Andrey Nailor, M.D.·Published 6 June 2008·19 min read
Key points
Nutritional factors have been prominent among the environmental determinants of breast cancer hypothesized to account for the large variation in breast cancer incidence around the world and the large increases in rates among the offspring of migrants from countries with low incidence to countries with high incidence.
Animal Studies High-fat diets have long been known to increase the occurrence of mammary tumors in rodents.
The dietary fat hypothesis is based largely on the observation that national per capita fat consumption is highly correlated with breast cancer mortality rates.
Estimates of per capita fat consumption based on "food-disappearance" data (the food available rather than the amount actually eaten) and breast cancer incidences increased substantially in the United States during the twentieth century.
Nutritional factors have been prominent among the environmental determinants of breast cancer hypothesized to account for the large variation in breast cancer incidence around the world and the large increases in rates among the offspring of migrants from countries with low incidence to countries with high incidence. The dominant hypothesis has been that high fat intake increases risk. In this section, evidence for this relationship is reviewed, and alternative hypotheses are suggested.
Dietary Fat
Animal Studies High-fat diets have long been known to increase the occurrence of mammary tumors in rodents. The interpretation of these and other animal data is controversial, however. Fat is the most energy-dense macronutrient (9 kcal/g compared with 4 kcal/g for protein and carbohydrate); thus, high-fat diets tend to be higher in energy intake unless care is taken to keep energy intake constant. Many animal experiments have not done this, so fat consumption is confounded by energy intake. In a meta-analysis of diet and mammary cancer experiments in mice, Albanes observed a weak inverse association with fat composition (adjusted for energy), whereas total energy intake was positively associated with mammary tumor incidence. Freedman et al. conducted a similar meta-analysis of experiments in rats and mice and reported that higher fat intake and higher caloric intake independently increase mammary tumor incidence. In studies specifically designed to determine the independent effects of fat and energy intake, the effect of fat was either weak or nonexistent in relation to that of energy intake. Furthermore, the relevance to human experience of rodent models, in which animals are given high doses of specific carcinogens to which humans are rarely exposed, is questionable. Notably, in a very large study of rats and mice fed substantially different amounts of corn oil without administration of a carcinogen, no effect of fat intake was found on spontaneous mammary cancer incidence. In a case control study in dogs, fat intake, which ranged from 10% to 70% of energy, was not associated with risk of breast cancer. The clearest message from the animal data is the importance of total energy intake and the need to consider energy balance in epidemiologic studies.
International Correlation (Ecologic) Studies
The dietary fat hypothesis is based largely on the observation that national per capita fat consumption is highly correlated with breast cancer mortality rates. A serious problem with ecologic comparisons of diet and breast cancer is the potential for confounding by known and suspected breast cancer risk factors. National fat consumption per capita is highly correlated with level of economic development; thus, any factor that characterizes affluent Western countries would also be correlated with national rates of breast cancer. Prentice et al. have found that the ecologic relation between fat disappearance and breast cancer incidences was still statistically significant after adjustment for gross national product per capita and average age at menarche. Other breast cancer risk factors, however, such as low parity, late age at first birth, greater body fat, and lower levels of physical activity, are more prevalent in Western countries and would be expected to confound the association with dietary fat. Thus, good reason exists to question whether the international correlation between fat intake and breast cancer represents a causal relationship.
Written and revised by
Andrey Nailor, M.D.
Our doctors write and review articles for accuracy and keep them up to date.
health.am provides general information, not medical advice. Always consult a qualified health professional about your own health.
Estimates of per capita fat consumption based on "food-disappearance" data (the food available rather than the amount actually eaten) and breast cancer incidences increased substantially in the United States during the twentieth century. Surveys based on measures of individual intake, rather than food disappearance, however, indicate that consumption of fat as a percentage of energy has actually declined in the last several decades, a time during which breast cancer incidence has increased. Higher dietary fat consumption has been implicated in the increase in breast cancer incidence in Japan since 1950. However, this increase could also be due to the increasing prevalence of reproductive and other risk factors that characterize Western populations.
