Dietary intake of trans fatty acids and breast cancer risk in 9 European countries.
Breast cancer
Diet
Industrial trans fatty acids
Ruminant trans fatty acids
Journal
BMC medicine
ISSN: 1741-7015
Titre abrégé: BMC Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190723
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 03 2021
30 03 2021
Historique:
received:
15
10
2020
accepted:
25
02
2021
entrez:
30
3
2021
pubmed:
31
3
2021
medline:
16
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Trans fatty acids (TFAs) have been hypothesised to influence breast cancer risk. However, relatively few prospective studies have examined this relationship, and well-powered analyses according to hormone receptor-defined molecular subtypes, menopausal status, and body size have rarely been conducted. In the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), we investigated the associations between dietary intakes of TFAs (industrial trans fatty acids [ITFAs] and ruminant trans fatty acids [RTFAs]) and breast cancer risk among 318,607 women. Multivariable hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for other breast cancer risk factors. After a median follow-up of 8.1 years, 13,241 breast cancer cases occurred. In the multivariable-adjusted model, higher total ITFA intake was associated with elevated breast cancer risk (HR for highest vs lowest quintile, 1.14, 95% CI 1.06-1.23; P trend = 0.001). A similar positive association was found between intake of elaidic acid, the predominant ITFA, and breast cancer risk (HR for highest vs lowest quintile, 1.14, 95% CI 1.06-1.23; P trend = 0.001). Intake of total RTFAs was also associated with higher breast cancer risk (HR for highest vs lowest quintile, 1.09, 95% CI 1.01-1.17; P trend = 0.015). For individual RTFAs, we found positive associations with breast cancer risk for dietary intakes of two strongly correlated fatty acids (Spearman correlation r = 0.77), conjugated linoleic acid (HR for highest vs lowest quintile, 1.11, 95% CI 1.03-1.20; P trend = 0.001) and palmitelaidic acid (HR for highest vs lowest quintile, 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.16; P trend = 0.028). Similar associations were found for total ITFAs and RTFAs with breast cancer risk according to menopausal status, body mass index, and breast cancer subtypes. These results support the hypothesis that higher dietary intakes of ITFAs, in particular elaidic acid, are associated with elevated breast cancer risk. Due to the high correlation between conjugated linoleic acid and palmitelaidic acid, we were unable to disentangle the positive associations found for these fatty acids with breast cancer risk. Further mechanistic studies are needed to identify biological pathways that may underlie these associations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Trans fatty acids (TFAs) have been hypothesised to influence breast cancer risk. However, relatively few prospective studies have examined this relationship, and well-powered analyses according to hormone receptor-defined molecular subtypes, menopausal status, and body size have rarely been conducted.
METHODS
In the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), we investigated the associations between dietary intakes of TFAs (industrial trans fatty acids [ITFAs] and ruminant trans fatty acids [RTFAs]) and breast cancer risk among 318,607 women. Multivariable hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for other breast cancer risk factors.
RESULTS
After a median follow-up of 8.1 years, 13,241 breast cancer cases occurred. In the multivariable-adjusted model, higher total ITFA intake was associated with elevated breast cancer risk (HR for highest vs lowest quintile, 1.14, 95% CI 1.06-1.23; P trend = 0.001). A similar positive association was found between intake of elaidic acid, the predominant ITFA, and breast cancer risk (HR for highest vs lowest quintile, 1.14, 95% CI 1.06-1.23; P trend = 0.001). Intake of total RTFAs was also associated with higher breast cancer risk (HR for highest vs lowest quintile, 1.09, 95% CI 1.01-1.17; P trend = 0.015). For individual RTFAs, we found positive associations with breast cancer risk for dietary intakes of two strongly correlated fatty acids (Spearman correlation r = 0.77), conjugated linoleic acid (HR for highest vs lowest quintile, 1.11, 95% CI 1.03-1.20; P trend = 0.001) and palmitelaidic acid (HR for highest vs lowest quintile, 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.16; P trend = 0.028). Similar associations were found for total ITFAs and RTFAs with breast cancer risk according to menopausal status, body mass index, and breast cancer subtypes.
