Toast Titanium For Mac - 565 User Reviews 20.0

12/29/2021by admin
  1. Toast Titanium For Mac - 565 User Reviews 20.0 M
  2. Toast Titanium For Mac - 565 User Reviews 20.0 X
  3. Toast Titanium For Mac - 565 User Reviews 20.0 Hp
  4. Toast Titanium For Mac - 565 User Reviews 20.0 10
  5. Toast Titanium For Mac - 565 User Reviews 20.0 Pro
  1. Samsung SCX-483x 5x3x Series is a Shareware software in the category Miscellaneous developed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. The latest version of Samsung SCX-483x 5x3x Series is currently unknown. It was initially added to our database on. Samsung SCX-483x 5x3x Series runs on the following operating systems: Windows.
  2. Free 2-day shipping. Buy Roxio Toast Titanium - (v. 14) - box pack - 1 user - DVD (mini-box) - Mac - English, Japanese at Walmart.com.
  3. Full membership to the IDM is for researchers who are fully committed to conducting their research in the IDM, preferably accommodated in the IDM complex, for 5-year terms, which are renewable.
  4. If your Mac is in sleep mode overnight the scripts won't run according to this: XLab website: R unning the Mac OS X maintenance scripts. The following is from that site: Mac® OS X is a UNIX ®-based system, built in part on both BSD® and FreeBSD ®.

COVID update: Hard Knox Cafe has updated their hours, takeout & delivery options. 2245 reviews of Hard Knox Cafe 'I had no idea where I was when a friend directed me here for dinner. But once I tasted the food, I was an instant believer. Very well-priced soul food with taste to match. The owner/operators are so friendly!

Published online 2018 Mar 23. doi: 10.1002/cam4.1423
PMID: 29573201
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract

High dietary fiber intake has been associated with reduced breast cancer risk, but few studies considered tumor subtypes defined by estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status or included racial/ethnic minority populations who vary in their fiber intake. We analyzed food frequency data from a population‐based case–control study, including 2135 breast cancer cases (1070 Hispanics, 493 African Americans, and 572 non‐Hispanic Whites (NHWs)) and 2571 controls (1391 Hispanics, 557 African Americans, and 623 NHWs). Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for breast cancer associated with fiber intake were calculated using unconditional logistic regression. Breast cancer risk associated with high intake (high vs. low quartile) of bean fiber (p‐trend = 0.01), total beans (p‐trend = 0.03), or total grains (p‐trend = 0.05) was reduced by 20%. Inverse associations were strongest for ERPR‐ breast cancer, with risk reductions associated with high intake ranging from 28 to 36%. For bean fiber, risk was reduced among foreign‐born Hispanics only, who had the highest fiber intake, whereas for grain intake, inverse associations were found among NHWs only. There was no evidence of association with fiber intake from vegetables and fruits or total intake of vegetables and fruits. A high dietary intake of bean fiber and fiber‐rich foods such as beans and grains may lower the risk of ERPR‐ breast cancer, an aggressive breast cancer subtype for which few risk factors have been identified.

Keywords: African Americans, beans, breast cancer, diet, fiber, grains, Hispanics

Introduction

Toast Titanium for Mac - 565 User Reviews 20.0 pro

The role of dietary fiber in breast cancer etiology remains uncertain 1, 2. Meta‐analyses of cohort 2, 3, 4 and case–control 5 data have reported inverse associations, with modest risk reductions of 5%‐7% per 10 g/day increment of fiber intake. In some studies, associations with fiber intake varied by source of fiber (e.g., vegetables, fruits, and grains) 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 or type of fiber (e.g., soluble vs. insoluble) 15, 16. Recent studies also suggest that associations with fiber intake may differ by tumor hormone receptor status 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.

Reviews

To date, most studies on fiber intake and breast cancer risk have been conducted in non‐Hispanic White (NHW) women. Data on Hispanic and African American women are sparse, although fiber intake and fiber sources have been shown to vary substantially across racial/ethnic populations in the United States (U.S.) 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. Hispanics, for example, have a higher fiber intake than African Americans and NHWs 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and they consume fiber from different sources, with a higher proportion of fiber from beans 20, 21, 22, particularly among foreign‐born Hispanics 23.

We examined the relation between intake of fiber and fiber‐rich foods and breast cancer risk in a population‐based case–control study conducted in a multiethnic population with a wide range of dietary fiber intake from diverse sources.

Materials and Methods

Study population

Women included in this study were participants in the San Francisco Bay Area Breast Cancer Study, a population‐based case–control study conducted from 1995 to 2004 24, 25. Through the Greater Bay Area Cancer Registry, we identified 17,581 women aged 35–79 years and newly diagnosed with a first primary invasive breast cancer, including African Americans and NHWs diagnosed between 1 April 1995 and 30 April 1999 and Hispanics diagnosed between 1 April 1995 and 30 April 2002. A brief telephone screening interview assessed study eligibility and self‐reported race/ethnicity. Of those screened (89% participation), all Hispanics and African Americans and a 10% random sample of NHWs were selected into the study (n = 2571). Of those selected, 2258 (88%) completed an in‐person interview, including 1119 (89%) Hispanic, 543 (87%) African American, and 596 (86%) NHW cases.

Controls were identified through random‐digit dialing 24. From the pool of potentially eligible controls, 3771 were randomly selected and frequency matched to cases according to the expected race/ethnicity and 5‐year age distribution of cases. Telephone screening (92% participation) identified 3170 control women who met the study eligibility criteria. Of these, 2706 (85%) completed the in‐person interview, including 1462 (88%) Hispanics, 598 (82%) African Americans, and 646 (83%) NHWs.

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Cancer Prevention Institute of California (Fremont, California, U.S.).

Data collection

A structured questionnaire in English or Spanish was administered by trained bilingual and bicultural interviewers at the participants’ home, collecting information on demographic background, lifestyle factors, menstrual and reproductive history, hormone use, and medical history up to the reference year (defined as the calendar year before diagnosis for cases or before selection into the study for controls). Measurements of weight and height were taken during the interview. Usual dietary intake (frequency of consumption and portion size) in the reference year was assessed using a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) adapted from the 1995 106‐item Block Health History and Habits Questionnaire, with the addition of food items commonly consumed by Hispanic and African‐American women in California, including a variety of beans 26. With regard to fiber sources, the FFQ asked about consumption of single or groups of fruits (apples and apple sauce; bananas and plantains; oranges, tangerines, and grapefruits; cantaloupe; prunes; and berries such as blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, and raspberries), vegetables (soups with tomatoes or carrots; fresh or stewed tomatoes, and salsa; raw or cooked carrots; bell peppers and chile rellenos; broccoli; cooked spinach, mustard greens, turnip greens, collards, kale, and chard; alfalfa sprouts; regular bean sprouts; and lettuce), beans (garbanzo beans; other beans such as pinto kidney, black, red, lima, refried, peas, and black‐eyed peas, including beans in burritos or other dishes; and frijoles de olla), and grains (rice; white bread; dark bread; noodles and pasta; cheese dishes without tomato sauce such as mac and cheese or quesadillas; fiber or bran cereals; other cold cereals; cooked cereals such as oatmeal, cream of wheat, and grits; flour tortillas; corn tortillas and cornbread; rolls, buns, bagels, and English muffins; biscuits and muffins; pancakes, waffles, and French toast; doughnuts, pastries, churros, and pan dulce; cakes and cookies; and salty snacks). The same FFQ was administered to women of all races/ethnicities. Daily intake of specific nutrients was estimated using the DIETSYS software that linked the FFQ data to a nutrient database, which was adapted from nutrient databases developed for the Block 1995 FFQ, and the FFQ used for the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation 27. Data on estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status were obtained from the cancer registry.

