Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015 Feb;24(2):466–471. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0970

Investigation of dietary factors and endometrial cancer risk using a nutrient-wide association study approach in the EPIC and Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and NHSII

Melissa A Merritt 1,*, Ioanna Tzoulaki 1, Shelley S Tworoger 2,3, Immaculata De Vivo 2,3,4, Susan E Hankinson 2,3,5, Judy Fernandes 1, Konstantinos K Tsilidis 6,7, Elisabete Weiderpass 8,9,10,11, Anne Tjønneland 12, Kristina EN Petersen 12, Christina C Dahm 13, Kim Overvad 13, Laure Dossus 14,15,16, Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault 14,15,16, Guy Fagherazzi 14,15,16, Renée T Fortner 17, Rudolf Kaaks 17, Krasimira Aleksandrova 18, Heiner Boeing 18, Antonia Trichopoulou 19,20, Christina Bamia 21, Dimitrios Trichopoulos 3,19,20, Domenico Palli 22, Sara Grioni 23, Rosario Tumino 24, Carlotta Sacerdote 25,26, Amalia Mattiello 27, HB(as) Bueno-de-Mesquita 1,28,29,30, NC (Charlotte) Onland-Moret 31, Petra H Peeters 1,31, Inger T Gram 8, Guri Skeie 8, J Ramón Quirós 32, Eric J Duell 33, María-José Sánchez 34,35, D Salmerón 35,36,37, Aurelio Barricarte 35,38, Saioa Chamosa 39,40, Ulrica Ericson 41, Emily Sonestedt 41, Lena Maria Nilsson 42,43, Annika Idahl 44, Kay-Tee Khaw 45, Nicholas Wareham 46, Ruth C Travis 47, Sabina Rinaldi 48, Isabelle Romieu 48, Chirag J Patel 49, Elio Riboli 1, Marc J Gunter 1
PMCID: PMC4324546  NIHMSID: NIHMS646244  EMSID: EMS61332  PMID: 25662427

Abstract

Data on the role of dietary factors in endometrial cancer development are limited and inconsistent. We applied a ‘nutrient-wide association study’ approach to systematically evaluate dietary risk associations for endometrial cancer while controlling for multiple hypothesis tests using the false discovery rate (FDR) and validating the results in an independent cohort. We evaluated endometrial cancer risk associations for dietary intake of 84 foods and nutrients based on dietary questionnaires in three prospective studies, the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC; N=1,303 cases) followed by validation of nine foods/nutrients (FDR≤0.10) in the Nurses’ Health Studies (NHS/NHSII; N=1,531 cases). Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In multivariate adjusted comparisons of the extreme categories of intake at baseline, coffee was inversely associated with endometrial cancer risk (EPIC, median intake 750 g/day vs 8.6, HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68–0.97, Ptrend=0.09; NHS/NHSII, median intake 1067 g/day vs none, HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70–0.96, Ptrend=0.04). Eight other dietary factors that were associated with endometrial cancer risk in the EPIC study (total fat, monounsaturated fat, carbohydrates, phosphorus, butter, yogurt, cheese and potatoes) were not confirmed in the NHS/NHSII. Our findings suggest that coffee intake may be inversely associated with endometrial cancer risk. Further data are needed to confirm these findings and to examine the mechanisms linking coffee intake to endometrial cancer risk in order to develop improved prevention strategies.

Keywords: endometrial cancer, diet, false discovery rate, nutrient-wide association study, cohort study

Introduction

Higher endometrial cancer (EC) incidence rates in North America and Europe versus lower rates in Africa and South Asia (1) may be explained by EC risk factors such as estrogen exposure and obesity, which are related to a westernized lifestyle (2); since diet is an important component of the westernized lifestyle we hypothesized that dietary factors may also contribute to EC etiology. The recent World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) meta-analysis of 3,571 EC cases reported an inverse association between coffee drinking and EC risk (3); however, an important unanswered question is whether other dietary factors may play a role in EC development.

We sought to investigate whether dietary factors were related to EC risk by applying a ‘nutrient-wide association study’ (NWAS) approach (4–6). The NWAS is an application of methods developed for GWAS to identify associations between dietary intake and risk of disease and includes adjustment for multiple comparisons by calculating the False Discovery Rate (FDR) followed by external validation of results in an independent study (7). This method has been used to identify novel dietary risk associations for diabetes and blood pressure (4, 6). The current study is the first to use the NWAS method to prospectively evaluate dietary factors and risk of EC in European and North American populations.

