Review Article

Diet across the Lifespan and the Association with Breast Density in Adulthood

Table 7

Studies of selected nutrients in adulthood and breast density.

Author, yearStudy population, ( )DesignAgeFoods/nutrients of interestDietary assessmentOutcomeMajor significant resultsAdjustments

Bérubé et al. 2008 [34]Premenopausal women: n = 777
Postmenopausal women: n = 783
Canada
CSPremenopausal: 47 y Postmenopausal: 60 yMVMM supplements161-item FFQPBD: Mammogram: computer-assisted method Premenopausal women: current users (45%, SE: 1.64%), past (42.9%, SE: 1.28%), never users
(40.2% SE: 1.05%)
Age, education, BMI, age at menarche, number of full-term pregnancies, age at first full-term pregnancy, duration of OC and HRT, smoking status, PA, family hx of BC in first degree relative, personal hx of breast biopsy, chronic illness, mean energy, alcohol, vitamin and mineral supplements, following special diet, dietary vitamin D and calcium intake, season of mammography

Brisson et al. 1989 [30]
also in Table 5
CNBSS—newly diagnosed BC patients
Cases: n = 290
Controls: n = 645  Total n = 935
Canada
CC40–62 y
Several dietary factors, especially vitamin A114-item FFQ + additional questions on vitamin A Wolfe classification high risk: P2 + DY; low risk: N1 + P1    Mammogram: visual estimation Controls (Total Densities): : 38.2% versus 43.6%, β = −392
(SE = 171); : 37.9% versus 43.0%, β = −1.02
(SE = 0.41)
Age, bodyweight, parity, education, energy

Masala et al. 2006 [24]
also in Tables 3, 4, and 5
Mediterranean Population—Florence section of EPIC
n = 1,668
Italy
CSPre-, post-, and peri-menopausal women
Several dietary factors160-item validated FFQWolfe classification P2 + DY versus N1 + P1 and semi-quantitative method All Women: P2 + DY versus N1 + P1: Vegetables: ORT3 versus T1 = 0.66 (95% CI:0.50–0.88); Cheese: ORT3 versus T1: 0.73 (95% CI: 0.55–0.99); β-carotene ORT3 versus T1 = 0.71 (95% CI: 0.53–0.94), Vitamin C ORT3 versus T1 = 0.75 (95% CI: 0.56–0.99); Potassium ORT3 versus T1 = 0.69 (95% CI: 0.48–1.00, -trend = 0.05), Tomato sauce: ORT3 versus T1 = 1.34 (95% CI: 1.01−1.77)
Premenopausal women at enrollment n = 491 :
High consumption of cheese: ORQ4 versus Q1 0.44 (95% CI: 0.23–0.84)
Age, education, BMI, menopausal status, total energy(log), each food separately (tertiles)

Nagata et al. 2005 [31]
also in Table 5
Japanese women
n = 601
Japan, Asian
CSPremenopausal women: 42.6 y
Postmenopausal women: 57.8 y
Protein, dietary fiber, and soy isoflavones169-item validated FFQPBD mammogram: fully automated method Postmenopausal women: protein: Q4 versus Q1 = 13.9% (95% CI: 10.4–18.0%) versus 6.7% (95% CI: 3.6–10.7%; CHO: Q4 versus Q1 = 9.6% (95% CI: 6.5–13.2) versus 15.6%
(95% CI: 11.1–20.9%)
Age, BMI, smoking status, number of births, and hx of breast feeding for premenopausal women and for age, BMI, number of births, education, age at menopause; nutrient intakes were adjusted for total energy.

Nordevang et al. 1993 [25]
also in Tables 3 and 5
BC patients stage I-II)
n = 238
Sweden
CS57.5 yVarious nutrients Dietary history interview within 4 months of BC diagnosisWolfe classification N1 + P1 versus
P2 + Dy
Premenopausal women:
P2 + Dy versus N1 + P1:
CHO: (40.41 versus 47.37% E); Fiber (19.05 versus 26.09 mg/10 MJ), Carotene (3.80 versus 5.62 mg/MJ)
BMI, age, ER status

Sala et al. 2000 [29]
also in Tables 4, 5 and 9
EPIC-Norfolk
cases: P2/DY
controls: N1/P1
n = 203 cases and n= 203 controls UK
NCCCases and controls: 59 yVitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, protein, carbohydrate, fiber, vegetables, cereals and breads, fruits, red meat, white meat, total meat, milk, dairy products, fish.7-day food recordWolfe patterns:
high risk: P2 and DY; low risk: N1 and P1
All women: protein: OROR T3 versus T1 = 2.00 (95%CI:1.06–3.77)**; total CHO: OROR T3 versus T1 = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.03–3.59)**  
Postmenopausal women: Protein: (OROR T3 versus T1-= 2.20, 1.04–4.63, P = 0.03)**, Total CHO: (OROR T3 versus T1 = 2.22, 1.02–4.79)**, Total meat intake: (OROR T3 versus T1 = 2.50, 1.09 = 5.69)**
*Unadjusted
**Menopausal status, parity, HRT, BMI


Tseng et al. 2007 [27]
also in Table 3, 4, and 5
At 1st degree or 2nd degree relative with BC or ovarian cancer n = 157
US, NH-White
CS50 yCalories, cholesterol, protein, animal protein, carbs, dietary fiber, carotene, folate, vitamin E, meats, fruits, vegetables, tofu.126 item FFQPBD: BIRADSWomen who do not have hereditary cancer patterns: protein OR: 3.0 (95% CI: 1.3–6.9) and animal protein OR: 4.3 (95% CI: 1.8–10.3)Age, BMI, energy, age at menarche, menopausal status, hx of HRT, family hx category.

Tseng et al. 2011 [16]
also in Table 2
Chinese-American immigrant women
n = 201
US, Asian
CS53.1 yRed meat 88-item FFQ
PBD: BIRADSNullAge, level of acculturation, BMI, combined variable representing # of live births and age at first live birth, adult weekly frequency of dairy food intake

Qureshi et al. 2011 [32] also in Table 5 NBCSP
n = 2,252
Postmenopausal women
Norway
CS58 yVarious nutrients and vitamins180-item FFQ PBD and AD mammogram: computer-assisted method PBD: Saturated fatQ4 versus Q1: 19.7 (95% CI: 18.7–20.7%) versus 17.0 (95% CI: 15.6–18.3, P-trend = 0.06)Age at mammography, y of education, age at menarche, number of pregnancies, age at first full-term pregnancy for parous women, HRT, BMI, total energy

Vachon et al. 2000 [9]
also in Tables 3, 4, and 5
MBCFCS
n = 1508
US, NH-White
CS61.4 y
Vitamin A, retinol, carotene, crude and dietary fiber, total carbohydrates, cholesterol, B12, folate, vitamins C, E, total protein, total energy153-item FFQPBD mammogram: visual estimation Premenopausal women: vit E: Q4 versus Q1: 42% (95% CI: 36–47%) versus 38% (95% CI: 33–46%, P trend = 0.05); total dairy intake: T3 versus T1 = 38% (95% CI = 32–44%) versus 44% (95% CI: 37–51%)
Postmenopausal women: Vit B12 sup only : Q4 versus Q1: 34% (95% CI: 31–36%) versus 32% (95% CI: 30–34%, P trend = 0.05
Energy intake, age, BMI, WHR, PA, age at menarche, age at first birth and number of births (combined), alcohol smoking, family hx of BC, HRT (all and postmenopausal women) and OC use (premenopausal women)