Background:

A high healthy lifestyle index (HLI), a composite score based on good diet quality, low alcohol consumption, no smoking, moderate to high physical activity, and waist circumference <80 cm, has been consistently associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer. Recently, high levels of body fat were found to be associated with an elevated risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women with a normal body mass index (BMI; 18.5–<25 kg/m2). Whether the HLI is associated with breast cancer risk in women with normal BMI is unknown.

Methods:

We studied 102,572 women aged 40 to 69 years with a normal BMI at enrollment into the UK Biobank cohort study. The HLI was created by assigning to each component higher scores for healthier behaviors and then summing the scores. The HLI was categorized by tertiles and age- and multivariable-adjusted HRs for the association of the HLI with breast cancer risk by menopausal status were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models.

Results:

In postmenopausal women, compared with a low HLI, higher scores were associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer [HRHLI-3rd tertile = 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64–0.91]. Findings were similar for premenopausal women, although they did not reach statistical significance, except when smoking status was excluded from the HLI score (HLIwithout smoking: HR3rd tertile = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56–0.90).

Conclusions:

In normal BMI postmenopausal women, a high HLI score was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer.

Impact:

Following a healthy lifestyle may reduce the risk of breast cancer among normal weight postmenopausal women.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women worldwide, accounting each year for 25% to 30% of all cancer diagnoses and for approximately 15% of cancer-related deaths in this group (1, 2). Breast cancer has a multifactorial etiology, due both to modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors (3).

The World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute of Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR; ref. 4) has indicated the need to lower excessive weight (5), and in addition, to minimize exposure to lifestyle factors associated with increased cancer risk such as alcohol consumption, tobacco smoking, poor diet (high in fat and sugar, and low in vegetable, fruit and whole-grain consumption), and physical inactivity. Given the modifiable nature of these factors, and hence their potential role in cancer prevention, their association with breast cancer has been evaluated independently (6–9) and in combination, the latter by creating a lifestyle index score based on body mass index (BMI), smoking, alcohol intake, diet quality, and physical activity. An inverse association between a healthy lifestyle index (HLI) and risk of breast cancer has been found in several epidemiologic studies of postmenopausal women, from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds (10–21). The results from two studies on premenopausal women were less consistent, with no association found in one study, although the results were based on a limited number of cases (22), and a significant reduction of the risk of breast cancer associated with a higher HLI that did not include BMI in a second one (17).

Recent reports have shown that normal BMI (18.5–<25 kg/m2) postmenopausal women with high levels of body fat are at increased risk of breast cancer (22–24), and both inflammation and altered metabolism have been suggested as potential underlying mechanisms to explain the increased risk of breast cancer in this group (25, 26). Little is known, however, about the potential to reduce the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal and premenopausal women with a normal BMI. To this end, in the present study, we evaluated the association between HLI and the risk of breast cancer among women participating in UK Biobank with a BMI within the normal range.

UK Biobank is a prospective cohort study including approximately 500,000 individuals (54.4% women) aged 40 to 69 years at recruitment, living in England, Wales, and Scotland, and registered with the United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS; ref. 27). Participants were invited to attend one of the 22 study centers between 2006 and 2010. A detailed protocol of the UK Biobank study is available online (https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/media/gnkeyh2q/study-rationale.pdf). The UK Biobank received ethical approval from the North West Multi-centre Research Ethics Committee, the National Information Governance Board of Health and Social Care in England and Wales, and the Community Health Index Advisory in Scotland (http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/ethics/). All participants provided written informed consent.

Exposure and covariate ascertainment

At the baseline visit, study participants completed self-administrated touchscreen questionnaires on sociodemographic, health, reproductive, medical, and lifestyle factors (http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/resources/). Anthropometric measurements were obtained by trained personnel following standardized procedures (24). BMI was calculated by dividing weight (kg) by the square of height (m2). Waist circumference (cm) was measured at the narrowest part of the torso using a nonstretchable spring tape.

Dietary assessment was based on 29 questions regarding the average frequency of consumption of foods and food groups per week over the past year. For certain items such as bread type and cereals, portions expressed as quantity were indicated, while for others such as meat type, frequencies were specified. The validity of this tool to obtain reliable information on participants' diet habits has been previously evaluated by comparing it with an extensive 24-hour dietary recall of 206 types of food and 32 types of drinks in a subgroup of this cohort. The results showed that the questionnaire reliably categorized participants with respect to their main food group intakes (28).