The famine that occurred in Norway during World War II provided a natural experiment on the effects of nutritional deprivation on breast cancer risk. Women who were adolescents during the famine have subsequently experienced a reduction in breast cancer risk (approximately 13% lower) at all ages. These data on time trends indicate the sensitivity of breast cancer rates to nutritional and lifestyle factors but do not specifically support a role of dietary fat.
Data from special populations with distinct dietary patterns are valuable, because adherence to a particular diet over many years may represent a more stable long-term exposure than that of most free-living adults, whose diet may change substantially over time. Because these populations often have unusual distributions of nondietary potential risk factors, such as alcohol consumption, smoking, and reproductive behavior, care must be taken in attributing differences in cancer rates to diet alone. Seventh-Day Adventists, who consume relatively small amounts of meat and other animal products, have substantially lower rates of colon cancer but only slightly lower breast cancer rates than other U.S. white women of similar socioeconomic status. Breast cancer rates among British nuns who ate no or very little meat were similar to rates among single women from the general population, findings also suggesting that no substantial association exists between animal fat and risk of breast cancer.{pagebreak}
Case Control Studies
In a typical case control study of diet and breast cancer, the diet before diagnosis reported by women with breast cancer (cases) is compared with the diet reported by women who have not been diagnosed with breast cancer (controls). The largest such study is that of Graham et al., who used a food frequency questionnaire to compare the fat intake of 2,024 women with breast cancer to that of 1,463 female controls seen at the hospital with benign conditions. Animal fat and total fat intake were almost identical in the two groups. In a meta-analysis, Howe et al. summarized the results from 12 smaller case control studies comprising a total of 4,312 cases and 5,978 controls.
The overall pooled relative risk for a 100-g increase in daily total fat intake was 1.35; the risk was somewhat stronger for postmenopausal women (relative risk, 1.48). Because average total fat consumption is approximately 70 g per day for U.S. women, a reduction in fat intake as large as 100 g would be impossible for almost all women. The results of this pooled analysis suggest that, even if the reported positive association were correct, the relative risk for readily achievable changes in total fat intake would be relatively small; for example, the reduction in risk for a 20 g per day decrease among postmenopausal women (correspondingto a decrease from 40% to 29% of calories for a typical middle-aged woman), would be only approximately 0.9.
Furthermore, in case control studies, relative risks of this magnitude may easily be due to selection bias (the controls are drawn from a population with a different distribution of fat intake than the distribution in the population that gave rise to the cases) or recall bias (the cases, knowing their diagnosis, differentially misreport their prediagnosis diet).
Cohort Studies
In a cohort (prospective) study, the diets of a large group of women are measured, and the subsequent rates of breast cancer among those with different levels of dietary factors are compared. Selection bias should not be a problem, because the population that gave rise to the cases is known (the starting members of the cohort); recall bias should not occur, because dietary information is collected before knowledge of disease.
{embed="ref/stat-menu-br-cancer"}
The results for postmenopausal breast cancer (for which fat intake has been hypothesized to be strongest, because the international differences are largest for this group) from prospective studies with at least 200 incident cases of breast cancer. The number of breast cancer cases in these studies is similar to the number in the pooled analysis of case control studies referred to above, and the size of the comparison series (i.e., noncases) is much larger. In not a single study was a significant association with total fat intake observed (when the highest and lowest categories of total fat intake were compared). A collaborative pooled analysis of 4,980 cases of breast cancer (among 337,819 women) has been conducted on all the prospective studies included in Table 15-3.
In addition to providing great statistical precision, the pooled analysis allowed the application of standard analytic approaches to all studies, an examination of a wider range of fat intake, and a detailed evaluation of interactions with other breast cancer risk factors. Overall, no association was observed between intake of total, saturated, monounsaturated, or polyunsaturated fat and risk of breast cancer. As noted in above, no reduction in risk was seen even for fat intakes as low as 20% of energy. When the relatively few women with fat intake lower than 15% of energy were examined, their risk of breast cancer was actually increased twofold; this could not be accounted for by other dietary or nondietary factors.
Substudies were available for each cohort in the pooled analysis in which the measurement errors of the dietary questionnaires were quantified, and these were used to adjust the overall relative risks and confidence intervals to take intoaccount errors in measuring diet. Without correction, the relative risk for an increment of 25 g per day in fat intake was 1.02 (95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.11). After accounting for measurement error, the relative risk was 1.07 (95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.34).
