Red meat, poultry, and fish intake and breast cancer risk among Hispanic and Non-Hispanic white women: The Breast Cancer Health Disparities Study
- 982 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
Our results suggest the presence of ethnic differences in associations between meat and BC risk that may contribute to BC disparities.
KeywordsBreast cancer Meat Hispanics Processed meat
The Breast Cancer Health Disparities Study was funded by Grant CA14002 from the National Cancer Institute to Dr. Slattery. The San Francisco Bay Area Breast Cancer Study was supported by Grants CA63446 and CA77305 from the National Cancer Institute, Grant DAMD17-96-1-6071 from the US Department of Defense, and Grant 7PB-0068 from the California Breast Cancer Research Program. The collection of cancer incidence data used in this study was supported by the California Department of Public Health as part of the statewide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885; the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program under contract HHSN261201000036C awarded to the Cancer Prevention Institute of California; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries, under agreement #1U58 DP000807-01 awarded to the Public Health Institute. The 4-Corners Breast Cancer Study was funded by Grants CA078682, CA078762, CA078552, and CA078802 from the National Cancer Institute. The research also was supported by the Utah Cancer Registry, which is funded by contract N01-PC-67000 from the National Cancer Institute, with additional support from the State of Utah Department of Health, the New Mexico Tumor Registry, and the Arizona and Colorado cancer registries, funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Program of Cancer Registries and additional state support. The contents of this manuscript are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of the National Cancer Institute or endorsement by the State of California Department of Public Health, the National Cancer Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or their Contractors and Subcontractors. The Mexico Breast Cancer Study was funded by Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACyT) (SALUD-2002-C01-7462). Mariana C. Stern received support from Grant RSF-09-020-01-CNE from the American Cancer Society, from award number 5P30 ES07048 from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and award number P30CA014089 from the National Cancer Institute. Andre E. Kim received support from Grant 5T32 ES013678 from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
We would also like to acknowledge the contributions of the following individuals to the study: Sandra Edwards for data harmonization oversight; Jennifer Herrick for data management and data harmonization; Erica Wolff and Michael Hoffman for laboratory support; Jocelyn Koo for data management for the San Francisco Bay Area Breast Cancer Study; Dr. Tim Byers for his contribution to the 4-Corners Breast Cancer Study; and Dr. Josh Galanter for assistance in selection of AIMs markers.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Howlader N, Noone A, Krapcho M et al (2014) SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2011, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2011/, based on November 2013 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, April 2014
- 11.World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (2010) Continuous update project report. Food, nutrition, physical activity, and the prevention of breast cancerGoogle Scholar
- 26.John EM, Horn-Ross PL, Koo J (2003) Lifetime physical activity and breast cancer risk in a multiethnic population: the San Francisco Bay area breast cancer study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 12:1143–1152Google Scholar
- 48.Pouchieu C, Deschasaux M, Hercberg S et al (2014) Prospective association between red and processed meat intakes and breast cancer risk: modulation by an antioxidant supplementation in the SU.VI.MAX randomized controlled trial. Int J Epidemiol 43:1583–1592. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyu134 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 54.Goodman MT, Nomura AM, Wilkens LR, Hankin J (1992) The association of diet, obesity, and breast cancer in Hawaii. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 1:269–275Google Scholar
- 67.Dai Q, Shu X-O, Jin F et al (2002) Consumption of animal foods, cooking methods, and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 11:801–808Google Scholar