Table 7.

Studies evaluating animal and vegetable fat intake and endometrial cancer risk

Reference	Country	Age	Cases/ Controls or total cohort	Exposure evaluated	Contrast	RR/ OR	95% confidence interval	P for trend	Covariates Considered*
									A	B	E	S	H	R
Cohort studies
Zheng et al., 1995 [36]	United States	55-69	216/23,070	Animal fat, g/day	>23.8 vs. <13.3 g	1	0.5, 1.8	0.97	1		1		1	2
				Plant fat, g/day	>20.7 vs. <11.2 g	0.9	0.5, 1.6	0.59	1		1		1	2
Jain et al., 2000 [26]†	Canada	40-59	221/3,697	Animal fat, g/day	>75.6 vs. <56.4 g	0.6	0.4, 0.9		1	1	1	1	1	2
				Plant fat, g/day	>33.6 vs. <20.2 g	1.32	0.9, 1.93		1	1	1	1	1	2
Population-based case-control studies
Shu et al., 1993 [28]	China	18-74	268/268	Animal fat, g/day	>29.18 vs. <11.96 g	3.5	2, 6	<0.01	1	1				1
				Plant fat, g/day	>45.44 vs. <34.37 g	1.2	0.7, 1.9	0.80	1	1				1
Goodman et al., 1997 [29]	United States	18-84	332/511	Animal fat, g/day	>40.9 vs. <16.9 g	1.7		0.37	(1)	1	1		1	1
				Plant fat, g/day	>53.8 vs. <26.1 g	1.7		0.09	(1)	1	1		1	1
Jain et al., 2000 [31]	Canada	30-79	552/562	Animal fat, g/day	>44 vs. <22.1 g	1.66	1.15, 2.4	0.03	1	1	1	1	1	2
					Per 22 g	1.18	0.98, 1.41		1	1	1	1	1	2
Hospital-based case-control studies
Barbone et al., 1993 [35]	United States		102/203	Animal fat, g/day	>35.3 vs. <26.7 g	1.3	0.7, 2.6	0.76	1	1	1	1	1	3
				Plant fat, g/day	>32.3 vs. <25.8 g	0.6	0.3, 1.1	0.84	1	1	1	1	1	3
Salazar-Martinez et al., 2005 [33]	Mexico	18-81	85/629	Animal fat, g/day	>47 vs. <28 g	1.19	0.55, 2.58	0.69	1	1	1			1
				Plant fat, g/day	>14 vs. <7 g	1.5	0.68, 3.32	0.39	1	1	1			1

^*Adjustment columns: A = Age; B = BMI/weight; E = Total Energy; S = Smoking; H = HRT/ERT use; R = Reproductive factors; (1): matched on age. Numbers in columns refer to the number of covariates adjusted for under that grouping.

^†Case-cohort design.

Abbreviations: OR: odds ratio, RR: relative risk.