Study variables

We examined intake (g/day) of total fiber; fiber from specific foods (beans, grains, vegetables, and fruits); and fiber‐rich foods (total beans, total grains, total vegetables, and total fruits). Body mass index (BMI, kg/m2) was calculated as self‐reported weight (kg) in the reference year divided by measured squared height (m). For the small number of participants who did not report their weight in the reference year (1% of cases and 2% of controls), we used measured weight, and for those who declined the height measurement (7% of cases and 7% of controls), we used self‐reported height for the BMI calculation. We used self‐reported instead of measured weight because of concern about treatment‐related and disease‐related weight gain after diagnosis. Average lifetime physical activity (hours/week) between menarche and the reference year was estimated from self‐reported histories of exercise, walking and bicycling, strenuous indoor and outdoor chores, and occupational activity 24. Menopausal status was determined using methods defined previously 24, 25.

Statistical analysis

Of the 4964 women who completed the in‐person interview, we excluded 69 cases and 63 controls with total daily energy intake <600 kcal or >5000 kcal (indicative of unreliable dietary recall) and 54 cases and 72 controls with missing covariate data, leaving 2135 cases and 2571 controls for the analysis. Using multivariable unconditional logistic regression, we estimated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for breast cancer risk associated with intake of total fiber, intake of fiber from specific foods (beans, grains, and vegetables and fruits combined), and intake of fiber‐rich foods (beans, grains, vegetables, and fruits). Models were adjusted for total energy intake using the residual method (with logarithm transformation of nutrients and energy intake) 28. Quartiles or tertiles of energy‐adjusted nutrient or food intake were determined according to the distributions among all controls combined. Tests of trend were conducted by treating the quartiles or tertiles as ordered four‐category or three‐category variables, respectively.

The multivariable models were adjusted for age (continuous), race/ethnicity and birthplace (foreign‐born Hispanics, U.S.‐born Hispanics, African Americans, and NHWs), and variables associated with breast cancer risk (Table 1), including education (some high school or less, high school or vocational/technical school graduate, some college, and college graduate), first‐degree family history of breast cancer (no, yes), personal history of biopsy‐confirmed benign breast disease (no, yes), age at menarche (<14 years, ≥14 years), menopausal status and hormone therapy (HT) use (premenopausal, postmenopausal and never or past HT use, postmenopausal and current HT use, and unknown menopausal status or HT use), parity and age at first full‐term pregnancy (FFP) (nulliparous, parity 1–2 and FFP <30 years, parity 1–2 and FFP ≥30 years, parity ≥3 and FFP <25 years, or parity ≥3 and FFP ≥25 years), lifetime breastfeeding (none, <12, ≥12 months), average lifetime physical activity (hours/week, quartiles), BMI (<25.0, 25.0–29.9, ≥30.0 kg/m2), daily alcohol consumption (none, <5, 5–9, ≥10 g), daily energy intake (continuous), and daily fat intake (energy‐adjusted, quartiles). We stratified the analyses by race/ethnicity and birthplace and by hormone receptor status. Polytomous logistic regression was used to estimate the associations between the dietary variables and risk of hormone receptor‐positive (ER+ and/or PR+) and ER‐PR‐ breast cancer. Analyses for ER+ and/or PR+ breast cancer were adjusted for the same variables as for overall breast cancer. Analyses for ER‐PR‐ breast cancer were adjusted for age, race/ethnicity and birthplace, age at menarche, menopausal status and HT use, breastfeeding, physical activity, and energy and fat intake. All tests of significance were two‐sided with P < 0.05 as the significant cutoff point. Analyses were performed using SAS Version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

Table 1

Characteristics of cases and controls, San Francisco Bay Area Breast Cancer Study

Cases (n = 2135)Controls (n = 2571)P valueb
n%an%a
Age (years)
35–444001950820
45–546373077130
55–645332563725
65–744061950620
≥7515981496
Race/ethnicity and birthplace
Foreign‐born Hispanics5292593136
U.S.‐born Hispanics5412546018
African Americans4932355722
Non‐Hispanic Whites5722762324
Estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status
ER+ and/or PR+149870
ER‐PR‐41419
Unknown22310
Education
Some high school or less5472691135<0.01
High school or vocational/technical school graduate5812767226
Some college5362551220
College graduate4712247619
Family history of breast cancer in first‐degree relatives
No179784228789<0.01
Yes3381628411
Personal history of biopsy‐confirmed benign breast disease
No169279218885<0.01
Yes4432138315
Age at menarche (years)
<125172457022<0.01
12–13109351125249
≥145252574929
Parity
Nulliparous3301627911<0.01
Parous180585229289
Number of full‐term pregnancies, parous women
13111732014<0.01
25653158626
34222356725
≥45072881936
Age at first full‐term pregnancy (years), parous women
<2059933881380.01
20–245483063928
25–294452553223
≥302131224011
Lifetime breastfeeding (months), parous women
07764380435<0.01
<125533165729
≥124762683136
Menopausal status
Premenopausal67131806310.58
Postmenopausal131061155961
Unknown15472068
Hormone therapy use, postmenopausal women
Never5153963841<0.01
Former2832268944
Current4963821414
Unknown161181
Lifetime physical activity (quartiles, hours/week)c
Q1: < 6.85982863825<0.01
Q2: 6.8–14.15942864325
Q3: 14.2–25.14752264825
Q4: ≥25.24682264225
BMI (kg/m2), premenopausal women
<25.02974426233<0.01
25.0–29.91952927434
30.01792727034
BMI (kg/m2), postmenopausal women
<25.040831412260.02
25.0–29.94343355035
≥30.04683659738
Alcohol consumptiond (g/day)
0113953153060<0.01
0.1–4.94862355322
5.0–9.913061546
≥103801833413
Total daily energy intake (quartiles, kcal)c,d,e
Q1: < 14325202465726<0.01
Q2: 1432–19035392563825
Q3: 1904–25385462662924
Q4: ≥25395302564725
Energy‐adjusted daily fat intake (quartiles, g)c,d
Q1: < 56.04041964525<0.01
Q2: 56.0–65.94542164325
Q3: 66.0–76.75862763925
Q4: ≥76.86913264425
aPercentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
cQuartiles among all controls.
dIn reference year (calendar year before diagnosis for cases or before selection into the study for controls).

Results

Compared with controls, cases had higher education, earlier menarche, older age at first full‐term pregnancy, shorter duration of breastfeeding, lower physical activity, lower BMI, higher alcohol consumption, and higher caloric and fat intake; higher proportions of cases than controls had a family history of breast cancer or a personal history of benign breast disease and were nulliparous or current HT users (Table 1).

Control women had a higher fiber intake and consumed a higher percentage of fiber from beans than cases (Table 2). Foreign‐born Hispanic controls on average had the highest fiber intake, and the differences in fiber intake between foreign‐born Hispanics and other groups remained statistically significant after normalizing by energy intake (data not shown). Among foreign‐born Hispanics, the largest proportion of fiber came from beans, whereas among U.S.‐born Hispanics, African Americans, and NHWs, vegetables and fruits were the primary source of fiber intake. Large proportions of controls did not meet the recommendations for daily fiber intake (25 g/day for women ages ≤50 years, 22 g/day for women ages >50 years) 29, ranging from 45 to 92%. Adherence to recommended daily fiber intake was highest for foreign‐born Hispanics and lowest for African Americans.

