Title: Ultra-processed food intake and postmenopausal breast cancer risk in the NIH-AARP diet and health study
O'Connell CP, Burns KF, Hong HG, Kahle L, Liao LM, Madrigal JM, Rising CJ, Sinha R, Khandpur N, Martínez Steele E, Gierach G, Loftfield E
Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 0 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Cohort study (classified by our AI screen)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Clinical events such as disease or death
- Intake measured by
- Food frequency questionnaire
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- Government
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
- Government
- National Institutes of Health
- Government
- Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health
- Government
- US Department of Health and Human Services
- Government
- NIH
Based on 5 listed funder(s).
Publication
- Published
- 2026-04-17 · J Natl Cancer Inst
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Cited
- 1 citation · more than 96% of similar papers · 7.2× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 28 works
- Access
- Open access (repository copy) · PUBLIC-DOMAIN
- Research areas
- Nutritional Studies and Diet · Cancer Risks and Factors · Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
- Keywords
- Breast cancer, Food intake, Postmenopausal women, Cancer, Alcohol intake, Cohort study, Body mass index
12 authors
From US, NL, BR
- Caitlin P. O’ConnellNational Cancer Institute; Department of Health and Human Services
- Kaelyn F BurnsNational Cancer Institute; Department of Health and Human Services
- Hyokyoung G. HongNational Cancer Institute; Department of Health and Human Services
- Lisa KahleInformation Management Services
- Linda M. LiaoNational Cancer Institute; Department of Health and Human Services
- Jessica M. MadrigalIllinois Department of Public Health; National Cancer Institute; Department of Health and Human Services; University of Illinois at Springfield
Abstract
Background
UPF intake is associated with obesity. Despite obesity being a risk factor for postmenopausal breast cancer, evidence for an association between UPF and breast cancer is limited. Our objective was to assess the association between UPF intake and postmenopausal breast cancer risk in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study.
Methods
Participants reported dietary intake via a food frequency questionnaire at baseline in 1995 to 1996 and were followed through 2018. Food items were disaggregated into food codes and assigned Nova classification via database linkage. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for quintiles of UPF (g/1000 kcal/day) and postmenopausal breast cancer risk overall, by estrogen receptor (ER) status, and type (invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)), with and without adjustment for body mass index (BMI).
Results
Among 181,460 postmenopausal women, 14,484 were diagnosed with breast cancer over a median 21 years of follow-up. Median (IQR) UPF intake was 284.6 (191.1 to 466.6) g/1000 kcal/day. No associations between UPF intake and postmenopausal breast cancer risk overall (HRQ5vs.Q1=0.98, 95% CI = 0.93-1.03; Ptrend=0.32), by ER status (ER+ HRQ5vs.Q1=1.01, 95% CI = 0.94-1.09; P trend=0.95; ER-: HRQ5 vs Q1=1.02, 95% CI = 0.87-1.20; P trend=0.58), or by type (invasive: HRQ5vs.Q1=0.98, 95% CI = 0.92-1.04; P trend=0.14; DCIS HRQ5vs.Q1=1.00, 95% CI = 0.87-1.13; P trend=0.26) were observed. Following BMI adjustment, inverse trends for overall (P trend=0.03) and invasive (P trend=0.01) breast cancer were observed.
Conclusion
UPF intake was not associated with postmenopausal breast cancer in the NIH-AARP cohort. Inverse trends observed after adjusting for BMI are likely spurious, owing to over-adjustment.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.