Materials and Methods

This NWAS investigated intakes of 84 foods/nutrients in relation to EC risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study, calculated the associated FDR to select dietary factors and evaluated these factors and EC risk in the validation cohorts, the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and NHSII (Supplemental Figure S1).

Study populations

The EPIC study includes 521,330 participants 25–70 years at enrollment (1992–2000) (8). From 367,903 women in the EPIC study, individuals were excluded if they: reported a prevalent cancer except non-melanoma skin cancer (n=19,853); were missing follow-up information (n=2898); had a hysterectomy (n=35,116); did not complete a dietary questionnaire (n=2855); were classified in the top or bottom 1% of energy intake to energy requirement (n=6045); were missing a lifestyle questionnaire (n=22); or had outlying values for specific nutrient intakes (n=7), leaving 301,107 participants in this study. Informed consent was provided by all participants and ethical approval for the study was obtained from the internal review board of the International Agency for Research on Cancer and from local ethics committees in each participating country.

The NHS was established in 1976 among 121,700 married, female registered nurses, ages 30–55 years while the NHSII began in 1989 among 116,430 female registered nurses, ages 25–42 years (9, 10). Participants excluded at the study baseline (1980 for NHS and 1991 for NHSII) were: women with a diagnosis of cancer except nonmelanoma skin cancer or those who died (NHS=3630; NHSII=1321); those who reported a hysterectomy (NHS=20,657; NHSII=6424); or were ineligible (e.g., duplicate ID) (NHS=36; NHSII=199). Participants did not contribute person-time in cycles in which they were missing body mass index (BMI) or if they had a total caloric intake (<600 or >3,500 kcal/d) for the expanded food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) (1984 and thereafter), but they could re-enter the analysis for subsequent periods after these data became available. Informed consent was provided by all participants and the study design, data collection and analyses were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Ascertainment of EC cases

In the EPIC study, incident ECs were identified through population-based cancer registries or active follow-up, and mortality data were obtained from cancer or mortality registries (8). Tumors were classified as ICD-10 code C54. In total 1504 cases were identified and cases were censored if they were not the first incident tumor (n = 54), non-epithelial (n=68) or missing tumor behavior (n=79). Analyses of type I/II tumors were not conducted in the EPIC study because data on tumor histologic subtype and grade were incomplete.

In the NHS/NHSII, information about new diagnoses was collected in each questionnaire. When a woman reported a cancer, permission was sought to obtain the relevant medical records and pathology reports, and study physicians reviewed these documents to confirm the diagnosis. Deaths in the cohort were identified by reports from family members, the U.S. Postal Service and the National Death Index. Cases were confirmed epithelial EC (NHS=1254; NHSII=277) and of these we further subclassified EC as invasive (≥stage II) endometrial adenocarcinoma (NHS=753; NHSII=146).

Dietary assessment

The diet of the EPIC participants was assessed using validated dietary questionnaires or food records (8) and this analysis evaluated foods that were available in ≥ 8 countries (Supplemental Material and Methods). The EPIC Nutrient Database was used to calculate standardized nutrient intake for the 10 countries and all standardized priority nutrients were analyzed.

In the NHS/NHSII, intakes of selected foods/nutrients were assessed from 1980 FFQ (NHS) or 1991 FFQ (NHSII) and every ~4 years thereafter until the end of follow-up using a validated and reproducible FFQ (11). Nutrient intakes were calculated by multiplying the frequency of intake by the nutrient content of specified portions based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture food composition data.

Measurement of other covariates

The following risk factors for EC were adjusted for in all multivariate models; BMI, total energy, smoking status, age at menarche, oral contraceptive (OC) use, parity, and a combined variable for menopausal status and postmenopausal hormone (PMH) use (Supplemental Material and Methods). In the EPIC study we additionally adjusted the multivariate models for physical activity, height, education level and alcohol intake and the risk estimates were very similar therefore these covariates were not included in the final models. Family history of EC was not available.

Statistical analysis

Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In the EPIC study, age was the underlying time metric for Cox regression with the subjects’ age at recruitment as the entry time and their age at cancer diagnosis, death, emigration or last follow-up as the exit time. Nutrient intakes were energy-adjusted using the regression residual method and levels of food/nutrient intake were categorized into quartiles unless stated otherwise. To account for multiple comparisons, we estimated the FDR for each food/nutrient, which is the ratio of the number of false positives to the total number of positive associations, or the percentage of findings drawn from the null distribution at a given significance level (7). To compute the FDR, we used an analytic method that estimates the number of false positive results by creating a ‘null distribution’ of regression test statistics; this was accomplished by randomly assigning the EC case status, running the Cox proportional hazards model and collecting the associated P-value over 1,000 permutations (6, 12).