The upper bound of the adjusted 95% confidence interval excludes the relative risk of 1.4 to 1.5 predicted by the international correlations. In calculations based on a series of theoretical assumptions, Prentice has claimed that the pooled analysis of breast cancer failed to find a positive association because the measurement error correction did not account for underreporting of fat intake by more obese women. Actual studies do not support this assumption, however, and the other predictions based on this theoretical model are not supported by the data. Thus, these theoretical concerns appear groundless. In the Nurses' Health Study, additional analyses have been conducted with 8 years (1,439 cases of breast cancer) and 14 years (2,956 cases) of follow-up. In the 14-year analysis, up to four assessments of fat intake were available, which substantially improved the measurement of long-term dietary intake.
The relative risk for a 5% increase in percentage of energy from total fat was 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.00); the overall weak inverse trend was actually statistically significant. No suggestion of any reduction in risk was seen for fat intakes even lower than 20% of energy. Thus, the prospective studies provide strong evidence that no major relation exists between total dietary fat intake over a wide range during midlife and breast cancer incidence. Although it remains possible that dietary fat intake during childhood or early adult life may affect breast cancer risk decades later, no evidence exists for this.{pagebreak}
Intervention Studies
Some have suggested that the relationship between dietary fat and breast cancer can be established only by randomized trials of fat reduction. The Women's Health Initiative sponsored by the U.S. National Institutes of Health has been developed with the goal of enrolling and randomizing several tens of thousands of women, one-half of whom will be instructed on how to reduce their total fat intake to 20% of calories from fat.
However, the difficulty of maintaining compliance with a diet very different from prevailing food consumption habits, as well as the gradual secular decline in total fat consumption already under way, which may reduce the size of the comparison in fat intake between intervention groups and controls, may compromise the ability of any trial to address the effect of reducing percentage of energy from fat.
Furthermore, as pointed out by the Women's Health Initiative investigators, "women in the dietary intervention group will be counseled to adopt a dietary pattern that is high in fruits, vegetables, and grain products and low in total fat and saturated fat." Thus, the trial would be unable to distinguish between a decrease in risk due to increased intake of fruits, vegetables, and grains, and a decrease due to lower fat intake. Also, this trial will not answer whether dietary fat reduction at an early age may reduce breast cancer risk decades later.
{embed="ref/stat-menu-br-cancer"}
Type of Fat
In addition to overall fat intake, intake of specific types of fat could differentially affect risk of breast cancer. In most animal studies, diets high in polyunsaturated fat (linoleic acid), but typically at levels beyond human exposure, have clearly increased the occurrence of mammary tumors. As noted, a positive association has not been found in prospective epidemiologic studies.
Some animal studies have suggested that monounsaturated fat, in the form of olive oil, may be protective relative to other sources of energy. In a Spanish study specifically undertaken because of the high consumption of olive oil and low breast cancer rates in this population, no association was observed between breast cancer rates and total fat intake. Higher intake of olive oil was associated with reduced risk of breast cancer, however.
Similar inverse associations with consumption of olive oil or monounsaturated fat were seen in case control studies in Greece, Italy, and elsewhere in Spain; in the Italian study, intake of polyunsaturated oils was also related to lower risk.
High intake of omega-3 fatty acids from marine oils has inhibited the occurrence of mammary tumors in animals. Case control and cohort studies, however, have in general found little relation between intake of omega-3 fatty acids or fish (the major source of extra-long-chain omega-3 fatty acids) and risk of breast cancer.{pagebreak}
Height and Weight
As noted under Animal Studies, energy restriction powerfully reduces mammary tumor incidence in rodents. This relationship is difficult to evaluate directly in humans, because estimates by adults of their energy intake, especially during childhood, are unlikely to be sufficiently precise, and any analysis would also need to account for physical activity with high accuracy.
However, because children who experience energy deprivation during growth do not attain their full potential height, attained height may be used as a proxy for childhood energy intake. Nevertheless, this is not a specific indicator, because protein restriction and genetic factors also affect stature. In Japan, for instance, a substantial increase in average height occurred during the twentieth century, presumably due to improved nutrition. Among countries, height is positively correlated with breast cancer rates, supporting the hypothesis that childhood and adolescent energy intake may influence breast cancer rates decades later.
Most of the case control and cohort studies of attained height and risk of breast cancer suggest a modest positive association. In a follow-up of 7,259 postmenopausal women in the Netherlands, a more than twofold increase in risk was observed for a 15-cm difference in height. In a follow-up of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey I (NHANES I) population, in which women at risk for malnutrition had been oversampled,a similar increase in risk was observed. In the NHANES I study, height was positively associated with later age at menarche (protective against breast cancer) and late age at first birth, low parity, higher socioeconomic status, and alcohol use (risk factors for breast cancer); these findings suggest that height may be confounded by other cancer risk factors. Controlling for these variables in multivariate analyses, however, had little influence on the association between height and breast cancer.
{embed="ref/stat-menu-br-cancer"}
Among women in the Nurses' Health Study, a significant positive association was seen between height and breast cancer among postmenopausal women but not among premenopausal women. Several large cohort studies have been conducted in Scandinavia, and in all of them significant associations have been observed, ranging from 1.1 (for a 5-cm increment) to 2.0 (for an increment larger than 8 cm). In the studies of Vatten and Kvinnsland, the positive trend between height and risk of breast cancer was most nearly linear in the birth cohort of women (1929 to 1932) who lived through their peripubertal period during World War II, a time in which food was scarce and average attained height was reduced. Collectively, these data provide convincing evidence that attained height is associated with a modest increase of breast cancer.
Age at menarche, an established risk factor for breast cancer, provides a second indirect indicator of energy balance during childhood. Nutritional factors - in particular, energy balance - appear to be the major determinants of age at menarche. In prospective studies among young girls, the major predictors of age at menarche were weight, height, and body fatness.
A marginally significant inverse association between dietary fat and age at menarche was seen in one study, but no relation was observed in the others. The potential for energy balance to influence breast cancer risk through age at menarche is greater than might be appreciated by examining the distribution of this variable in modern Western countries. Although the average age at menarche in these countries is now 12 to 13 years, in rural China the typical age has been 17 to 18 years, similar to that of Western countries 200 years ago. An effect of growth rate on breast cancer risk may begin even before birth, as an inverse relation between birth weight and breast cancer risk has been observed in one study of mainly premenopausal women.
The mechanisms by which age at menarche and attained height are related to risk of breast cancer are probably multiple. Early onset of menstrual cycles exposes the breast to ovarian hormones at a younger age and for a longer duration over a lifetime. Also, in several studies, an early menarche has been associated with higher estrogen levels at later ages.
Height has been suggested to be a surrogate for mammary gland mass, which may be related to higher risk. IGF-I could be a key intermediary, because this hormone is directly involved in regulation of growth during childhood, and plasma levels in premenopausal women have been associated with risk of breast cancer. The temporal nature of this relationship remains unclear, because an effect of IGF-I on breast cancer risk could be mediated entirely during the years of growth and development, with the association between adult levels and breast cancer risk only reflecting the correlation of blood levels over time. Alternatively, the blood IGF-I levels may have a temporally more proximate relation to risk, so that reductions in levels during adulthood would reduce risk of breast cancer. The determinants of blood IGF-I levels in humans are not known and may be both genetic and nutritional. In animals, energy restriction reduces IGF-I levels, and infusion of IGF-I appears to negate the effects of energy restriction on bowel tumors in mice.{pagebreak}
Weight and Weight Change during Adulthood
Attained weight and weight change in adults provide sensitive measures of the balance between long-term energy intake and expenditure. Although the relationship between these variables and breast cancer risk has been complex and confusing, recent findings provide a coherent picture and indicate a major contribution of weight gain to risk of postmenopausal breast cancer risk. Two reproducible findings have been particularly enigmatic: (a) In affluent Western populations with high rates of breast cancer, measures of body fatness have been inversely related to risk of premenopausal breast cancer, and (b) body fatness has been only weakly related to postmenopausal breast cancer risk despite strong associations between body fat and endogenous estrogen levels.
The inverse relationship between body weight [typically considered as body mass index (BMI), calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters, to account for variation in height] and incidence of premenopausal breast cancer has been consistently seen inprospective studies and in a meta-analysis of case control and cohort studies.
Little relationship of BMI to breast cancer mortality has been observed in premenopausal women, probably because delayed detection and diagnosis in heavier women counterbalances the lower incidence among heavier women. Heavier premenopausal women, even at the upper limits of what are considered to be healthy weights, have more irregular menstrual cycles and increased rates of anovulatory infertility, findings suggesting that their lower risk may be due to fewer ovulatory cycles and less exposure to ovarian hormones. Increased rates of menstrual irregularity and anovulatory infertility are also seen among very lean women, but such women are uncommon in Western populations. In case control studies, a consistent relationship between menstrual cycle regularity and breast cancer risk has not emerged, which could cast doubt on this explanation, but this may be due to the indirect relationship between menstrual regularity and ovulation and to difficulties in remote recall.
{embed="ref/stat-menu-br-cancer"}
In a prospective study among younger women, both shorter and longer or irregular cycles, compared with regular cycles of approximately 28 days, were associated with reduced risk of breast cancer41; this finding lends support to irregular anovulation as the explanation for the lower risk in heavier women.
In case control and prospective studies conducted in affluent Western countries, the association between BMI and risk of breast cancer among postmenopausal women has been only weakly positive or nonexistent. The lack of a stronger association has been surprising, because obese postmenopausal women have plasma levels of endogenous estrogens nearly twice those of lean women, due to conversion of androstenedione to estrogens in adipose tissue and also to lower levels of sex hormone-binding globulin. The lack of a stronger positive association now appears to be due to two factors. First, as with the protective effect of early pregnancy, the reduction in breast cancer risk associated with being overweight in early adult life appears to persist throughout later life.
Thus, an elevated BMI in a postmenopausal woman represents two opposing risks: a protective effect due to the correlation between early weight and postmenopausal weight, and an adverse effect due to elevated estrogen levels after menopause. For this reason, weight gain from early adult life to after menopause should be more strongly related to postmenopausal breast cancer risk than attained weight. Indeed, a positive association between weight gain and increased risk of postmenopausal breast cancer has been consistently supported by both case control and prospective studies.
A second reason for the failure to appreciate a greater adverse effect of excessive weight or weight gain on risk of postmenopausal breast cancer is that the use of postmenopausal hormones obscures the variation in endogenous estrogens due to adiposity and elevates breast cancer risk regardless of body weight. To appreciate fully the impact of weight or weight gain, an analysis should be limited to women who never used postmenopausal hormones. Thus, among women who never used postmenopausal hormones in the Nurses' Health Study, those who gained 25 kg or more after age 18 had double the risk of breast cancer compared with women who maintained their weight within 2 kg. In this population, the combination of using postmenopausal hormones or gaining weight after age 18 years accounted for one-third of postmenopausal breast cancer cases.
The relationship between body weight and breast cancer risk in lower-risk, mainly non-Western, countries has beenobserved to be somewhat different than that in higher-risk countries.233 In general, the inverse relationship between weight and premenopausal breast cancer risk has not been observed, and the association between weight and postmenopausal risk has been stronger. This difference is likely to be due to the lower prevalence of overweight among premenopausal women in these low-risk countries; few women are likely to be sufficiently overweight to cause anovulation and a reduction in premenopausal breast cancer risk. As a result, BMI after menopause would reflect only the adverse effects of high levels of endogenous estrogens, unopposed by a residual protective effect due to correlation with overweight in early adult life.
In summary, as in animal studies, energy balance appears to play an important but complex role in the causation of breast cancer in humans. During childhood, rapid growth rates accelerate the occurrence of menarche, an established risk factor, and result in greater attained stature, which has been consistently associated with increased risk. During early adult life, overweight is associated with a lower incidence of breast cancer before menopause, but no reduction in breast cancer mortality. Weight gain after age 18 years, however, is associated with a graded and substantial increase in postmenopausal breast cancer that is seen most clearly in the absence of hormone replacement therapy.
Walter C. Willett, Beverly Rockhill, Susan E. Hankinson, David J. Hunter and Graham A. Colditz
W. C. Willett: Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts B. Rockhill: Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts S. E. Hankinson: Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology, Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston Massachusetts D. J. Hunter: Departments of Epidemiology and Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachussetts G. A. Colditz: Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachussetts