Skip to main content
. 2009 Apr 1;89(5):1565S–1571S. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.26736F

TABLE 2.

Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for additional breast cancer events after 7.3 y of follow-up according to baseline dietary quartiles (Qs) in the subgroup of women without hot flashes

No. of participants (no. of additional breast cancer events)
Dietary component All Intervention Comparison HR1 (95% CI) P for trend2
All 896 (179) 446 (72) 450 (107) 0.7 (0.52, 0.95)
Vegetables–fruit 0.01
 Q1: ≤4.9, servings/d 249 (61) 124 (26) 125 (35) 0.8 (0.48, 1.35)
 Q2: >4.9–6.7 servings/d 222 (37) 108 (18) 114 (19) 0.99 (0.51, 1.94)
 Q3: >6.7–8.9 servings/d 210 (45) 110 (18) 100 (27) 0.56 (0.31, 1.03)
 Q4: >8.9 servings/d 215 (36) 104 (10) 111 (26) 0.41 (0.19, 0.86)
Fiber 0.02
 Q1: ≤15.6 g/d 227 (45) 113 (19) 114 (26) 0.82 (0.45, 1.48)
 Q2: >15.6–19.9 g/d 226 (42) 117 (20) 109 (22) 0.79 (0.42, 1.47)
 Q3: >19.9–25.2 g/d 216 (42) 107 (17) 109 (25) 0.99 (0.52, 1.89)
 Q4: >25.2 g/d 227 (50) 109 (16) 118 (34) 0.48 (0.26, 0.87)
Energy from fat 0.06
 Q1: ≤23.8%/d 229 (34) 117 (11) 112 (23) 0.42 (0.2, 0.88)
 Q2: >23.8–28.6%/d 214 (51) 106 (25) 108 (26) 0.88 (0.5, 1.55)
 Q3: >28.6–33.4%/d 228 (51) 112 (19) 116 (32) 0.69 (0.38, 1.26)
 Q4: >33.4%/d 225 (43) 111 (17) 114 (26) 0.75 (0.4, 1.43)
Fiber-to-fat ratio3 0.01
 Q1: ≤0.25 221 (37) 104 (15) 117 (22) 0.82 (0.42, 1.63)
 Q2: >0.25–0.36 237 (50) 119 (22) 118 (28) 0.81 (0.45, 1.43)
 Q3: >0.36–0.54 221 (52) 123 (24) 98 (28) 0.69 (0.39, 1.23)
 Q4: >0.54 217 (40) 100 (11) 117 (29) 0.38 (0.19, 0.77)
1

Derived from Cox model adjusted for stage and grade of original tumor and antiestrogen therapy.

2

Linear trend test for intervention effect across quartiles of baseline dietary pattern in multiple Cox model; likelihood ratio tests for group quartile interaction were not significant for any diet component.

3

Fiber (g/d) divided by fat (g/d).

HHS Vulnerability Disclosure