Table 2

Dietary intake among controls, by race/ethnicity and birthplace a, San Francisco Bay Area Breast Cancer Study

Cases (n = 2135)Controls
All (n = 2571)Foreign‐born Hispanics (n = 931)U.S.‐born Hispanics (n = 460)African Americans (n = 557)non‐Hispanic Whites (n = 623)
Total fiber, g/dayb,c21.3 ± 0.323.6 ± 0.331.1 ± 0.522.1 ± 0.517.1 ± 0.418.6 ± 0.4
% of fiber from beansb,c18.8 ± 0.422.4 ± 0.437.5 ± 0.723.1 ± 0.810.2 ± 0.69.7 ± 0.5
% of fiber from grainsb,c36.3 ± 0.334.6 ± 0.328.3 ± 0.433.9 ± 0.640.3 ± 0.739.7 ± 0.6
% of fiber from vegetables and fruitsb,c40.3 ± 0.438.4 ± 0.330.9 ± 0.535.5 ± 0.744.7 ± 0.745.8 ± 0.6
Total beans, g/dayb,c69.0 ± 2.690.7 ± 2.4168.8 ± 5.378.2 ± 4.332.0 ± 2.532.3 ± 2.4
Total grains, g/dayb,c333.8 ± 3.9353.3 ± 3.6412.5 ± 6.3331.5 ± 7.8314.7 ± 8.1317.5 ± 6.5
Total vegetables and fruit, g/dayb,c422.0 ± 5.9438.9 ± 5.4501.3 ± 9.9381.0 ± 10.8401.4 ± 12.3417.2 ± 9.8
Total vegetables, g/dayc213.4 ± 3.4221.5 ± 3.0255.0 ± 5.3194.9 ± 6.2191.0 ± 9.6217.0 ± 6.1
Total fruits, g/dayc208.6 ± 3.8217.4 ± 3.4246.2 ± 6.5186.1 ± 6.7210.4 ± 8.6200.2 ± 5.6
% of women ages ≤50 years meeting guidelines for total fiber intakeb,c,d20.327.451.112.08.311.1
% of women ages >50 years meeting guidelines for total fiber intakeb,c,d22.631.154.631.213.217.9
aValues in the table are age‐adjusted least‐square means ± standard error or otherwise specified.
cP < 0.05 when comparing the three racial/ethnic control groups (Hispanic, African American, and non‐Hispanic Whites) and P < 0.05 between foreign‐born and U.S.‐born Hispanic controls.
dU.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2010 guidelines for total fiber intake are 25 g/day for women ages ≤50 years and 22 g/day for women >50 years.

Associations between breast cancer risk and intake of fiber, different sources of fiber, and fiber‐rich foods are shown in Table 3. Total fiber intake was associated with reduced breast cancer risk (high vs. low quartile: OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.60–0.93), but there was no linear trend of decreasing risk with increasing intake (p‐trend = 0.07). Statistically significant inverse trends emerged only when we considered intake of fiber from specific sources or intake of fiber‐rich foods. Reduced risk was associated with high intake (high vs. low quartile) of bean fiber (OR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.63–0.98, p‐trend = 0.01), total beans (OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.66–1.01, p‐trend = 0.03), and total grains (OR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.68–0.99, p‐trend = 0.05). No associations were found for fiber from grains or fiber from vegetables and fruits combined, or for intake of total vegetables and/or fruits. Findings were similar for premenopausal and postmenopausal women (data not shown).

Table 3

Breast cancer risk and intake of energy‐adjusted fiber, sources of fiber, and fiber‐rich food groups, San Francisco Bay Area Breast Cancer Study

Energy‐adjusted intakeP‐trend
(continuousa)(quartiles, g/day)
Total fiber intakeQ1: <15.2Q2: 15.2–19.8Q3: 19.9–26.5Q4: >26.5
No. of cases2135702503551379
No. of controls2571636649641645
OR (95% CI)b0.93 (0.85–1.01)1.00.69 (0.58–0.82)0.90 (0.75–1.08)0.75 (0.60–0.93)0.07
Fiber from beansQ1: <1.83Q2: 1.83–4.17Q3: 4.18–9.88Q4: >9.88
No. of cases2135678560528369
No. of controls2571646591692642
OR (95% CI)b0.93 (0.84–1.04)1.00.90 (0.76–1.07)0.78 (0.65–0.93)0.79 (0.63–0.98)0.01
Fiber from grainsQ1: <5.88Q2: 5.88–7.47Q3: 7.48–9.51Q4: >9.51
No. of cases2135612513501509
No. of controls2571644642644641
OR (95% CI)b0.92 (0.75–1.14)1.00.89 (0.75–1.06)0.92 (0.76–1.09)0.95 (0.80–1.14)0.63
Fiber from vegetables and fruitsQ1: <6.19Q2: 6.19–8.05Q3: 8.06–10.79Q4: >10.79
No. of cases2135578509529519
No. of controls2571643642637649
OR (95% CI)b0.96 (0.81–1.14)1.00.88 (0.75–1.05)0.91 (0.77–1.08)0.95 (0.80–1.14)0.66
Total beansQ1: <6.4Q2: 6.4–43.0Q3: 43.1–109.6Q4: >109.6
No. of cases2135638632497368
No. of controls2571645641642643
OR (95% CI)b0.97 (0.89–1.05)1.00.99 (0.83–1.17)0.84 (0.70–1.02)0.81 (0.66–1.01)0.03
Total grainsQ1: <246.2Q2: 246.2–312.2Q3: 312.3–391.3Q4: >391.3
No. of cases2135617588534396
No. of controls2571642644643642
OR (95% CI)b0.92 (0.87–0.97)1.01.05 (0.89–1.24)1.01 (0.85–1.20)0.82 (0.68–0.99)0.05
Total vegetables and fruitsQ1: <266.3Q2: 266.3–385.8Q3: 385.9–545.4Q4: >545.4
No. of cases2135617472545501
No. of controls2571642644644641
OR (95% CI)b1.00 (0.97–1.02)1.00.80 (0.68–0.95)0.93 (0.78–1.10)0.95 (0.79–1.13)0.86
Total vegetablesQ1: <118.2Q2: 118.2–188.6Q3: 188.7–277.3Q4: >277.3
No. of cases2135571529523512
No. of controls2571643646640642
OR (95% CI)b0.99 (0.95–1.03)1.00.98 (0.82–1.16)0.98 (0.82–1.16)1.01 (0.84–1.20)0.96
Total fruitsQ1: <106.9Q2: 106.9–178.0Q3: 178.1–279.9Q4: >279.9
No. of cases2135581498525531
No. of controls2571641645641644
OR (95% CI)b1.00 (0.96–1.04)1.00.88 (0.74–1.04)0.98 (0.82–1.16)1.03 (0.86–1.23)0.53
aPer 10 g/day for total fiber, fiber from beans, fiber from grains, and fiber from vegetables and fruits; per 100 g/day for total beans, otal grains, and total vegetables and/or fruits.
bAdjusted for age, race/ethnicity and birthplace, education, history of breast cancer in first‐degree relatives, personal history of benign breast disease, age at menarche, parity and age at first full‐term pregnancy, breastfeeding, menopausal status and hormone therapy use, average lifetime physical activity, current BMI, alcohol consumption, total energy intake (continuous, excluding energy from alcohol), and energy‐adjusted daily fat intake.

For hormone receptor‐positive breast cancer (Table 4), there was a borderline inverse trend for total fiber intake (p‐trend = 0.06), with significant risk reductions for women in the 2nd and 4th quartile of total fiber intake (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.55–0.80, and OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.57–0.92, respectively). Similarly for bean fiber, the inverse trend was of borderline significance (p‐trend = 0.05). Strong inverse associations and linear trends were found for ER‐PR‐ disease; reduced risks were associated with high intake (high vs. low quartile) of bean fiber (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.45–0.97, p‐trend = 0.02), total beans (OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.50–1.05, p‐trend = 0.04), and total grains (OR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.46–0.90, p‐trend = 0.01). For bean fiber and total beans, inverse associations with high intake (high vs. low tertile) were found among foreign‐born Hispanics only (OR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.24–0.80, p‐trend = 0.01 and OR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.25–0.93, p‐trend = 0.02, respectively), whereas for total grains, reduced risk was found among NHW women only (OR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.17–0.89, p‐trend = 0.04; OR per 100 g/day: 0.64, 95% CI = 0.48–0.85) (Table 5).

Titanium

Table 4

Breast cancer risk and intake of energy‐adjusted fiber, sources of fiber, and fiber‐rich food groups, by ER/PR status, San Francisco Bay Area Breast Cancer Study

Energy‐adjusted intakeP‐trend
(continuousa)(quartiles, g/day)
Total fiber intakeQ1: <15.2Q2: 15.2–19.8Q3: 19.9–26.5Q4: >26.5
No. of controls2571636649641645
No. of ER+ and/or PR+ cases1498490348395265
OR (95% CI)b0.92 (0.83–1.01)1.00.66 (0.55–0.80)0.88 (0.72–1.08)0.72 (0.57–0.92)0.06
No. of ER‐PR‐ cases4141438710678
OR (95% CI)c0.96 (0.82–1.12)1.00.65 (0.48–0.87)0.93 (0.68–1.27)0.81 (0.55–1.18)0.53
Fiber from beansQ1: <1.83Q2: 1.83–4.17Q3: 4.18–9.88Q4: >9.88
No. of controls2571646591692642
No. of ER+ and/or PR+ cases1498472398366262
OR (95% CI)b0.92 (0.81–1.04)1.00.91 (0.75–1.10)0.79 (0.64–0.96)0.84 (0.66–1.06)0.05
No. of ER‐PR‐ cases41413210310673
OR (95% CI)c0.95 (0.79–1.15)1.00.86 (0.63–1.15)0.73 (0.53–0.99)0.66 (0.45–0.97)0.02
Fiber from grainsQ1: <5.88Q2: 5.88–7.47Q3: 7.48–9.51Q4: >9.51
No. of controls2571644642644641
No. of ER+ and/or PR+ cases1498412361364361
OR (95% CI)b0.92 (0.72–1.16)1.00.92 (0.77–1.11)0.98 (0.81–1.19)0.97 (0.79–1.18)0.88
No. of ER‐PR‐ cases4141221079590
OR (95% CI)c0.93 (0.64–1.35)1.00.94 (0.71–1.26)0.91 (0.67–1.23)0.92 (0.67–1.26)0.57
Fiber from vegetables and fruitsQ1: <6.19Q2: 6.19–8.05Q3: 8.06–10.79Q4: >10.79
No. of controls2571643642637649
No. of ER+ and/or PR+ cases1498386359383370
OR (95% CI)b0.97 (0.89–1.07)1.00.91 (0.75–1.10)0.94 (0.78–1.14)0.95 (0.78–1.17)0.73
No. of ER‐PR‐ cases4141398687102
OR (95% CI)c1.01 (0.75–1.35)1.00.67 (0.50–0.91)0.73 (0.54–0.99)0.97 (0.72–1.30)0.73
Total beansQ1: <6.4Q2: 6.4–43.0Q3: 43.1–109.6Q4: >109.6
No. of controls2571645641642643
No. of ER+ and/or PR+ cases1498444444353257
OR (95% CI)b0.97 (0.89–1.07)1.00.99 (0.82–1.19)0.87 (0.71–1.06)0.84 (0.67–1.07)0.09
No. of ER‐PR‐ cases4141251209574
OR (95% CI)c0.96 (0.83–1.11)1.00.93 (0.69–1.24)0.74 (0.54–1.03)0.72 (0.50–1.05)0.04
Total grainsQ1: <246.2Q2: 246.2–312.2Q3: 312.3–391.3Q4: >391.3
No. of controls2571642644643642
No. of ER+ and/or PR+ cases1498423408374293
OR (95% CI)b0.94 (0.88–1.00)1.01.09 (0.91–1.32)1.03 (0.85–1.25)0.89 (0.73–1.10)0.28
No. of ER‐PR‐ cases41412911710068
OR (95% CI)c0.87 (0.78–0.96)1.00.95 (0.72–1.26)0.88 (0.65–1.18)0.64 (0.46–0.90)0.01
Total vegetables and fruitsQ1: <266.3Q2: 266.3–385.8Q3: 385.9–545.4Q4: >545.4
No. of controls2571642644644641
No. of ER+ and/or PR+ cases1498417337377367
OR (95% CI)b1.00 (0.97–1.03)1.00.83 (0.68–1.00)0.91 (0.75–1.10)0.97 (0.80–1.19)0.96
No. of ER‐PR‐ cases414132969492
OR (95% CI)c1.00 (0.95–1.05)1.00.82 (0.61–1.10)0.86 (0.64–1.15)0.94 (0.69–1.28)0.70
Total vegetablesQ1: <118.2Q2: 118.2–188.6Q3: 188.7–277.3Q4: >277.3
No. of controls2571643646640642
No. of ER+ and/or PR+ cases1498390374374360
OR (95% CI) b0.98 (0.94–1.04)1.00.98 (0.81–1.18)0.99 (0.82–1.20)0.98 (0.81–1.20)0.90
No. of ER‐PR‐ cases41411910310191
OR (95% CI)c1.01 (0.93–1.09)1.00.99 (0.74–1.33)1.02 (0.76–1.37)1.00 (0.73–1.36)0.96
Total fruitsQ1: <106.9Q2: 106.9–178.0Q3: 178.1–279.9Q4: >279.9
No. of controls2571641645641644
No. of ER+ and/or PR+ cases1498398342362396
OR (95% CI)b1.01 (0.97–1.06)1.00.87 (0.71–1.05)0.95 (0.78–1.15)1.08 (0.88–1.31)0.35
No. of ER‐PR‐ cases414128999394
OR (95% CI)c0.99 (0.92–1.06)1.00.85 (0.63–1.14)0.89 (0.66–1.20)0.96 (0.71–1.32)0.84
aPer 10 g/day for total fiber, fiber from beans, fiber from grains, and fiber from vegetables and fruits; per 100 g/day for total beans, otal grains, and total vegetables and/or fruits.
bAdjusted for age, race/ethnicity and birthplace, education, history of breast cancer in first‐degree relatives, personal history of benign breast disease, age at menarche, parity and age at first full‐term pregnancy, breastfeeding, menopausal status and menopausal hormone therapy use, average lifetime physical activity, current BMI, alcohol consumption, total energy intake (continuous, excluding energy from alcohol), and energy‐adjusted daily fat intake.
cAdjusted for age, race/ethnicity and birthplace, age at menarche, breastfeeding, menopausal status and hormone therapy use, average lifetime physical activity, total energy intake (continuous, excluding energy from alcohol), and energy‐adjusted daily fat intake.

Table 5

Risk of ER‐PR‐ breast cancer risk and intake of energy‐adjusted fiber from beans, total beans, and total grains, by race/ethnicity and birthplace

Energy‐adjusted intakeP‐trend
(continuousa)(tertiles, g/day)
Fiber from beansT1: <2.41T2: 2.41–7.52T3: >7.52
Foreign‐born Hispanics
No. of cases118203860
No. of controls93167256608
OR (95% CI)b0.87 (0.67–1.13)1.00.55 (0.29–1.02)0.43 (0.24–0.80)0.01
U.S.‐born Hispanics
No. of cases109265330
No. of controls460100226134
OR (95% CI)b1.14 (0.77–1.67)1.01.02 (0.59–1.75)1.07 (0.57–2.02)0.79
African Americans
No. of cases12282346
No. of controls55731818653
OR (95% CI)b0.99 (0.55–1.75)1.00.76 (0.48–1.19)0.56 (0.23–1.38)0.12
Non‐Hispanic Whites
No. of cases6539215
No. of controls62336520454
OR (95% CI)b1.02 (0.47–2.20)1.00.93 (0.52–1.66)1.03 (0.37–2.87)0.94
Total beansT1: <14.7T2: 14.7–80.5T3: >80.5
Foreign‐born Hispanics
No. of cases118174655
No. of controls93164289578
OR (95% CI)b0.87 (0.70–1.09)1.00.67 (0.35–1.27)0.49 (0.25–0.93)0.02
U.S.‐born Hispanics
No. of cases109275428
No. of controls46087235138
OR (95% CI)b1.05 (0.78–1.41)1.00.82 (0.48–1.42)0.80 (0.42–1.52)0.53
African Americans
No. of cases122803111
No. of controls55733016166
OR (95% CI)b1.14 (0.83–1.58)1.00.77 (0.48–1.23)0.90 (0.44–1.83)0.45
Non‐Hispanic Whites
No. of cases6539206
No. of controls62336818867
OR (95% CI)b0.99 (0.60–1.65)1.01.07 (0.59–1.92)1.02 (0.40–2.63)0.87
Total grainsT1: <268.7T2: 268.7–361.9T3: >361.9
Foreign‐born Hispanics
No. of cases118264646
No. of controls931192335404
OR (95% CI)b0.93 (0.77–1.13)1.01.13 (0.66–1.91)1.05 (0.61–1.81)0.91
U.S.‐born Hispanics
No. of cases109424918
No. of controls460179162119
OR (95% CI)b0.92 (0.75–1.14)1.01.44 (0.89–2.34)0.71 (0.38–1.33)0.53
African Americans
No. of cases122632930
No. of controls557236174147
OR (95% CI)b0.86 (0.71–1.03)1.00.64 (0.39–1.05)0.82 (0.48–1.39)0.30
Non‐Hispanic Whites
No. of cases65292610
No. of controls623242203178
OR (95% CI)b0.64 (0.48–0.85)1.00.96 (0.53–1.74)0.39 (0.17–0.89)0.04
Mac
aPer 10 g/day for fiber from beans and per 100 g/day for total beans and total grains.
bAdjusted for age, race/ethnicity and birthplace, age at menarche, breastfeeding, menopausal status and hormone therapy use, average lifetime physical activity, total energy intake (continuous, excluding energy from alcohol), and energy‐adjusted daily fat intake.

Discussion

In this population‐based case–control study, fiber intake was most strongly associated with risk of ER‐PR‐ breast cancer. Inverse trends were associated with intake of bean fiber (p‐trend = 0.02), total beans (p‐trend = 0.04), and total grains (p‐trend = 0.01), with risk reductions associated with high intake ranging from 28 to 36%. For hormone receptor‐positive breast cancer, inverse trends for total fiber and bean fiber were of borderline significance.

We found a 25% reduction in breast cancer risk associated with high versus low total fiber intake and no association with fiber from vegetables and fruits combined or total intake of vegetables and/or fruits. A recent meta‐analysis of 16 prospective studies reported that high intake of total fiber 4, fruits 30, and fruits and vegetables combined 30 were associated with reduced breast cancer risk, but no association was found for fruit fiber or vegetable fiber 4, whereas some studies reported inverse associations with fiber from vegetables and/or fruits 7, 8, 12, 13, 31, 32.

In our study, the strongest inverse associations were found for bean fiber and total bean intake, but limited to ER‐PR‐ breast cancer and foreign‐born Hispanic women. Few studies have assessed the relation between breast cancer and intake of bean fiber or total beans, possibly due to its minor role as a source of fiber in most NHW populations. Of the four studies that reported on the association with fiber from beans or legumes, only the Nurses’ Health Study II found an association, albeit marginally significant, with breast cancer risk overall 10, 15, 17, 33 and no prior study has shown heterogeneity by ER/PR status 15, 17. In our study population, foreign‐born Hispanic controls had the highest mean fiber intake, and beans were their main source of fiber, accounting for 38% of total fiber intake (compared to 23% in U.S.‐born Hispanics, 10% in NHWs, and 9% in African Americans). The large number of foreign‐born Hispanics in our study greatly widened the range of fiber exposure from beans and may be the reason why we were able to detect an inverse association with bean fiber among foreign‐born Hispanics only. In the meta‐analysis by Aune et al. 4, the inverse association with total fiber intake was only observed in studies with a wide range of fiber intake or high levels of intake (>25 g/day). In our study, more than half foreign‐born Hispanics met the fiber intake recommendations for their age (25 g/day for ages ≤50 years and 22 g/day for women >50 years). These intake levels were much higher than intake levels of African Americans and NHWs. Thus, it may not be possible to detect inverse associations with fiber in populations with a low or narrow range of fiber intake 4.

Toast Titanium For Mac - 565 User Reviews 20.0

Toast Titanium For Mac - 565 User Reviews 20.0 M

Data on fiber intake and breast cancer risk in Hispanic populations are very limited. A small study from Mexico (68 cases, 69 controls) reported a marginal inverse trend (P = 0.08) for total fiber intake in premenopausal women 34. In a study from Uruguay (351 cases, 356 hospital controls), higher total fiber intake was associated with a 49% lower risk of breast cancer, independent of type of fiber (soluble vs. insoluble) or menopausal status, and significant inverse trends were found for fiber from grains and fiber from vegetables, but not for fiber from fruits 8. Fiber from beans was not assessed in that study.

Data on the association with fiber from grains are inconsistent. While some studies have reported inverse trends with fiber from grains 6, 8, 9, 11, 35, 36, a recent meta‐analysis found no association with cereal fiber 4. We found no association with fiber from grains, but total grain intake was associated with reduced risk of ER‐PR‐ breast cancer, particularly among NHW women. Although recent studies in NHWs have shown inverse associations between intake of grains and breast cancer risk 36, 37, some studies found no differences by hormone receptor status 35, 38.

In our study, inverse associations with bean fiber, total beans, and total grains were strongest for ER‐PR‐ breast cancer. Only a few previous studies examined the relation between fiber intake and breast cancer subtypes. Some studies also found inverse associations limited to ER‐PR‐ 14, 15, 17 or ER‐ 16 disease, other studies reported inverse associations with fiber intake for ER+ and/or PR+ tumors 13, positive associations for ER+PR+ disease 17, or no differences by ER/PR status 12. Many of the currently known breast cancer risk factors are more strongly associated with hormone receptor‐positive disease; few risk factors have been identified for ER‐PR‐ or ER‐ breast cancer subtypes 39, 40, 41. In this context, our finding that high intake of bean fiber, beans, and grains is associated with reduced risk of ER‐PR‐ breast cancer warrants further investigation in studies with larger numbers of ER‐PR‐ cases. Except for alcohol consumption, the role of dietary factors in breast cancer etiology remains inconclusive 42, 43. There is emerging evidence, however, that associations with some dietary factors or dietary patterns may differ by tumor hormone receptor status. In addition to fiber intake 15, 17, intake of vegetable fiber 14 and diets rich in fruits and vegetables 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 have also been inversely associated with risk of ER‐PR‐ or ER‐ disease, whereas a high intake of total fat and saturated fat has been associated with increased risk of ER+PR+ breast cancer, but not with hormone receptor‐negative disease 50.

The mechanisms underlying the possible inverse association with fiber intake are not yet clearly understood. Inverse associations with ER‐PR‐ breast cancer suggest the importance of non‐estrogen‐mediated mechanisms (e.g., insulin growth factor pathway) 51, 52. Differences in associations with different sources of fiber may reflect different effects from soluble versus insoluble fiber 4. Some early studies suggested that soluble and insoluble fiber function differently in inhibiting enterohepatic circulation of estrogens, thereby lowering circulating estrogen levels, one of the main mechanisms believed to underlie the protective effect of fiber on breast cancer risk 53, 54, 55. Soluble fiber, which is the major fraction of bean fiber, has been found to be more effective in slowing glucose absorption, reducing insulin secretion, and regulating the bioavailability of insulin‐like growth factors 51, 56, another important pathway in breast cancer etiology 51, 52. The meta‐analysis by Aune et al. 4, however, found similar results for soluble fiber [summary relative risk (RR) = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.84–0.99] and insoluble fiber (summary RR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.88–1.04) 4.

Phytoestrogens are unlikely to account for the associations observed for bean fiber, as the types of beans commonly consumed by our study participants (e.g., pinto, garbanzo, and kidney beans by Hispanics and NHWs versus pinto beans, black‐eyed peas, and small white beans by African Americans) are generally not rich sources of lignans or isoflavones 57, 58, except for garbanzo beans, which are rich in biochanin A, a minor isoflavone. Adjustment for these phytoestrogens did not alter the associations between fiber and breast cancer risk (data not shown).

Some limitations need to be considered when interpreting our results. The FFQ was not validated in different racial/ethnic groups. Therefore, it is not known whether there are differences in validity between racial/ethnic groups and whether this explains why we observed different associations by race/ethnicity. The dietary assessment was based on self‐report, and inaccurate recall of past dietary intake might have introduced some exposure misclassification. Although we cannot rule out the possibility of differential recall of dietary intake by case–control status, it is unlikely that such recall bias would differ by ER/PR status among cases. The FFQ did not consider fiber intake from supplements. Fiber supplements, however, contribute little to total fiber intake 59. Lastly, we could only examine the association with recent consumption of fiber and fiber‐rich foods. There is some evidence that adolescent dietary fiber intake may reduce the risk of breast cancer 60, 61 and proliferative benign breast disease, a marker of increased breast cancer risk 62. A 34% reduction in breast cancer risk was associated with the highest quintile of adolescent fiber intake 61, suggesting that adolescent fiber intake may be an important exposure to consider.

This study has several strengths, including the large sample size and racially/ethnically diverse population. The large number of Hispanic participants allowed us to assess a wider range of fiber intake than if the study had included NHW women only. The FFQ assessed both frequency of consumption and usual portion size to estimate usual intake. To facilitate recall of portion size, food models and utensils were used. We were able to adjust the analyses for many known risk factors for breast cancer, which was found to be important as the inverse associations were somewhat attenuated after multivariate adjustment. Lastly, information on ER and PR status was available for most cases (90%). Prior studies that did not consider tumor hormone receptor status may have failed to detect inverse associations with intake of fiber or fiber‐rich foods.

The finding of inverse associations of ER‐PR‐ breast cancer with intake of bean fiber, beans, and grains, if confirmed, has important public health implications. Few risk factors have been identified for ER‐PR‐ breast cancer which is more common in African American and Hispanic women and has worse prognosis. The identification of modifiable lifestyle factors is therefore particularly important for the prevention of this aggressive breast cancer subtype. The role of diet, including fiber, in the etiology of specific breast cancer subtypes, warrants further investigation.

There is increasing evidence that higher levels of acculturation into mainstream American culture by Hispanic women are often accompanied by health behaviors that may increase their risk of cancer, including the adoption of U.S. diets higher in fat and lower in fruits and vegetables 63, 64, 65. Our data for control women show that the consumption of fiber, and bean fiber in particular, is lower among U.S.‐born than foreign‐born Hispanics. If bean fiber is indeed effective in lowering breast cancer risk, it may contribute to the higher breast cancer risk among U.S.‐born Hispanics compared to foreign‐born Hispanics 25, 66.

Given that for a large proportion of women in our study, daily total fiber intakes fell short of daily recommended values, educational programs aimed at increasing intake of fiber or fiber‐rich foods such as beans and grains may be effective in reducing the risk of not only ER‐PR‐ breast cancer, but also other cancers, such as colon, rectal, and esophageal cancer 1, 67.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by National Cancer Institute grants R01 CA63446 and R01 CA77305; U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) grant DAMD17‐96‐1‐6071; and California Breast Cancer Research Program (CBCRP) grant 7PB‐0068. The collection of cancer incidence data used in this study was supported by the California Department of Health Services as part of the statewide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885; the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program under contract HHSN261201000140C awarded to the Cancer Prevention Institute of California, contract HHSN261201000035C awarded to the University of Southern California, and contract HHSN261201000034C awarded to the Public Health Institute; and the CDC's National Program of Cancer Registries, under agreement #1U58 DP000807‐01 awarded to the Public Health Institute. The ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors, and endorsement by the State of California, the California Department of Health Services, the National Cancer Institute, or the CDC or their contractors and subcontractors is not intended nor should be inferred.