Alcohol consumption was expressed as the number of drinks per week, while self-reported smoking status was recorded as never, former, and current. Total physical activity, which included various activities over the last 4 weeks was computed by multiplying the hours/week of each reported physical activity by the metabolic equivalent (MET) of that activity, and summing the values across activities (29).

The combined HLI score used in this study has been described in detail previously (14). It consists of a modified score based on the recommendations of the WCRF/AICR (4), and combines diet (including red and processed meat, vegetable, fruit, and whole-grain intake), alcohol consumption, physical activity, and waist circumference. Smoking status is also included in the HLI score, although it was not included in the WCRF/AICR recommendations. Each individual component was indexed separately in three categories, with the highest score representing the healthiest group: never smoked, no alcohol consumption, relatively high physical activity level [≥ 3,000 MET-minutes per week (min/wk) or ≥ 750 min/wk] (29), waist circumference <80 cm, lowest intake of meat, and highest intake of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. The final score ranged from 0 to 5.5 (Supplementary Table S1; ref. 14).

Outcome ascertainment

Incident invasive breast cancer cases were ascertained through the Health & Social Care Information Centre for women resident in England and Wales, and the NHS in Scotland. Code C50 was used to identify cases of invasive breast cancer based on the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10; ref. 30). Breast cancer cases were further classified according to the ICD-0–3 morphologic code (31) as ductal (8500–08, 8022, 8035), lobular (8520-9), or other types. Data for HER2, estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor status were not available.

Study sample

This study included women with normal BMI (18.5–<25.0 kg/m2; n = 105,680), who were breast cancer–free at baseline (excluded prevalent cases, n = 3,100) and had information on follow-up time (missing, n = 8), leaving a cohort of 102,572 women (33,917 premenopausal and 68,655 postmenopausal). Women were considered to be postmenopausal if they had had a natural menopause, had a bilateral oophorectomy, or had missing information on menopausal status and were at least 53 years old (32). The number of participants with data on HLI and each individual lifestyle component are reported in Supplementary Table S1.

Statistical analysis

All analyses were performed separately in pre- and postmenopausal women. Baseline characteristics of the cases and noncases were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous variables and χ2 tests for categorical variables. To evaluate the association between the HLI and breast cancer incidence, tertiles of the HLI were created separately by menopausal status based on the distribution of the score among the respective noncases; breast cancer incidence rates (per 1,000 person-years) were calculated for each tertile. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association of the HLI with risk of breast cancer, using the lowest tertile as the referent category. Follow-up time was used as the underlying time at risk and was measured from the date of enrollment to the date of breast cancer occurrence, or the date of death, withdrawal from the study, loss to follow-up, or to the date of the end of follow-up (October 31, 2015 for Scotland and March 31, 2016 for England and Wales), whichever came first. No violation of the proportional hazards assumption was found on the basis of examination of Schoenfeld residuals. Selection of the variables included in the final model was based on their association with breast cancer and whether these factors acted as confounders by altering the estimates of association for the main exposure by more than 10%. The analyses were adjusted for age at enrollment (age-adjusted model), and for socio-economic status (Townsend deprivation index; ref. 33), race (White, non-White), height (quartiles), family history of breast cancer (first-degree relatives), use of hormone replacement therapy (never, past, current), use of oral contraceptives (never, past, current), number of live births (0, 1, 2–4, >4), history of mammogram screening (yes, no), and age at menopause (in postmenopausal women; multivariable adjusted model). Missing values of categorical variables were retained in the analysis by creating a separate category. To examine the possibility of reverse causality, we repeated the analyses after excluding breast cancer cases that occurred during the first 2 years of follow-up and noncases who were lost to follow-up during this period. We also tested whether any individual index component acted as a determinant of the association of HLI with risk of breast cancer by removing one component at a time from the composite score and adjusting for it in the model. For these new reduced HLI scores, tertiles were created based on their distributions in the noncases. In addition, we also evaluated the associations of the individual HLI components by testing their association with breast cancer risk while adjusting for all of the other components. Women with missing values for any of the HLI components were excluded from the main analysis (81,230 women had complete data on all HLI components), but they were retained in the analyses of individual components for which they did not have missing values.

The analyses were conducted using STATA version 16.1 (Stata Corp LP). All P values were two-sided.

