; Vittorio Krogh; Marie Lof; Paige Maas; Anthony B Miller; Marian L Neuhouser; Yikyung Park; Kim Robien; Thomas E Rohan; Stephanie Scarmo; Leo J Schouten; Sabina Sieri; Victoria L Stevens; Schoichiro Tsugane; Kala Visvanathan; Lynne R Wilkens; Alicja Wolk; Elisabete Weiderpass; Walter C Willett; Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; Shumin M Zhang; Xuehong Zhang; Regina G Ziegler; Stephanie A Smith-Warner Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Teresa T Fung; Stephanie E Chiuve; Marjorie L McCullough; Kathryn M Rexrode; Giancarlo Logroscino; Frank B Hu Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2008-04-14
Authors: Christan M Thomas; Robert C Wood; Jarrett E Wyatt; Morgan H Pendleton; Ruben D Torrenegra; Oscar E Rodriguez; Sam Harirforoosh; Maria Ballester; Janet Lightner; Koyamangalath Krishnan; Victoria P Ramsauer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-06-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jacob K Kresovich; Yong-Moon Mark Park; Jean A Keller; Dale P Sandler; Jack A Taylor Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 8.472
Authors: Yong-Moon Mark Park; Nitin Shivappa; Joshua Petimar; M Elizabeth Hodgson; Hazel B Nichols; Susan E Steck; James R Hébert; Dale P Sandler Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2021-04-27 Impact factor: 7.316
Authors: Jing Xu; Kaitlyn G Lawrence; Katie M O'Brien; Chandra L Jackson; Dale P Sandler Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Dongyu Zhang; Hazel B Nichols; Melissa Troester; Jianwen Cai; Jeannette T Bensen; Dale P Sandler Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2020-02-04 Impact factor: 7.316