CONCLUSIONS
These results support the hypothesis that higher dietary intakes of ITFAs, in particular elaidic acid, are associated with elevated breast cancer risk. Due to the high correlation between conjugated linoleic acid and palmitelaidic acid, we were unable to disentangle the positive associations found for these fatty acids with breast cancer risk. Further mechanistic studies are needed to identify biological pathways that may underlie these associations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33781249
doi: 10.1186/s12916-021-01952-3
pii: 10.1186/s12916-021-01952-3
pmc: PMC8008592
doi:
Substances chimiques
Trans Fatty Acids
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
81Subventions
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
BMJ Open. 2012 Sep 17;2(5):
pubmed: 22986123
Am J Epidemiol. 2008 Jun 1;167(11):1312-20
pubmed: 18390841
Cancer Causes Control. 2016 Jun;27(6):759-73
pubmed: 27146840
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014 May;145(1):255-65
pubmed: 24715379
Public Health Nutr. 2002 Dec;5(6B):1113-24
pubmed: 12639222
Cancer Res. 1997 Sep 15;57(18):3979-88
pubmed: 9307282
J Nutr. 2007 Dec;137(12):2599-607
pubmed: 18029471
Int J Cancer. 2018 Mar 15;142(6):1116-1129
pubmed: 29071721
Cancer Lett. 1997 Jun 24;116(2):121-30
pubmed: 9215854
Nutr Cancer. 2012;64(8):1131-42
pubmed: 23137008
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015 Oct;24(10):1439-49
pubmed: 26224798
Nutrients. 2020 Sep 23;12(10):
pubmed: 32977480
Ann Oncol. 2017 Nov 1;28(11):2836-2842
pubmed: 28950350
Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Mar;77(3):532-43
pubmed: 12600840
BMC Cancer. 2008 Jul 24;8:208
pubmed: 18652667
Cancer Res. 1994 Mar 1;54(5):1212-5
pubmed: 8118808
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2009 May;63 Suppl 2:S5-21
pubmed: 19424218
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002 Mar;11(3):261-5
pubmed: 11895875
Atheroscler Suppl. 2006 May;7(2):1-4
pubmed: 16713396
Atheroscler Suppl. 2006 May;7(2):47-52
pubmed: 16713385
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2007 Sep;61(9):1037-56
pubmed: 17375121
Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2009 Nov;11(6):423-33
pubmed: 19852883
Nutr Cancer. 2003;45(2):190-4
pubmed: 12881013
Food Chem. 2016 Feb 15;193:134-40
pubmed: 26433299
Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Sep;90(3):556-60
pubmed: 19491389
Am J Clin Nutr. 2002 Oct;76(4):873-82
pubmed: 12324303
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Apr 09;106(5):
pubmed: 24718872
Lipids. 2014 May;49(5):403-13
pubmed: 24481861
BMJ. 2013 Jun 27;346:f3706
pubmed: 23814120
Int J Cancer. 2019 Apr 15;144(8):1941-1953
pubmed: 30350310
Nutr Res Rev. 2008 Dec;21(2):174-88
pubmed: 19087370
Am J Epidemiol. 1992 Jun 1;135(11):1301-9
pubmed: 1626547
Int J Epidemiol. 2019 Jun 1;48(3):795-806
pubmed: 30277539
Int J Epidemiol. 1997;26 Suppl 1:S6-14
pubmed: 9126529
Br J Cancer. 2003 Nov 3;89(9):1672-85
pubmed: 14583769
Lancet. 2018 May 19;391(10134):1978-1980
pubmed: 29773233
Clin Nutr. 2020 Mar;39(3):755-764
pubmed: 30954361