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 US Hispanics (1,777 cases and 2,218 controls) from 2 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.

Association between meat consumption and risk of breast cancer: Findings from the Sister Study

“…To the best of our knowledge, four cohort studies and one pooled case–control analysis examined meat consumption and breast cancer risk by ER status with most finding no significant differences by ER status . Our findings are consistent with past literature as we found that there was no significant heterogeneity in meat‐associated breast cancer risk by ER status.…”

“…Many studies found nonsignificant associations between poultry and breast cancer risk 9,[25][26][27] and nonsignificant inverse associations 8,28,29 whereas a few studies found significant inverse associations of poultry and white meat consumption with breast cancer. [30][31][32][33] One study found a significant inverse association with poultry and white meat consumption only among Hispanic women, 31 another found a significant inverse association with white meat among Uruguayan women. 32,33 A study of Californian women found that white meat and chicken consumption were significantly protective of breast cancer risk.…”

“…As breast cancer risk differs by menopausal status, the association between red meat consumption and breast cancer risk could differ between premenopausal and postmenopausal women . Some studies have found that associations were similar for premenopausal and postmenopausal women, whereas others found differences in the association by menopausal status in which postmenopausal women generally had larger effect sizes for all meat types compared to premenopausal women. In our study, we found greater associations of red meat consumption and poultry consumption among postmenopausal women compared to premenopausal women.…”

Early Life Residence, Fish Consumption, and Risk of Breast Cancer

“…However, to our best knowledge, no study has found an association between adolescent total fish consumption and breast cancer risk(12–15), and studies on adult total fish consumption have not found strong beneficial association either (5, 6, 36–38). Haddock and cod, the most common fish types consumed in Iceland are lean species containing only modest amounts of vitamin D or about 0.9 µg/100g and 0.3g of n-3 PUFA/100 g (39).…”

A meta-analysis on association of CYP2E1 rs2031920 and rs3813867 polymorphisms with breast cancer risk

“…Therefore, there is possible for studies that published in other databases or other languages that meet the inclusion criteria but did not include in this metaanalysis. Third, this meta-analysis did not perform subgroup analyses for ethnicity, menopausal status, lifestyle and environmental factors that have been reported to associate with breast cancer risk (Farvid et al, 2016;Kim et al, 2016;White et al, 2016).…”