Meat and dairy food consumption and breast cancer: A pooled analysis of cohort studies

Maastricht University, Maestricht, Limburg, Netherlands
International Journal of Epidemiology (Impact Factor: 9.18). 03/2002; 31(1):78-85. DOI: 10.1093/ije/31.1.78
Source: PubMed


More than 20 studies have investigated the relation between meat and dairy food consumption and breast cancer risk with conflicting results. Our objective was to evaluate the risk of breast cancer associated with meat and dairy food consumption and to assess whether non-dietary risk factors modify the relation.
We combined the primary data from eight prospective cohort studies from North America and Western Europe with at least 200 incident breast cancer cases, assessment of usual food and nutrient intakes, and a validation study of the dietary assessment instrument. The pooled database included 351,041 women, 7379 of whom were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer during up to 15 years of follow-up.
We found no significant association between intakes of total meat, red meat, white meat, total dairy fluids, or total dairy solids and breast cancer risk. Categorical analyses suggested a J-shaped association for egg consumption where, compared to women who did not eat eggs, breast cancer risk was slightly decreased among women who consumed < 2 eggs per week but slightly increased among women who consumed > or = 1 egg per day.
We found no significant associations between intake of meat or dairy products and risk of breast cancer. An inconsistent relation between egg consumption and risk of breast cancer merits further investigation.

Download full-text


Available from: Alicja Wolk,
198 Reads
  • Source
    • "Studies report that high consumption of fruit and vegetables may offer significant protection against breast cancer [57-60]. Meat, especially red meat intake, is reported by some studies to be associated with increased breast cancer risk [61-63], though a few studies found no association [64,65]. A review of 13 prospective studies claim that higher fat intake does not confer excess risk of breast cancer [66]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In England, guidance from National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) states women with a family history of breast cancer presenting to primary care should be reassured or referred.We reviewed the evidence for interventions that might be applied in primary care and conducted an audit of whether low risk women are correctly advised and flagged. We conducted a literature review to identify modifiable risk factors. We extracted routinely collected data from the computerised medical record systems of 6 general practices (population approximately 30,000); of the variables identified in the guidance. We implemented a quality improvement (QI) intervention called audit-based education (ABE) comparing participant practices with guidelines and each other before and after; we report odds ratios (OR) of any change in data recording. The review revealed evidence for advising on: diet, weight control, physical exercise, and alcohol. The proportion of patients with recordings of family history of: disease, neoplasms, and breast cancer were: 39.3%, 5.1% and 1.3% respectively. There was no significant change in the recording of family history of disease or cancer; OR 1.02 (95% CI 0.98-1.06); and 1.08 (95% CI 0.99-1.17) respectively. Recording of alcohol consumption and smoking both increased significantly; OR 1.36 (95% CI 1.30-1.43); and 1.42 (95% CI 1.27-1.60) respectively. Recording lifestyle advice fell; OR 0.84 (95% CI 0.81-0.88). The study informs about current data recording and willingness to engage in ABE. Recording of risk factors improved after the intervention. Further QI is needed to achieve adherence to current guidance.
    BMC Family Practice 07/2013; 14(1):105. DOI:10.1186/1471-2296-14-105 · 1.67 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "However, the WCRF-AICR report concluded the risk was not convincing nor probable but limitedsuggestive . The link seems much weaker with breast and prostate cancers, and did show up neither in a breast cancer meta-analysis (Missmer, et al., 2002), nor in the very large European EPIC study of half a million persons. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The effect of meat consumption on cancer risk is a controversial issue. However, recent meta-analyses show that high consumers of cured meats and red meat are at increased risk of colorectal cancer. This increase is significant but modest (20-30%). Current WCRF-AICR recommendations are to eat no more than 500 g per week of red meat, and to avoid processed meat. Moreover, our studies show that beef meat and cured pork meat promote colon carcinogenesis in rats. The major promoter in meat is heme iron, via N-nitrosation or fat peroxidation. Dietary additives can suppress the toxic effects of heme iron. For instance, promotion of colon carcinogenesis in rats by cooked, nitrite-treated and oxidized high-heme cured meat was suppressed by dietary calcium and by α-tocopherol, and a study in volunteers supported these protective effects in humans. These additives, and others still under study, could provide an acceptable way to prevent colorectal cancer.
    Meat Science 04/2011; 89(3):310-6. DOI:10.1016/j.meatsci.2011.04.009 · 2.62 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Sensitivity analysis: Larsson et al. (2009) (12) removed due to partial overlap with Missmer et al. (2002) (8) Monitoring Project-CVD Risk Factors Fig. 2. Meta-analysis of prospective studies of processed meat and breast cancer. * Includes data pooled from seven cohorts; partial overlap with Larsson et al. (2009) (12) . "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The relationship between meat consumption and breast cancer has been the focus of several epidemiological investigations, yet there has been no clear scientific consensus as to whether red or processed meat intake increases the risk of breast cancer. We conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis incorporating data from several recently published prospective studies of red or processed meat intake and breast cancer. In the meta-analysis utilising data from the Pooling Project publication (includes data from eight cohorts) combined with data from nine studies published between 2004 and 2009 and one study published in 1996, the fixed-effect summary relative risk estimate (SRRE) for red meat intake (high v. low) and breast cancer was 1·02 (95 % CI 0·98, 1·07; P value for heterogeneity = 0·001) and the random-effects SRRE was 1·07 (95 % CI 0·98, 1·17). The SRRE for each 100 g increment of red meat was 1·04 (95 % CI 1·00, 1·07), based on a fixed-effects model, and 1·12 (95 % CI 1·03, 1·23) based on a random-effects model. No association was observed for each 100 g increment of red meat among premenopausal women (SRRE 1·01; 95 % CI 0·92, 1·11) but a statistically significant SRRE of 1·22 (95 % CI 1·04, 1·44) was observed among postmenopausal women using a random-effects model. However, the association for postmenopausal women was attenuated and non-significant when using a fixed-effects model (SRRE 1·03; 95 % CI 0·98, 1·08). The fixed- and random-effect SRRE for high (v. low) processed meat intake and breast cancer were 1·00 (95 % CI 0·98, 1·01; P value for heterogeneity = 0·005) and 1·08 (95 % CI 1·01, 1·16), respectively. The fixed- and random-effect SRRE for each 30 g increment of processed meat were 1·03 (95 % CI 1·00, 1·06) and 1·06 (95 % CI 0·99, 1·14), respectively. Overall, weak positive summary associations were observed across all meta-analysis models, with the majority being non-statistically significant. Heterogeneity was evident in most analyses, summary associations were sensitive to the choice of analytical model (fixed v. random effects), and publication bias appeared to have produced slightly elevated summary associations. On the basis of this quantitative assessment, red meat and processed meat intake does not appear to be independently associated with increasing the risk of breast cancer, although further investigations of potential effect modifiers, such as analyses by hormone receptor status, may provide valuable insight to potential patterns of associations.
    Nutrition Research Reviews 12/2010; 23(2):349-65. DOI:10.1017/S0954422410000235 · 3.91 Impact Factor
Show more