4.7 Article

Dietary fat intake and risk of ovarian cancer in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 106, Issue 3, Pages 596-602

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2011.572

Keywords

dietary fat; ovarian cancer; cohort studies

Categories

Funding

  1. Florida Department of Health (FDOH)
  2. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health
  3. NIH [5 T32 CA09001-35]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Fat intake has been postulated to increase risk of ovarian cancer, but previous studies have reported inconsistent results. METHODS: The NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study, a large prospective cohort, assessed diet using a food frequency questionnaire at baseline in 1995-1996. During an average of 9 years of follow-up, 695 ovarian cancer cases were ascertained through the state cancer registry database. The relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: Women in the highest vs the lowest quintile of total fat intake had a 28% increased risk of ovarian cancer (RRQ5 (vs Q1) = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.01-1.63). Fat intake from animal sources (RRQ5 (vs Q1) = 1.30; 95% CI: 1.02-1.66), but not from plant sources, was positively associated with ovarian cancer risk. Saturated and monounsaturated fat intakes were not related to risk of ovarian cancer, but polyunsaturated fat intake showed a weak positive association. The association between total fat intake and ovarian cancer was stronger in women who were nulliparous or never used oral contraceptives. CONCLUSION: Fat intake, especially from animal sources, was related to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. The association may be modified by parity and oral contraceptive use, which warrants further investigation. British Journal of Cancer (2012) 106, 596-602. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.572 www.bjcancer.com Published online 5 January 2012 (C) 2012 Cancer Research UK

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available