Skip to main content
letter
. 2012 Nov 20;108(1):188–192. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2012.521

Table 3. HRs of recurrence among stage I–IIIa breast cancer patients according to quartiles of dietary patterns in the MARIE study, Germany, 2001–2009.

    Recurrence
Quartiles of dietary pattern No. of subjects No. of recurrences HR 95% CI
‘Healthy’ pattern
Model 1a
  Q1 527 69 1.00  
  Q2 554 58 0.82 0.58, 1.17
  Q3 553 62 0.82 0.57, 1.16
  Q4 550 58 0.84 0.59, 1.21
  P-trend     0.11
       
Model 2b
  Q1 517 67 1.00  
  Q2 542 56 0.84 0.58, 1.21
  Q3 543 61 0.77 0.54, 1.12
  Q4 533 55 0.71 0.48, 1.06
 P-trend     0.02
         
‘Unhealthy’ pattern
Model 1a
  Q1 557 60 1.00  
  Q2 549 61 1.02 0.71, 1.46
  Q3 539 52 0.88 0.60, 1.28
  Q4 539 74 1.20 0.85, 1.70
  P-trend     0.32
       
Model 2b
  Q1 546 59 1.00  
  Q2 538 60 0.99 0.68, 1.44
  Q3 527 52 0.76 0.51, 1.13
  Q4 524 68 0.91 0.61, 1.36
  P-trend     0.72

Abbreviations: CI=confidence interval; ERPR=oestrogen receptor/progesterone receptor; HR=hazard ratio; HRT=hormone replacement therapy; Q=quartile.

a

The model was stratified by age at diagnosis and study centre.

b

The model was stratified by age at diagnosis and study centre, and adjusted for tumour size, nodal status, metastases, tumour grade, ERPR status, radiotherapy, HRT use at diagnosis, mode of detection, and total energy intake; because of missing covariate values, 49 observations were not included in model 2. Other potentially confounding variables, as specified in Supplementary Table 1, were not statistically significant and did not change the risk estimates by ⩾10% when tested in the model and were therefore not included in the final model.