Dataset Information

Red meat, poultry, and fish intake and breast cancer risk among Hispanic and Non-Hispanic white women: The Breast Cancer Health Disparities Study.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:There is suggestive but limited evidence for a relationship between meat intake and breast cancer (BC) risk. Few studies included Hispanic women. We investigated the association between meats and fish intake and BC risk among Hispanic and NHW women. METHODS:The study included NHW (1,982 cases and 2,218 controls) and the US Hispanics (1,777 cases and 2,218 controls) from two population-based case-control studies. Analyses considered menopausal status and percent Native American ancestry. We estimated pooled ORs combining harmonized data from both studies, and study- and race-/ethnicity-specific ORs that were combined using fixed or random effects models, depending on heterogeneity levels. RESULTS:When comparing highest versus lowest tertile of intake, among NHW we observed an association between tuna intake and BC risk (pooled OR 1.25; 95 % CI 1.05-1.50; trend p = 0.006). Among Hispanics, we observed an association between BC risk and processed meat intake (pooled OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.18-1.71; trend p < 0.001), and between white meat (OR 0.80; 95% CI 0.67-0.95; trend p = 0.01) and BC risk, driven by poultry. All these findings were supported by meta-analysis using fixed or random effect models and were restricted to estrogen receptor-positive tumors. Processed meats and poultry were not associated with BC risk among NHW women; red meat and fish were not associated with BC risk in either race/ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS:Our results suggest the presence of ethnic differences in associations between meat and BC risk that may contribute to BC disparities.

SUBMITTER: Kim AE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4821634 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Red meat, poultry, and fish intake and breast cancer risk among Hispanic and Non-Hispanic white women: The Breast Cancer Health Disparities Study.

Kim Andre E AE Lundgreen Abbie A Wolff Roger K RK Fejerman Laura L John Esther M EM Torres-Mejía Gabriela G Ingles Sue A SA Boone Stephanie D SD Connor Avonne E AE Hines Lisa M LM Baumgartner Kathy B KB Giuliano Anna A Joshi Amit D AD Slattery Martha L ML Stern Mariana C MC

Cancer causes & control : CCC 20160222 4

<h4>Purpose</h4>There is suggestive but limited evidence for a relationship between meat intake and breast cancer (BC) risk. Few studies included Hispanic women. We investigated the association between meats and fish intake and BC risk among Hispanic and NHW women.<h4>Methods</h4>The study included NHW (1,982 cases and 2,218 controls) and the US Hispanics (1,777 cases and 2,218 controls) from two population-based case-control studies. Analyses considered menopausal status and percent Native Amer ...[more]

