Dietary fat and breast cancer mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The influence of dietary fat upon breast cancer mortality remains largely understudied despite extensive investigation into its influence upon breast cancer risk 

Objective: To conduct meta-analyses of studies to clarify the association between dietary fat and breast cancer mortality Design: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for relevant articles published up to March 2012. Risk of all-cause or breast cancer specific death was evaluated by combining multivariable adjusted estimates comparing highest versus lowest categories of intake; and per 20 gram increase in intake of total and/or saturated fat (g/day) using random-effects meta-analyses. 

Results: Fifteen prospective cohort studies investigating total fat and/or saturated fat intake (g/day) and breast cancer mortality were included. There was no difference in risk of breast cancer specific death (n = 6; HR = 1.14; 95% CI: 0.86, 1.52; P = 0.34) or all cause death (n = 4; HR = 1.73; 95% CI: 0.82, 3.6; P = 0.15) for women in the highest versus lowest category of total fat intake. Breast cancer specific death (n = 5; HR = 1.63; 95% CI: 1.19, 2.24; p <0.01) was higher for women in the highest versus lowest category of saturated fat intake. 

Conclusions: These meta-analyses have shown that saturated fat intake negatively impacts upon breast cancer survival.

Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data The PRISMA-IPD Statement

IMPORTANCE Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of individual participant data (IPD) aim to collect, check, and reanalyze individual-level data from all studies addressing a particular research question and are therefore considered a gold standard approach to evidence synthesis. They are likely to be used with increasing frequency as current initiatives to share clinical trial data gain momentum and may be particularly important in reviewing controversial therapeutic areas.

OBJECTIVE To develop PRISMA-IPD as a stand-alone extension to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement, tailored to the specific requirements of reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of IPD. Although developed primarily for reviews of randomized trials, many items will apply in other contexts, including reviews of diagnosis and prognosis.

DESIGN Development of PRISMA-IPD followed the EQUATOR Network framework guidance and used the existing standard PRISMA Statement as a starting point to draft additional relevant material. A web-based survey informed discussion at an international workshop that included researchers, clinicians, methodologists experienced in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of IPD, and journal editors. The statement was drafted and iterative refinements were made by the project, advisory, and development groups. The PRISMA-IPD Development Group reached agreement on the PRISMA-IPD checklist and flow diagram by consensus.

FINDINGS Compared with standard PRISMA, the PRISMA-IPD checklist includes 3 new items that address (1) methods of checking the integrity of the IPD (such as pattern of randomization, data consistency, baseline imbalance, and missing data), (2) reporting any important issues that emerge, and (3) exploring variation (such as whether certain types of individual benefit more from the intervention than others). A further additional item was created by reorganization of standard PRISMA items relating to interpreting results. Wording was modified in 23 items to reflect the IPD approach.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE PRISMA-IPD provides guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of IPD.