In the NHS/NHSII, we evaluated dietary intake at the study baseline as well as the cumulative average intake for foods/nutrients that were identified in the analysis in the EPIC study with FDR≤0.10 (Supplemental Material and Methods). The cumulative average intake analyses included a 2–6 year time lag between the diet assessment and the start of follow-up; thus each participant accrued person-time beginning with the 1984 (NHS) or 1995 (NHSII) FFQ until their date of EC or other cancer diagnosis, hysterectomy, death or the end of follow-up (NHS: June 1, 2010; NHSII: June 1, 2011). Cox PH regression was carried out using age (months) and the biannual questionnaire cycle as the time scale.

The P-value for the test of linear trend was calculated by assigning participants the median value for each dietary intake category and this variable was modeled as a continuous term. Random effects meta-analysis was used to combine HRs across studies. Analyses were performed using ‘survival’ and ‘rmeta’ packages in R v3.0.2.

Results

In total of 2,834 incident ECs that were evaluated, 1,303 were from the EPIC study (mean follow-up=11 years) and 1,531 were from the NHS/NHSII (mean follow-up=25 years). The characteristics of the study populations are summarized in Table 1. Of the 84 foods/nutrients that were evaluated in the EPIC study, 10 were associated with EC risk (FDR≤0.10) including butter, yogurt, cheese, potatoes, coffee, cream desserts, total fat, monounsaturated fat, carbohydrates and phosphorus (Supplemental Table S1) while the remainder did not meet the FDR cutoff (Figure 1; Supplemental Table S2).

Table 1.

Age-standardized characteristics at baseline of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study and the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and NHSII

EPICa NHSa NHSIIa
Participants, n 301,107 68,063 87,343
Means (SD)
Age, yearsb 49.8 (9.9) 45.3 (7.2) 35.9 (4.6)
Age at menarche, years 13.1 (1.5) 12.4 (1.8) 12.4 (1.4)
Body mass index, kg/m2 24.9 (4.4) 24.3 (4.5) 24.5 (5.3)
Total energy (kcal/day) 1934 (541) 1570 (501) 1794 (548)
Percentages
Parous 84 94 73
Ever use OCs 60 50 83
Postmenopausal 44 27 1
Ever smoked 43 57 34
Ever use postmenopausal hormones 18 8 1
Open in a new tab
a

Exposures at the study baseline (1980 in the NHS; 1991 in the NHSII).

b

Values are not age-standardized.

Figure 1. “Manhattan plot” showing results from the nutrient-wide association study method to evaluate the association between dietary intake of various foods and nutrients and endometrial cancer risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

The Y-axis indicates the −log10 of the false discovery rate (FDR) P-value of the multivariate adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression coefficient for the comparison of extreme quartiles or categories of dietary intake. Colors represent the dietary intake categories that were evaluated. Within each category, factors are arranged from left to right in order from the lowest to highest hazard ratio (HR). The red horizontal line is −log10=1 (FDR P-value=0.10). Dietary factors that were selected for confirmation in the NHS/NHSII are labeled with the HR from the EPIC study for the comparison of the highest versus lowest category of dietary intake in relation to risk of endometrial cancer.

Intake of most of the nine foods/nutrients at baseline was similar in the EPIC and NHS/NHSII cohorts with the following exceptions; the EPIC versus NHS/NHSII populations, respectively, had higher total energy intake (mean=1934 kcal/day versus ≤1794) and consumed more yogurt (mean=65.1 g/day versus ≤32.6), cheese (mean=39.2 g/day versus ≤13.6) and butter (mean=4.0 g/day versus ≤2.6) (Table 1; Supplemental Table S3). Cream dessert was not available in the NHS/NHSII cohorts. Of the nine foods/nutrients that were investigated in the NHS/NHSII, only the association with coffee was replicated (highest versus lowest categories of intake, overall HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73–0.92) (Figure 2; Supplemental Table S4). A positive association with butter intake was observed in the meta-analysis of all three cohorts (highest versus lowest categories of intake, overall HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02–1.27).

Figure 2. Forest plots showing multivariate Hazard Ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for comparisons of the highest versus lowest categories of intake of nine selected foods and nutrients reported in the baseline dietary assessment in relation to endometrial cancer risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) and the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS/NHSII).

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Foods and nutrients were evaluated if they had a False Discovery Rate (FDR)≤0.10 for the comparison of extreme quartiles or categories of dietary intake in the EPIC study. The overall multivariate adjusted HR (95% CI) was estimated using random effects meta-analysis. P-values for heterogeneity (P-het) comparing the EPIC study and the NHS/NHSII were ≥0.12 with the following exceptions; phosphorus (P-het=0.03) and potatoes (P-het=0.05). Multivariate models were adjusted for BMI, total energy intake, smoking status, age at menarche, oral contraceptive use, parity, and a combined variable for menopausal status and postmenopausal hormone use and were stratified by age and study center [EPIC] or stratified by age, cohort and the 2-year questionnaire cycle [NHS/NHSII]. Contrasts and median intake values were total fat [EPIC, Quartile 4 (Q4, 73.7 g/day) vs. Quartile 1 (Q1, 49.7 g/day); NHS/NHSII, Q4, 81.0 g/day vs. Q1, 52.0 g/day], monounsaturated fat [EPIC, Q4, 29.0 g/day vs. Q1, 16.2 g/day; NHS/NHSII, Q4, 34.0 g/day vs. Q1, 19.1 g/day], carbohydrates [EPIC, Q4, 212.0 g/day vs. Q1, 148.1 g/day; NHS/NHSII, Q4, 247.0 g/day vs. Q1, 131.0 g/day], phosphorus [EPIC, Q4, 1490 mg/day vs. Q1, 984 mg/day; NHS/NHSII, Q4, 1597 mg/day vs. Q1, 951 mg/day], butter [EPIC, highest, 10.3 g/day vs. lowest, 0 g/day; NHS/NHSII, highest, 5.0 g/day vs. lowest, 0 g/day], yogurt [EPIC, Q4, 145.3 g/day vs. Q1, 0 g/day; NHS/NHSII, highest, 105.4 g/day vs. lowest, 0 g/day], cheese [EPIC, Q4, 74.7 g/day vs. Q1, 7.5 g/day; NHS/NHSII, highest, 28.0 g/day vs. lowest, 2.0 g/day], potatoes [EPIC, Q4, 142.2 g/day vs. Q1, 20.8 g/day; NHS/NHSII, highest, 146.2 g/day vs. lowest, 25.9 g/day] and coffee [EPIC, Q4, 750.0 g/day vs. Q1, 8.6 g/day; NHS/NHSII, highest, 1066.5 g/day vs. lowest, 0 g/day].

In sensitivity analyses in the NHS/NHSII, there were similar associations for the cumulative average diet (Supplemental Table S5) and when restricting the case group to invasive endometrial adenocarcinomas (Supplemental Table S6). There were no consistent differences in the risk associations when stratifying by BMI or PMH use in the EPIC study or the NHS/NHSII (data not shown).

Discussion

We used the NWAS method to examine consumption of 84 foods/nutrients in the EPIC study and identified 10 dietary factors for which the highest versus lowest consumption levels were associated with increased risk (butter, yogurt, potatoes, carbohydrates) or decreased risk (cheese, coffee, cream desserts, total fat, monounsaturated fat, phosphorus) of EC (FDR≤0.10). The inverse association between coffee intake and EC risk was confirmed in the NHS/NHSII, suggesting that the other associations in our discovery effort may be false positives. Butter intake was positively associated with EC risk in the meta-analysis of all three studies; to our knowledge butter has not been investigated in previous prospective studies.

The inverse association between coffee intake and EC risk is consistent with two recent meta-analyses (3, 13) and an earlier NHS report (14). Obesity is a strong risk factor for EC (2) and may act by increasing exposure to estrogen (15) and/or hyperinsulinemia (16). Coffee may relate to these exposures; for example, in a cross-sectional study of >2,000 healthy NHS women, a high coffee intake was associated with lower levels of C-peptide which suggests a possible reduction in insulin secretion by coffee drinkers (17). Increasing consumption of caffeine and caffeine-containing coffee was associated with higher levels of adiponectin in the NHS which may benefit insulin sensitivity (18), and also with elevated levels of sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) that may decrease bioavailable estrogen based on a report focusing on postmenopausal women in the Rancho Bernardo community-based study (19). However, epidemiologic evidence suggests that non-caffeine components of coffee may be important for the risk reduction based on observations in the WCRF meta-analysis (3) that the decreased risk for EC is similar in magnitude for decaffeinated coffee, and because drinking tea which also contains caffeine does not appear to be related to EC risk in the current study and in the earlier NHS report (14) and WCRF meta-analysis (3).

