Fish, n − 3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and n − 6 polyunsaturated fatty acids intake and breast cancer risk: The Japan Public Health Center‐based prospective study

Abstract

Limited and inconsistent studies exist on the association between the intake of fish, n − 3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) and n − 6 PUFA and breast cancer. Fish and n − 3 PUFA support various body functions and are thought to reduce the carcinogenesis risk while n − 6 PUFA may have a positive association with cancer risk. We examined the association between intake of fish, n − 3 PUFA [including eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), docosapentaenoic acid (DPA) and alpha‐linolenic acid (ALA)] and n − 6 PUFA and breast cancer with subanalyses on estrogen (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status. We investigated 38,234 Japanese women aged 45–74 years from the Japan Public Health Center‐based prospective study (JPHC study), and during 14.1 years of follow‐up time, 556 breast cancer cases were newly diagnosed. Breast cancer risk was not associated with the intake of total fish, n − 3 PUFA and n − 6 PUFA when analyzed in totality through multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models with age as the time scale. Intake of total n − 6 was positively associated with the development of ER+PR+ tumors [multivariable‐adjusted HR Q4 vs. Q1 = 2.94 (95% CI: 1.26–6.89; ptrend = 0.02)]. Intake of EPA was associated with a decreased breast cancer risk for ER+PR+ tumors [multivariable‐adjusted HR Q2 vs. Q1 = 0.47 (95% CI: 0.25–0.89; ptrend =0.47)]. While the overall association between the intake of total fish, n − 3 PUFA and n − 6 PUFA and breast cancer risk is null, for ER+PR+ tumors, a positive association was seen between n − 6 intake and breast cancer, and a marginally significant inverse association was observed for EPA intake.

Dietary Protein Sources and Incidence of Breast Cancer: A Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies

“…In total, forty-six [5,6,7,8,17,18,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60] independent prospective cohort studies were identified for meta-analysis. Among these articles, 15 were from the United States [7,8,18,21,24,26,31,34,37,39,40,49,52,55,60], 20 from Europe [5,6,22,23,25,…”

“…Eighteen cohort studies [5,7,8,17,21,23,24,28,33,34,35,37,41,42,43,53,55,59] were included in the analysis, including 20,810 cases among 914,451 participants. The summary RR for highest versus lowest was 1.04 (95% CI 0.97–1.12) with moderate heterogeneity, I 2 = 47.9% (See Table 2).…”

Red meat, poultry, and fish intake and breast cancer risk among Hispanic and Non-Hispanic white women: The Breast Cancer Health Disparities Study

“…A meta-analysis that included 11 prospective studies concluded that fish intake was not associated with BC risk [31]. Furthermore, a 2013 prospective study conducted among US black women also failed to find an association [32], as did a more recent prospective study conducted in Japan, where fish makes up a relatively higher proportion of daily dietary consumption [33]. In contrast, a prospective study from Denmark reported that overall intake of fish was associated with higher incidence rates of BC independently of fish fat content or preparation methods [34].…”

Dietary total fat and fatty acids intake, serum fatty acids and risk of breast cancer: A meta‐analysis of prospective cohort studies

“…1). Finally, 24 independent studies from 23 articles 7,8,[10][11][12][13][14][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] (38,262 cases among 1,387,366 subjects) were included on dietary total fat and fatty acids intake, and seven articles [34][35][36][37][38][39][40] (1,334 cases among 3,511 subjects) were included on serum fatty acids.…”