Table 3.

Dietary and/or supplemental intake of calcium and breast cancer risk

First author (ref.), year, study placeYears of data collectionStudy designNo. cases/controls (cohort)Comparison*RR (95% CL)Variables adjusted for
Katsouyanni (54), 1988, Greece1983-1984Hospital-based case-control study120/120Dietary calcium (centiles), C90 vs C100.56 (0.27, 1.16)Age, education, and interviewer
Zaridze (52), 1991, Russia1987-1989Hospital-based case-control study139/139Dietary calcium (quartiles)Energy intake, age at menarche, and education
PremenopausalNo association
Postmenopausal, Q4 vs Q10.20 (0.05, 0.84)
Van't Veer (55), 1991, Netherlands §1985-1987Population-based case-control study133/289Dairy calcium/fiberAge and fat intake
≤464.4/≤26.21.0 (ref.)
>464.4/>26.20.58 (0.32, 1.05)
Landa (53), 1994, Spain1987-1988Hospital-based case-control study100/100Dietary calcium (tertiles), Q3 vs Q10.4 (0.2, 0.9)Energy intake
Negri (51), 1996, Italy1991-1994Hospital-based case-control study2,569/2,588Dietary calcium (quintiles), Q5 vs Q10.80 (0.7, 1.0)Age, center, education, parity, energy, and alcohol intake
Knekt (57), 1996, Finland1966/1972-Cohort study88/4,697Dietary calcium (tertiles), T3 vs T10.44 (0.24, 0.80)Not stated
Witte (39), 1997, United States and Canada1989Familial matched case-control study140/222Not statedNo associationNot stated
Levi (37), 2001, Swiss1993-1999Hospital-based case-control study289/442Dietary calcium (tertiles), T3 vs T10.73 (0.44, 1.22)Age, education, parity, menopausal status, BMI, total energy intake, and alcohol drinking
Shin (40), 2002, United States1980-1996Cohort study3,172/88,691Total calcium (mg/d)Age, period, physical activity, BBD, family history of breast cancer, height, weight change since age 18, BMI at age 18, age at menarche, parity, age at first birth, alcohol intake, energy, glycemic index, β-carotene, and vitamin E
Premenopausal, >1,000-1250 vs ≤5000.75 (0.57, 0.99)
Postmenopausal, >1,000-1250 vs ≤5000.90 (0.76, 1.07)
Adzersen (50), 2003, Germany1998-2000Hospital-based case-control study310/353Dietary calcium (mg/d), 870-1,180 vs <5580.42 (0.23, 0.75)Age, energy, age at menarche, age at first birth, age at menopause, mother/sister with breast cancer, current smoking, history of BBD or operation, BMI, alcohol, and HRT
Boyapati (56), 2003, China1996-1998Population-based case-control study1,459/1,556Dietary calcium (deciles)Age, energy, menopausal status (for all subjects only), family history among first-degree relatives, history of fibroadenoma, age at first live birth, BMI, education, income, protein, fruits, and vegetables
Postmenopausal, D10 vs D10.72 (0.38, 1.37)
Premenopausal, D10 vs D10.72 (0.38, 1.37)
McCullough (13), 2005, United States**1992-2001Cohort study2,855/68,567PostmenopausalAge, energy, history of breast cyst, family history of breast cancer, height, weight gain since age 18, alcohol use, race, age at menopause, age at first birth and no. live births, education, mammography history, and HRT
Dietary and supplemental (mg/d), >1,500 to ≤1,750 vs ≤5000.76 (0.63, 0.92)
Dietary calcium (mg/d), >1,250 vs ≤5000.80 (0.67, 0.95)
Supplemental calcium (mg/d), >1,000 vs none0.98 (0.86, 1.12)
  • * The associations are presented by menopausal status whenever the studies reported them separately or the studies were restricted to either premenopausal or postmenopausal women. Otherwise, the associations for a combination of premenopausal and postmenopausal women are presented.

  • RR and 95% CL were estimated for consumption of calcium equal to the value of the 90th centile versus consumption equal to the value of the 10th centile.

  • Detailed estimates were not presented.

  • § Joint effects of calcium and fiber were presented.

  • The cohort was recruited between 1966 and 1972 and followed up for 25 years.

  • The study was based on the Nurses' Health Study. Cumulative calcium intake was used in analyses.

  • ** This study, an analysis of postmenopausal women, was conducted in the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort.