Table 1

Results from large prospective studies of total and saturated fat intake and risk for breast cancer

RR (95% CI; high versus low category)

Study [ref.]

Total number in cohort

Years of follow-up

Number of cases

Total fat

Saturated fat

Nurses' Health Study [96]

89,494

8

1439

0.86 (0.67–1.08)

0.86 (0.73–1.02)

Nurses' Health Study [12]

88,795

14

2956

0.97 (0.94–1.00)^a

0.94 (0.88–1.01)^a

Canadian study [97]

56,837

5

519

1.30 (0.90–1.88)

1.08 (0.73–1.59)

New York State cohort [98]

17,401

7

344

1.00 (0.59–1.70)

1.12 (0.78–1.61)^b

Iowa women's study [99]

32,080

4

408

1.13 (0.84–1.51)

1.10 (0.83–1.46)

Dutch health study [100]

62,573

3

471

1.08 (0.73–1.59)

1.39 (0.94–2.06)

Adventists health study [104]

20,341

6

193

-

1.21 (0.81–1.81)

Swedish mammography screening cohort [101]

61,471

6

674

1.00 (0.76–1.32)

1.09 (0.83–1.42)

Breast Cancer Detection Demo Project [102]

40,022

5

996

1.07 (0.86–1.32)

1.12 (0.87–1.45)

California teachers study [103]

115,526

2

711

0.8 (0.6–1.2)

0.8 (0.6–1.2)

^aAnimal fat. ^bContinuous. CI, confidence interval; RR, relative risk. From Willett and coworkers [95].

Holmes and Willett Breast Cancer Res 2004 6:170   doi:10.1186/bcr909