PMID: 26898200

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAlthough the associations between processed meat intake and cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality have been established, the associations of unprocessed red meat, poultry, or fish consumption with CVD and all-cause mortality are still uncertain.ObjectiveTo identify the associations of processed meat, unprocessed red meat, poultry, or fish intake with incident CVD and all-cause mortality.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study analyzed individual-level data of adult participants in 6 prospective cohort studies in the United States. Baseline diet data from 1985 to 2002 were collected. Participants were followed up until August 31, 2016. Data analyses were performed from March 25, 2019, to November 17, 2019.ExposuresProcessed meat, unprocessed red meat, poultry, or fish intake as continuous variables.Main outcomes and measuresHazard ratio (HR) and 30-year absolute risk difference (ARD) for incident CVD (composite end point of coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, and CVD deaths) and all-cause mortality, based on each additional intake of 2 servings per week for monotonic associations or 2 vs 0 servings per week for nonmonotonic associations.ResultsAmong the 29 682 participants (mean [SD] age at baseline, 53.7 [15.7] years; 13 168 [44.4%] men; and 9101 [30.7%] self-identified as non-white), 6963 incident CVD events and 8875 all-cause deaths were adjudicated during a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 19.0 (14.1-23.7) years. The associations of processed meat, unprocessed red meat, poultry, or fish intake with incident CVD and all-cause mortality were monotonic (P for nonlinearity???.25), except for the nonmonotonic association between processed meat intake and incident CVD (P for nonlinearity?=?.006). Intake of processed meat (adjusted HR, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.04-1.11]; adjusted ARD, 1.74% [95% CI, 0.85%-2.63%]), unprocessed red meat (adjusted HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01-1.06]; adjusted ARD, 0.62% [95% CI, 0.07%-1.16%]), or poultry (adjusted HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.01-1.06]; adjusted ARD, 1.03% [95% CI, 0.36%-1.70%]) was significantly associated with incident CVD. Fish intake was not significantly associated with incident CVD (adjusted HR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.98-1.02]; adjusted ARD, 0.12% [95% CI, -0.40% to 0.65%]). Intake of processed meat (adjusted HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.02-1.05]; adjusted ARD, 0.90% [95% CI, 0.43%-1.38%]) or unprocessed red meat (adjusted HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01-1.05]; adjusted ARD, 0.76% [95% CI, 0.19%-1.33%]) was significantly associated with all-cause mortality. Intake of poultry (adjusted HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.97-1.02]; adjusted ARD, -0.28% [95% CI, -1.00% to 0.44%]) or fish (adjusted HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.97-1.01]; adjusted ARD, -0.34% [95% CI, -0.88% to 0.20%]) was not significantly associated with all-cause mortality.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that, among US adults, higher intake of processed meat, unprocessed red meat, or poultry, but not fish, was significantly associated with a small increased risk of incident CVD, whereas higher intake of processed meat or unprocessed red meat, but not poultry or fish, was significantly associated with a small increased risk of all-cause mortality. These findings have important public health implications and should warrant further investigations.

Project description:Heterogeneity in meat food groups hinders interpretation of research regarding meat intake and chronic disease risk. Our objective was to investigate how heterogeneity in red meat (RM) and poultry food groups influences US population intake estimates. Based on a prior systematic review, we created an ontology of methods used to estimate RM [1= unprocessed RM; 2 (reference)= unprocessed RM + processed RM; 3= unprocessed RM + processed RM + processed poultry; and 4=unprocessed RM + processed RM + processed poultry + chicken patties/nuggets/tenders (PNT)] and three for poultry [A=unprocessed poultry; B= unprocessed poultry + PNT; C (reference)= unprocessed poultry + processed poultry + PNT). We applied methods to 2015-18 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data to estimate RM and poultry intake prevalence and amount. We estimated and compared intakes within RM and within poultry methods via the NCI Method for individuals ≥2 years old (n = 15,038), adjusted for age, sex, and race/Hispanic origin. We compared the population percentage that exceeded age- and sex-specific RM and poultry allotments from the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended eating patterns. The percent that consumed RM ranged from 47 ± 1.2% to 75 ± 0.8% across methods and mean amount ranged from 10.5 ± 0.28 to 18.2 ± 0.35 lean oz-equivalents/week; 38 ± 1.2% to 71 ± 0.7% and 9.8 ± 0.35 to 13.3 ± 0.35 lean oz-equivalents/week across poultry methods. Estimates for higher, but not lower, intake percentiles differed across RM methods. Compared to the reference, Method 1 was ≥3.0 oz-equivalents/week lower from 20th-70th percentiles, ≥6.0 oz-equivalents/week lower from 75th-90th percentiles, and ≥9.0 oz-equivalents/week lower for the 95th percentile. Method 4, but not Method 3, was ≥3.0 oz-equivalents/week higher than the reference from 50 to 95th percentiles. The population percentage that exceeded allotments was 27 ± 1.8% lower for Method 1, 9 ± 0.8% higher for Method 3, and 14 ± 0.9% higher for Method 4 compared to the reference. Differences were less pronounced for poultry. Our analysis quantifies the magnitude of bias introduced by heterogeneous meat food group methodology. Explicit descriptions of meat food groups are important for development of dietary recommendations to ensure that research studies are compared appropriately.

Dataset Information

Red meat, poultry, and fish intake and breast cancer risk among Hispanic and Non-Hispanic white women: The Breast Cancer Health Disparities Study.

Publications

Red meat, poultry, and fish intake and breast cancer risk among Hispanic and Non-Hispanic white women: The Breast Cancer Health Disparities Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure