Kushi L H, Sellers T A, Potter J D, Nelson C L, Munger R G, Kaye S A, Folsom A R
Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55454.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1992 Jul 15;84(14):1092-9. doi: 10.1093/jnci/84.14.1092.
Although the results of animal studies and cross-cultural comparisons generally support a role for dietary fat in the etiology of breast cancer, results of analytic epidemiology studies are equivocal.
The association between dietary fat and subsequent breast cancer was examined in a cohort of 34,388 postmenopausal women from Iowa.
Dietary habits were assessed by a food-frequency questionnaire mailed in January 1986. Through December 31, 1989, 459 incident cases of breast cancer occurred in this cohort. Proportional hazards regression was used to examine the dietary fat-breast cancer association while adjusting for potential confounders. The effects on this association of four analytic approaches to adjustment for energy intake were also considered.
After adjustment for known determinants of breast cancer, a modest positive association of total fat intake with risk of breast cancer was seen. Polyunsaturated fat intake was also positively associated with breast cancer (relative risk from lowest to highest intake, 1.0, 1.25, 1.31, and 1.49; P for trend = .052). Different approaches to adjustment for energy intake, however, provided different impressions of the dietary fat-breast cancer association. One method, involving categorization of crude fat intake and inclusion of total energy intake in regression analysis, gave relative risk estimates from low to high fat intake of 1.0, 1.17, 1.25, and 1.38 (P for trend = .18). Another method, based on categorization of fat intake residuals in which the variation in fat due to total energy intake was removed, gave corresponding estimates of 1.0, 1.24, 1.30, and 1.16 (P for trend = .29). The former suggests increasing breast cancer risk with increasing fat intake; the latter suggests no association.
These results are consistent with other cohort studies that have shown a weak association or no association between dietary fat and breast cancer. They are also consistent with studies suggesting that fat intake is a determinant of breast cancer, particularly after accounting for inaccuracies in dietary assessment. The effects of different energy-adjustment methods may account in part for the varying interpretations of four previous cohort studies of dietary fat and breast cancer.
Further work is needed to clarify not only the nature of the dietary fat-breast cancer association, but also the impact of different analytic methods used in the investigation of diet-disease associations.
尽管动物研究和跨文化比较的结果总体上支持膳食脂肪在乳腺癌病因学中起作用,但分析性流行病学研究的结果并不明确。
在爱荷华州的34388名绝经后女性队列中研究膳食脂肪与后续乳腺癌之间的关联。
1986年1月通过邮寄食物频率问卷评估饮食习惯。到1989年12月31日,该队列中发生了459例乳腺癌新发病例。使用比例风险回归来研究膳食脂肪与乳腺癌的关联,同时对潜在混杂因素进行调整。还考虑了四种调整能量摄入的分析方法对这种关联的影响。
在对已知的乳腺癌决定因素进行调整后,发现总脂肪摄入量与乳腺癌风险之间存在适度的正相关。多不饱和脂肪摄入量也与乳腺癌呈正相关(从最低到最高摄入量的相对风险分别为1.0、1.25、1.31和1.49;趋势检验P值 = 0.052)。然而,不同的能量摄入调整方法对膳食脂肪与乳腺癌关联的呈现有所不同。一种方法是对粗脂肪摄入量进行分类,并在回归分析中纳入总能量摄入,从低到高脂肪摄入的相对风险估计值为1.0、1.17、1.25和1.38(趋势检验P值 = 0.18)。另一种方法是基于脂肪摄入残差的分类,其中去除了总能量摄入导致的脂肪变化,相应的估计值为1.0、1.24、1.30和1.16(趋势检验P值 = 0.29)。前者表明随着脂肪摄入量增加乳腺癌风险增加;后者表明无关联。
这些结果与其他队列研究一致,这些研究表明膳食脂肪与乳腺癌之间存在弱关联或无关联。它们也与表明脂肪摄入是乳腺癌决定因素的研究一致,特别是在考虑膳食评估不准确的因素之后。不同能量调整方法的影响可能部分解释了之前四项关于膳食脂肪与乳腺癌队列研究的不同解读。
不仅需要进一步研究来阐明膳食脂肪与乳腺癌关联的本质,还需要研究不同分析方法在饮食 - 疾病关联研究中的影响。