References

1. World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research. 2007. Food, nutrition, physical activity, and the prevention of cancer: a global perspective. AICR, Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
2. World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research. 2017. Continuous Update Project Report: Diet, Nutrition, Physical Activity and Breast Cancer. Available at: wcrf.org/breast‐cancer‐2017. All CUP reports are available at wcrf.org/cupreports.
3. Dong, J. Y., He K., Wang P., and Qin L. Q.. 2011. Dietary fiber intake and risk of breast cancer: a meta‐analysis of prospective cohort studies. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.94:900–905. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Aune, D., Chan D. S., Greenwood D. C., Vieira A. R., Rosenblatt D. A., Vieira R., et al. 2012. Dietary fiber and breast cancer risk: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of prospective studies. Ann. Oncol.23:1394–1402. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Howe, G. R., Hirohata T., Hislop T. G., Iscovich J. M., Yuan J. M., Katsouyanni K., et al. 1990. Dietary factors and risk of breast cancer: combined analysis of 12 case‐control studies. J. Natl Cancer Inst.82:561–569. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Veer, P., Kolb C. M., Verhoef P., Kok F. J., Schouten E. G., Hermus R. J., et al. 1990. Dietary fiber, beta‐carotene and breast cancer: results from a case‐control study. Int. J. Cancer45:825–828. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Freudenheim, J. L., Marshall J. R., Vena J. E., Laughlin R., Brasure J. R., Swanson M. K., et al. 1996. Premenopausal breast cancer risk and intake of vegetables, fruits, and related nutrients. J. Natl Cancer Inst.88:340–348. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. De Stefani, E., Correa P., Ronco A., Mendilaharsu M., Guidobono M., and Deneo‐Pellegrini H.. 1997. Dietary fiber and risk of breast cancer: a case‐control study in Uruguay. Nutr. Cancer28:14–19. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Challier, B., Perarnau J. M., and Viel J. F.. 1998. Garlic, onion and cereal fibre as protective factors for breast cancer: a French case‐control study. Eur. J. Epidemiol.14:737–747. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Cho, E., Spiegelman D., Hunter D. J., Chen W. Y., Colditz G. A., and Willett W. C.. 2003. Premenopausal dietary carbohydrate, glycemic index, glycemic load, and fiber in relation to risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.12:1153–1158. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Cade, J. E., Burley V. J., and Greenwood D. C.. 2007. Dietary fibre and risk of breast cancer in the UK Women's Cohort Study. Int. J. Epidemiol.36:431–438. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Suzuki, R., Rylander‐Rudqvist T., Ye W., Saji S., Adlercreutz H., and Wolk A.. 2008. Dietary fiber intake and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer defined by estrogen and progesterone receptor status–a prospective cohort study among Swedish women. Int. J. Cancer122:403–412. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Zhang, C. X., Ho S. C., Cheng S. Z., Chen Y. M., Fu J. H., and Lin F. Y.. 2011. Effect of dietary fiber intake on breast cancer risk according to estrogen and progesterone receptor status. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr.65:929–936. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Ferrari, P., Rinaldi S., Jenab M., Lukanova A., Olsen A., Tjonneland A., et al. 2013. Dietary fiber intake and risk of hormonal receptor‐defined breast cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.97:344–353. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Park, Y., Brinton L. A., Subar A. F., Hollenbeck A., and Schatzkin A.. 2009. Dietary fiber intake and risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women: the National Institutes of Health‐AARP Diet and Health Study. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.90:664–671. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Li, Q., Holford T. R., Zhang Y., Boyle P., Mayne S. T., Dai M., et al. 2013. Dietary fiber intake and risk of breast cancer by menopausal and estrogen receptor status. Eur. J. Nutr.52:217–223. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Toast Titanium For Mac - 565 User Reviews 20.0 X

17. Giles, G. G., Simpson J. A., English D. R., Hodge A. M., Gertig D. M., Macinnis R. J., et al. 2006. Dietary carbohydrate, fibre, glycaemic index, glycaemic load and the risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. Int. J. Cancer118:1843–1847. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Norris, J., Harnack L., Carmichael S., Pouane T., Wakimoto P., and Block G.. 1997. US trends in nutrient intake: the 1987 and 1992 National Health Interview Surveys. Am. J. Public Health87:740–746. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Jones, L. A., Gonzalez R., Pillow P. C., Gomez‐Garza S. A., Foreman C. J., Chilton J. A., et al. 1997. Dietary fiber, Hispanics, and breast cancer risk?Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.837:524–536. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Kolonel, L. N., Henderson B. E., Hankin J. H., Nomura A. M., Wilkens L. R., Pike M. C., et al. 2000. A multiethnic cohort in Hawaii and Los Angeles: baseline characteristics. Am. J. Epidemiol.151:346–357. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. King, D. E., Mainous A. G. 3rd, and Lambourne C. A.. 2012. Trends in dietary fiber intake in the United States, 1999‐2008. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet.112:642–648. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Toast Titanium For Mac - 565 User Reviews 20.0 Hp

22. O'Neil, C. E., Nicklas T. A., Keast D. R., and Fulgoni V. L.. 2014. Ethnic disparities among food sources of energy and nutrients of public health concern and nutrients to limit in adults in the United States: NHANES 2003‐2006. Food Nutr. Res.58:15784. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Sharma, S., Wilkens L. R., Shen L., and Kolonel L. N.. 2013. Dietary sources of five nutrients in ethnic groups represented in the Multiethnic Cohort. Br. J. Nutr.109:1479–1489. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. John, E. M., Horn‐Ross P. L., and Koo J.. 2003. Lifetime physical activity and breast cancer risk in a multiethnic population: the San Francisco Bay area breast cancer study. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.12:1143–1152. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. John, E. M., Phipps A. I., Davis A., and Koo J.. 2005. Migration history, acculturation, and breast cancer risk in Hispanic women. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.14:2905–2913. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Horn‐Ross, P. L., John E. M., Lee M., Stewart S. L., Koo J., Sakoda L. C., et al. 2001. Phytoestrogen consumption and breast cancer risk in a multiethnic population: the Bay Area Breast Cancer Study. Am. J. Epidemiol.154:434–441. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Huang, M. H., Schocken M., Block G., Sowers M., Gold E., Sternfeld B., et al. 2002. Variation in nutrient intakes by ethnicity: results from the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN). Menopause9:309–319. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Willett, W., and Stampfer M. J.. 1986. Total energy intake: implications for epidemiologic analyses. Am. J. Epidemiol.124:17–27. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2010. Dietary guidelines for Americans. 7th edU.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
30. Aune, D., Chan D. S., Vieira A. R., Rosenblatt D. A., Vieira R., Greenwood D. C., et al. 2012. Fruits, vegetables and breast cancer risk: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of prospective studies. Breast Cancer Res. Treat.134:479–493. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31. Zhang, C. X., Ho S. C., Chen Y. M., Fu J. H., Cheng S. Z., and Lin F. Y.. 2009. Greater vegetable and fruit intake is associated with a lower risk of breast cancer among Chinese women. Int. J. Cancer125:181–188. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32. Deschasaux, M., Zelek L., Pouchieu C., His M., Hercberg S., Galan P., et al. 2013. Prospective association between dietary fiber intake and breast cancer risk. PLoS ONE8:e79718. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Potischman, N., Swanson C. A., Coates R. J., Gammon M. D., Brogan D. R., Curtin J., et al. 1999. Intake of food groups and associated micronutrients in relation to risk of early‐stage breast cancer. Int. J. Cancer82:315–321. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. Bonilla‐Fernández, P., Lopez‐Cervantes M., Torres‐Sánchez L. E., Tortolero‐Luna G., and Lopez‐Carrillo L.. 2003. Nutritional Factors and Breast Cancer in Mexico. Nutr. Cancer45:148–155. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Sonestedt, E., Borgquist S., Ericson U., Gullberg B., Landberg G., Olsson H., et al. 2008. Plant foods and oestrogen receptor alpha‐ and beta‐defined breast cancer: observations from the Malmo Diet and Cancer cohort. Carcinogenesis29:2203–2209. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. Farvid, M. S., Cho E., Eliassen A. H., Chen W. Y., and Willett W. C.. 2016. Lifetime grain consumption and breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res. Treat.159:335–345. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Mourouti, N., Kontogianni M. D., Papavagelis C., Psaltopoulou T., Kapetanstrataki M. G., Plytzanopoulou P., et al. 2016. Whole grain consumption and breast cancer: a case‐control study in women. J. Am. Coll. Nutr.35:143–149. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38. Egeberg, R., Olsen A., Loft S., Christensen J., Johnsen N. F., Overvad K., et al. 2009. Intake of whole grain products and risk of breast cancer by hormone receptor status and histology among postmenopausal women. Int. J. Cancer124:745–750. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39. Colditz, G. A., Rosner B. A., Chen W. Y., Holmes M. D., and Hankinson S. E.. 2004. Risk factors for breast cancer according to estrogen and progesterone receptor status. J. Natl Cancer Inst.96:218–228. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40. Setiawan, V. W., Monroe K. R., Wilkens L. R., Kolonel L. N., Pike M. C., and Henderson B. E.. 2009. Breast cancer risk factors defined by estrogen and progesterone receptor status: the multiethnic cohort study. Am. J. Epidemiol.169:1251–1259. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Yang, X. R., Chang‐Claude J., Goode E. L., Couch F. J., Nevanlinna H., Milne R. L., et al. 2011. Associations of breast cancer risk factors with tumor subtypes: a pooled analysis from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium studies. J. Natl Cancer Inst.103:250–263. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Michels, K. B., Mohllajee A. P., Roset‐Bahmanyar E., Beehler G. P., and Moysich K. B.. 2007. Diet and breast cancer: a review of the prospective observational studies. Cancer109(12 Suppl):2712–2749. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Chajes, V., and Romieu I.. 2014. Nutrition and breast cancer. Maturitas77:7–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44. Baglietto, L., Krishnan K., Severi G., Hodge A., Brinkman M., English D. R., et al. 2011. Dietary patterns and risk of breast cancer. Br. J. Cancer104:524–531. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45. Jung, S., Spiegelman D., Baglietto L., Bernstein L., Boggs D. A., van den Brandt P. A., et al. 2013. Fruit and vegetable intake and risk of breast cancer by hormone receptor status. J. Natl Cancer Inst.105:219–236. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Toast Titanium For Mac - 565 User Reviews 20.0 10

