FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1972942017> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1972942017 endingPage "335" @default.
• W1972942017 startingPage "335" @default.
• W1972942017 abstract "BREAST CANCER IS THE MOST COMMONLY DIAGNOSED CANcer and the second most common cause of cancer mortality among women in the United States. Advances in early detection, surgical treatment, and chemotherapy have led to significant improvements in breast cancer survival, particularly among women with early stage disease.Current estimates indicate that thereareat least2.4million women who are breast cancer survivors in the United States. Among these women, there is particular concern about the long-term risk of recurrence. Whether that risk might be modified through changes in lifestyle habits such as diet has been an important question for investigation. Results of observational epidemiologic studies on associations of dietary patterns high in fruits and vegetables, low in fat, or both with risk of recurrence or survival are inconsistent. Although it is not possible to draw firm conclusions about the potential benefits of such dietary patterns from the results of those studies, a growing body of evidence is emerging from randomized clinical trials designed specifically to examine the effects of dietary interventions on breast cancer prognosis. In this issue of JAMA, Pierce and colleagues report the results of the Women’s Healthy Eating and Living (WHEL) Study. The WHEL Study was a randomized controlled trial designed toassesswhetheran intensivedietary interventionaimed at increasing fruits to 3 servings/d, vegetables to 5 servings/d, and fiber to 30 g/d and decreasing fat intake to 15% to 20% of total calories would reduce the risk of recurrence, new primary invasive breast cancer, or mortality among survivors of early stage (stages I-IIIA) breast cancer. In this multicenter study, 3088 women who had diagnosis and treatment within the past 4 years were randomly assigned to either the intensive intervention group or a less-intensive comparison group that was advised to follow the 5-A-Day program. After an average follow-up period of 7.3 years, there were no differences in the risk of recurrence or incidence of a new primary breast cancer (P=.63) or in the risk of overall mortality (P=.43) between the 2 groups. Similarly, there were no between-group prognostic differences according to baseline demographic characteristics, including body mass index, or clinical characteristics, including tumor stage and hormone receptor status. Furthermore, the interventionshowednobenefit forwomenwhose diet at baseline was low in fruits, vegetables, or fiber or high in fat. The Women’s Intervention Nutrition Study (WINS) is another randomized clinical trial designed specifically to assess whether a low-fat diet (15% of total calories) affects breast cancer recurrence or survival. In that study, which enrolled 2437 women within 1 year of diagnosis of early stage breast cancer (stages I-IIIA), interim results showed a significant benefit (P=.03) on the hazard ratio for relapse-free survival after a median of 5 years of follow-up among women randomized to the low-fat dietary intervention group compared with the control group, which received minimal dietary guideline information. Results of an exploratory analysis suggested that the beneficial effect of the low-fat intervention might be isolated to women with estrogen and progesterone receptor–negative breast cancers. While there is debate regarding the differential effects of the low-fat intervention according to hormone receptor status and whether this difference could be explained by variation in the hazard rates for recurrences of hormone receptor–positive vs –negative breast cancers according to length of follow-up, a recent update and analysis of WINS data based on 8 years of follow-up demonstrated similar benefits in the low-fat diet group. These conflicting results from the WHEL Study and WINS regarding the potential benefits of a dietary modification on long-term breast cancer prognosis require careful consideration. In particular, a key issue is the difference in energy balance that was achieved between WINS and WHEL Study participants. In WINS, over the 5-year follow-up, there was a continuous increase in the difference in self-reported total energyintakebetweentheinterventionandcomparisongroups. Consequently, women randomized to the low-fat intervention experienced significant weight loss, with a 6-lb (2.7 kg) weight difference between intervention and control women at 5 years. Conversely, in the WHEL Study, self-reported total energy intake decreased to a comparable extent in both the interventionandcomparisongroups through6yearsof followup, and both groups experienced small weight gains (ie, 0.6 and 0.4 kg, respectively). It is unclear whether the difference inenergybalance,asreflectedbyweightchange,partlyaccounts" @default.
• W1972942017 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1972942017 creator A5021761022 @default.
• W1972942017 creator A5075214231 @default.
• W1972942017 date "2007-07-18" @default.
• W1972942017 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W1972942017 title "Fat, Fruits, Vegetables, and Breast Cancer Survivorship" @default.
• W1972942017 cites W1976939904 @default.
• W1972942017 cites W2012712610 @default.
• W1972942017 cites W2105954553 @default.
• W1972942017 cites W2109008239 @default.
• W1972942017 cites W2122704890 @default.
• W1972942017 cites W2153555129 @default.
• W1972942017 cites W2247016124 @default.
• W1972942017 cites W2480640827 @default.
• W1972942017 cites W3143441295 @default.
• W1972942017 doi "https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.298.3.335" @default.
• W1972942017 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17635896" @default.
• W1972942017 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W1972942017 type Work @default.
• W1972942017 sameAs 1972942017 @default.
• W1972942017 citedByCount "10" @default.
• W1972942017 countsByYear W19729420172012 @default.
• W1972942017 countsByYear W19729420172014 @default.
• W1972942017 countsByYear W19729420172015 @default.
• W1972942017 countsByYear W19729420172016 @default.
• W1972942017 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1972942017 hasAuthorship W1972942017A5021761022 @default.
• W1972942017 hasAuthorship W1972942017A5075214231 @default.
• W1972942017 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W1972942017 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W1972942017 hasConcept C172400760 @default.
• W1972942017 hasConcept C2993482122 @default.
• W1972942017 hasConcept C530470458 @default.
• W1972942017 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1972942017 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W1972942017 hasConceptScore W1972942017C121608353 @default.
• W1972942017 hasConceptScore W1972942017C126322002 @default.
• W1972942017 hasConceptScore W1972942017C172400760 @default.
• W1972942017 hasConceptScore W1972942017C2993482122 @default.
• W1972942017 hasConceptScore W1972942017C530470458 @default.
• W1972942017 hasConceptScore W1972942017C71924100 @default.
• W1972942017 hasConceptScore W1972942017C99454951 @default.
• W1972942017 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W1972942017 hasLocation W19729420171 @default.
• W1972942017 hasLocation W19729420172 @default.
• W1972942017 hasOpenAccess W1972942017 @default.
• W1972942017 hasPrimaryLocation W19729420171 @default.
• W1972942017 hasRelatedWork W2011306740 @default.
• W1972942017 hasRelatedWork W2133199694 @default.
• W1972942017 hasRelatedWork W2155133452 @default.
• W1972942017 hasRelatedWork W2318116410 @default.
• W1972942017 hasRelatedWork W2416744608 @default.
• W1972942017 hasRelatedWork W2890859100 @default.
• W1972942017 hasRelatedWork W2990713409 @default.
• W1972942017 hasRelatedWork W3082744263 @default.
• W1972942017 hasRelatedWork W4213092983 @default.
• W1972942017 hasRelatedWork W91565852 @default.
• W1972942017 hasVolume "298" @default.
• W1972942017 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1972942017 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1972942017 magId "1972942017" @default.
• W1972942017 workType "article" @default.