Dietary glycaemic index and glycaemic load in relation to risk of breast cancer

2Citations
Citations of this article
23Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: Previous studies on the association between glycaemic index (GI) and glycaemic load (GL) in relation to breast cancer risk are contradictory. The aim of this study was to examine the association between dietary GI and GL and risk of breast cancer in Iranian women. Design: Population-based case-control study. Dietary GI and GL were assessed using a validated Willett-format 106-item semi-quantitative FFQ. Setting: Isfahan, Iran. Participants: Cases were 350 patients with newly diagnosed stage I-IV breast cancer, for whom the status of breast cancer was confirmed by physical examination and mammography. Controls were 700 age-matched apparently healthy individuals who were randomly selected from general population. Results: After controlling for potential confounders, individuals in the highest tertile of dietary GI had 47 % higher odds of breast cancer than women in the lowest tertile (OR: 1·47; (95 % CI 1·02, 2·12)). Stratified analysis by menopausal status showed such association among postmenopausal women (OR: 1·51; (95 % CI 1·02, 2·23)). We found no significant association between dietary GL and odds of breast cancer either before (OR: 1·35; (95 % CI 0·99, 1·84)) or after adjustment for potential confounders (OR: 1·24; (95 % CI 0·86, 1·79)). In addition, stratified analysis by menopausal status revealed no significant association between dietary GL and odds of breast cancer. Conclusions: Our findings showed a significant positive association between dietary GI and odds of breast cancer. However, we observed no significant association between dietary GL and odds of breast cancer.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rigi, S., Salari-Moghaddam, A., Benisi-Kohansal, S., Azadbakht, L., & Esmaillzadeh, A. (2022). Dietary glycaemic index and glycaemic load in relation to risk of breast cancer. Public Health Nutrition, 25(6), 1658–1666. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980021004018

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free