Of those dietary factors that were investigated but not confirmed, consumption of carbohydrates (20–22) and total fat (23) were previously evaluated and, consistent with our final conclusions, there was no association with EC risk. It is possible that other participant characteristics that differed between the EPIC, NHS and NHSII cohorts, including differences in dietary intake levels for certain foods/nutrients, could explain why some of the dietary associations were not confirmed. A meta-analysis of a large number of cohort studies would therefore be useful to further evaluate a range of nutrients/foods in relation to EC risk.

The objective of the current study was to use the NWAS method as it may identify novel dietary risk associations with disease as demonstrated by studies of blood pressure and diabetes (4, 6). Advantages of this study design were the ability to systematically evaluate a range of dietary factors in relation to EC risk while accounting for multiple testing and validating results in the NHS/NHSII; this provided an additional level of confidence in the findings. We verified the generally null associations between most dietary factors and EC risk (3) which addresses the issue of selective reporting biases that favor statistically significant results (5, 24). Limitations included the single assessment of diet in the EPIC study; however, in the NHS/NHSII there were similar results for the cumulative average dietary intake which suggests that our findings were not an artifact of a single dietary assessment. Both studies utilized a self-reported dietary assessment, which could lead to possible measurement error in dietary intake. We did not account for the correlated nature of the foods and nutrients in this analysis; doing so would lower the effective number of statistical tests and the corresponding threshold for statistical significance. Lastly, it is possible that other dietary associations may exist for specific subgroups of EC, for specific foods/nutrients that were not assessed in this analysis or that combinations of foods or dietary patterns may influence risk.

In summary, we used the NWAS method to evaluate dietary intake of 84 foods and nutrients in the EPIC study and nine dietary factors were investigated in the NHS/NHSII. Consistent with previous findings, coffee intake appears inversely associated with EC risk. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms linking coffee intake to endometrial carcinogenesis.

Supplementary Material

1

Acknowledgments

Financial support: The coordination of EPIC is financially supported by the European Commission (DG-SANCO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The national cohorts are supported by Danish Cancer Society (Denmark); Ligue Contre le Cancer, Institut Gustave Roussy, Mutuelle Générale de l’Education Nationale, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) (France); Deutsche Krebshilfe, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum and Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Germany); the Hellenic Health Foundation (Greece); Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro-AIRC (Italy); Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); ERC-2009-AdG 232997 and Nordforsk, Nordic Centre of Excellence programme on Food, Nutrition and Health. (Norway); Health Research Fund (FIS), Regional Governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia (no. 6236) and Navarra, ISCIII RETIC (RD06/0020) (Spain); Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Scientific Council and County Councils of Skåne and Västerbotten (Sweden); Cancer Research UK (14136 to NW and KTK; C570/A16491 to RCT), Medical Research Council (1000143 to NW and KTK) (United Kingdom). The NHS/NHSII were supported by the National Institutes of Health (P01 CA87969, R01 CA50385, UM1 CA176726 to SST, ID and SEH). ID was supported by the National Institutes of Health (2R01 CA082838).

We would like to thank all of the study participants for their valuable contribution to this research. Razvan Sultana provided assistance with programming. We also would like to thank the participants and staff of the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and NHSII for their valuable contributions as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, WY. The authors assume full responsibility for analyses and interpretation of these data.