46. Link, L. B., Canchola A. J., Bernstein L., Clarke C. A., Stram D. O., Ursin G., et al. 2013. Dietary patterns and breast cancer risk in the California Teachers Study cohort. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.98:1524–1532. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47. Boggs, D. A., Palmer J. R., Wise L. A., Spiegelman D., Stampfer M. J., Adams‐Campbell L. L., et al. 2010. Fruit and vegetable intake in relation to risk of breast cancer in the Black Women's Health Study. Am. J. Epidemiol.172:1268–1279. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48. Olsen, A., Tjonneland A., Thomsen B. L., Loft S., Stripp C., Overvad K., et al. 2003. Fruits and vegetables intake differentially affects estrogen receptor negative and positive breast cancer incidence rates. J. Nutr.133:2342–2347. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49. Fung, T. T., Hu F. B., Holmes M. D., Rosner B. A., Hunter D. J., Colditz G. A., et al. 2005. Dietary patterns and the risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. Int. J. Cancer116:116–121. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50. Sieri, S., Chiodini P., Agnoli C., Pala V., Berrino F., Trichopoulou A., et al. 2014. Dietary fat intake and development of specific breast cancer subtypes. J. Natl Cancer Inst.106https://doi.org/dju068[pii]10.1093/jnci/dju068. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Toast Titanium For Mac - 565 User Reviews 20.0 Pro

51. Kaaks, R.1996. Nutrition, hormones, and breast cancer: is insulin the missing link?Cancer Causes Control7:605–625. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52. Yu, H., and Rohan T.. 2000. Role of the insulin‐like growth factor family in cancer development and progression. J. Natl Cancer Inst.92:1472–1489. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. Goldin, B. R., Adlercreutz H., Gorbach S. L., Warram J. H., Dwyer J. T., Swenson L., et al. 1982. Estrogen excretion patterns and plasma levels in vegetarian and omnivorous women. N. Engl. J. Med.307:1542–1547. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Rose, D. P.1990. Dietary fiber and breast cancer. Nutr. Cancer13:1–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55. Rose, D. P., Goldman M., Connolly J. M., and Strong L. E.. 1991. High‐fiber diet reduces serum estrogen concentrations in premenopausal women. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.54:520–525. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56. Moore, M. A., Park C. B., and Tsuda H.. 1998. Soluble and insoluble fiber influences on cancer development. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol.27:229–242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57. Horn‐Ross, P. L., Barnes S., Lee M., Coward L., Mandel J. E., Koo J., et al. 2000. Assessing phytoestrogen exposure in epidemiologic studies: development of a database (United States). Cancer Causes Control11:289–298. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58. Thompson, L. U., Boucher B. A., Liu Z., Cotterchio M., and Kreiger N.. 2006. Phytoestrogen content of foods consumed in Canada, including isoflavones, lignans, and coumestan. Nutr. Cancer54:184–201. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59. Pocobelli, G., Kristal A. R., Patterson R. E., Potter J. D., Lampe J. W., Kolar A., et al. 2010. Total mortality risk in relation to use of less‐common dietary supplements. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.91:1791–1800. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60. Frazier, A. L., Li L., Cho E., Willett W. C., and Colditz G. A.. 2004. Adolescent diet and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Causes Control15:73–82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61. Liu, Y., Colditz G. A., Cotterchio M., Boucher B. A., and Kreiger N.. 2014. Adolescent dietary fiber, vegetable fat, vegetable protein, and nut intakes and breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res. Treat.145:461–470. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62. Su, X., Tamimi R. M., Collins L. C., Baer H. J., Cho E., Sampson L., et al. 2010. Intake of fiber and nuts during adolescence and incidence of proliferative benign breast disease. Cancer Causes Control21:1033–1046. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63. Batis, C., Hernandez‐Barrera L., Barquera S., Rivera J. A., and Popkin B. M.. 2011. Food acculturation drives dietary differences among Mexicans, Mexican Americans, and Non‐Hispanic Whites. J. Nutr.141:1898–1906. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64. Montez, J. K., and Eschbach K.. 2008. Country of birth and language are uniquely associated with intakes of fat, fiber, and fruits and vegetables among Mexican‐American women in the United States. J. Am. Diet. Assoc.108:473–480. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65. Neuhouser, M. L., Thompson B., Coronado G. D., and Solomon C. C.. 2004. Higher fat intake and lower fruit and vegetables intakes are associated with greater acculturation among Mexicans living in Washington State. J. Am. Diet. Assoc.104:51–57. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66. Keegan, T. H., John E. M., Fish K. M., Alfaro‐Velcamp T., Clarke C. A., and Gomez S. L.. 2010. Breast cancer incidence patterns among California Hispanic women: differences by nativity and residence in an enclave. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.19:1208–1218. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
67. Coleman, H. G., Murray L. J., Hicks B., Bhat S. K., Kubo A., Corley D. A., et al. 2013. Dietary fiber and the risk of precancerous lesions and cancer of the esophagus: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Nutr. Rev.71:474–482. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Cancer Medicine are provided here courtesy of Wiley-Blackwell
Download NuClear Time For Mac 1.0
Microsoft Excel 2019 VL-16.29 For Mac Free Download
Comments are closed.