Footnotes

Conflicts of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

  • 1.Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, et al. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11. Lyon, France: 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kaaks R, Lukanova A, Kurzer MS. Obesity, endogenous hormones, and endometrial cancer risk: a synthetic review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002;11(12):1531–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.World Cancer Research Fund / American Institute for Cancer Research. Continuous Update Project Report. Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Endometrial Cancer. Electronic. 2013 Available from: URL: http://www.dietandcancerreport.org.
  • 4.Patel CJ, Bhattacharya J, Butte AJ. An Environment-Wide Association Study (EWAS) on type 2 diabetes mellitus. PLoS One. 2010;5(5):e10746. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010746. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Patel CJ, Cullen MR, Ioannidis JP, Butte AJ. Systematic evaluation of environmental factors: persistent pollutants and nutrients correlated with serum lipid levels. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(3):828–43. doi: 10.1093/ije/dys003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Tzoulaki I, Patel CJ, Okamura T, Chan Q, Brown IJ, Miura K, et al. A nutrient-wide association study on blood pressure. Circulation. 2012;126(21):2456–64. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.114058. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 1995;57:289–300. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Riboli E, Hunt KJ, Slimani N, Ferrari P, Norat T, Fahey M, et al. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC): study populations and data collection. Public Health Nutr. 2002;5(6B):1113–24. doi: 10.1079/PHN2002394. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Colditz GA, Hankinson SE. The Nurses’ Health Study: lifestyle and health among women. Nat Rev Cancer. 2005;5(5):388–96. doi: 10.1038/nrc1608. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rockhill B, Willett WC, Hunter DJ, Manson JE, Hankinson SE, Spiegelman D, et al. Physical activity and breast cancer risk in a cohort of young women. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90(15):1155–60. doi: 10.1093/jnci/90.15.1155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Willett WC, Sampson L, Stampfer MJ, Rosner B, Bain C, Witschi J, et al. Reproducibility and validity of a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire. Am J Epidemiol. 1985;122(1):51–65. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114086. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Patel CJ, Bhattacharya J, Butte AJ. An Environment-Wide Association Study (EWAS) on type 2 diabetes mellitus. PLoS One. 2010;5(5):e10746. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010746. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Je Y, Giovannucci E. Coffee consumption and risk of endometrial cancer: findings from a large up-to-date meta-analysis. International journal of cancer Journal international du cancer. 2012;131(7):1700–10. doi: 10.1002/ijc.27408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Je Y, Hankinson SE, Tworoger SS, De VI, Giovannucci E. A prospective cohort study of coffee consumption and risk of endometrial cancer over a 26-year follow-up. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011;20(12):2487–95. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-0766. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Key TJ, Pike MC. The dose-effect relationship between ‘unopposed’ oestrogens and endometrial mitotic rate: its central role in explaining and predicting endometrial cancer risk. Br J Cancer. 1988;57(2):205–12. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1988.44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Gunter MJ, Hoover DR, Yu H, Wassertheil-Smoller S, Manson JE, Li J, et al. A prospective evaluation of insulin and insulin-like growth factor-I as risk factors for endometrial cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17(4):921–9. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2686. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Wu T, Willett WC, Hankinson SE, Giovannucci E. Caffeinated coffee, decaffeinated coffee, and caffeine in relation to plasma C-peptide levels, a marker of insulin secretion, in U.S. women. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(6):1390–6. doi: 10.2337/diacare.28.6.1390. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Williams CJ, Fargnoli JL, Hwang JJ, van Dam RM, Blackburn GL, Hu FB, et al. Coffee consumption is associated with higher plasma adiponectin concentrations in women with or without type 2 diabetes: a prospective cohort study. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(3):504–7. doi: 10.2337/dc07-1952. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ferrini RL, Barrett-Connor E. Caffeine intake and endogenous sex steroid levels in postmenopausal women. The Rancho Bernardo Study. Am J Epidemiol. 1996;144(7):642–4. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a008975. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Larsson SC, Friberg E, Wolk A. Carbohydrate intake, glycemic index and glycemic load in relation to risk of endometrial cancer: A prospective study of Swedish women. International journal of cancer Journal international du cancer. 2007;120(5):1103–7. doi: 10.1002/ijc.22422. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Silvera SA, Rohan TE, Jain M, Terry PD, Howe GR, Miller AB. Glycaemic index, glycaemic load and risk of endometrial cancer: a prospective cohort study. Public Health Nutr. 2005;8(7):912–9. doi: 10.1079/phn2005741. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Zheng W, Kushi LH, Potter JD, Sellers TA, Doyle TJ, Bostick RM, et al. Dietary intake of energy and animal foods and endometrial cancer incidence. The Iowa women’s health study. Am J Epidemiol. 1995;142(4):388–94. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117646. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Jain MG, Rohan TE, Howe GR, Miller AB. A cohort study of nutritional factors and endometrial cancer. Eur J Epidemiol. 2000;16(10):899–905. doi: 10.1023/a:1011012621990. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tsilidis KK, Papatheodorou SI, Evangelou E, Ioannidis JP. Evaluation of excess statistical significance in meta-analyses of 98 biomarker associations with cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(24):1867–78. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djs437. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

1
NIHMS646244-supplement-1.docx (870.8KB, docx)

RESOURCES