A total of 1,796 incident cases of breast cancer (560 premenopausal, 1,236 postmenopausal) were diagnosed in the study population over an average follow-up period of 7.0 (SD = 1.1) years. Table 1 summarizes the baseline characteristics of the cohort by menopausal status. Among premenopausal women, compared with noncases, breast cancer cases were older at recruitment and at the time of their first-born child, had higher frequency of a family history of breast cancer, were more likely to be current users of oral contraceptives, and had slightly higher BMIs. Among postmenopausal women, compared with noncases, breast cancer cases were also older at enrollment, more likely to be nulliparous, more likely to be older at the time of their first born, had a higher frequency of a family history of breast cancer, were more likely to use hormone replacement therapy, and had higher BMIs. In addition, postmenopausal breast cancer cases were more likely to have reported a poor diet and a lower level of physical activity, and to have a larger waist circumference at enrollment into the study.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of women in the UK Biobank with BMI 18.5 to <25 kg/m2, by menopausal and breast cancer status.

PremenopausalPostmenopausal
NoncasesCasesPNoncasesCasesP
N 33,356 560  67,419 1,236  
Age at enrollment, y (SD) 46.2 (4.0) 46.5 (4.0) 0.083 59.7 (5.5) 60.5 (5.1) <0.001 
White race, n (%) 30,974 (92.9) 527 (93.9) 0.324 64,954 (96.3) 1,201 (97.2) 0.125 
Socioeconomic status, Towsend index (SD) −1.4 (3.0) −1.6 (3.0) 0.093 −1.7 (2.8) −1.9 (2.8) 0.042 
Family history of breast cancer, n (%) 3,307 (9.7) 93 (16.4) <0.001 7,703 (11.2) 210 (16.7) <0.001 
Age at menarche, y (SD) 12.8 (3.0) 12.9 (2.5) 0.458 12.7 (2.9) 12.7 (2.9) 0.888 
Age at menopause, y (SD) — —  46.6 (12.9) 47.7 (12.6) 0.007 
Nulliparous, n (%) 8,879 (26.1) 171 (30.1) 0.259 12,634 (18.4) 247 (19.7) 0.025 
Age first live birtha, y (SD) 27.6 (5.0) 28.5 (4.9) <0.001 25.6 (4.5) 25.9 (4.4) 0.046 
OC use, n (%) 
 Never 3,834 (11.3) 54 (9.5) 0.001 14,006 (20.4) 259 (20.6) 0.835 
 Former 27,863 (82.0) 454 (79.9)  54,764 (79.6) 998 (79.4)  
 Current 2,301 (6.8) 60 (10.6)  — —  
HRT use, n (%) 
 Never 32,415 (95.3) 544 (96.8) 0.566 34,969 (50.9) 577 (45.9) <0.001 
 Former 550 (1.6) 6 (1.1)  26,214 (38.1) 467 (37.2)  
 Current 1,033 (3.0) 18 (3.2)  7,587 (11.0) 213 (17.0)  
Mammogram ever, n (%) 12,964 (38.2) 237 (41.8) 0.147 65,309 (95.0) 1,227 (97.6) <0.001 
Years since last mammogram, y (SD) 3.1 (4.2) 3.3 (4.8) 0.424 1.7 (1.6) 1.7 (1.3) 0.531 
HLI,bn (%) 
 Low 9,397 (34.2) 173 (36.8) 0.488 18,044 (34.5) 371 (2.0) 0.004 
 Medium 12,390 (45.1) 204 (43.6)  22,637 (43.3) 387 (41.1)  
 High 5,694 (20.7) 92 (19.6)  11,657 (22.3) 183 (19.5)  
Diet index,cn (%) lowest group 17,660 (53.6) 322 (58.0) 0.111 31,791 (47.6) 627 (51.1) 0.045 
Physical activity, n (%) <600 (MET-min/wk) 4,281 (15.1) 84 (17.5) 0.346 7,391 (13.7) 163 (16.9) 0.014 
Alcohol intake, n (%) no 5,393 (15.9) 103 (18.2) 0.112 15,007 (21.8) 282 (22.6) 0.252 
Smoking, n (%) never 3,596 (10.6) 47 (8.3) 0.180 6,164 (9.0) 120 (9.6) 0.617 
Waist circumference, n (%) ≥88 cm 635 (1.9) 13 (2.3) 0.128 2,222 (3.2) 65 (5.2) <0.001 
BMI, kg/m2 (SD) 22.4 (1.7) 22.6 (21.6) 0.004 22.6 (1.7) 22.8 (1.6) <0.001 
Type-1 and -2 diabetes, n (%) 325 (1.0) 2 (0.4) 0.452 1,004 (1.5) 22 (1.8) 0.643 
PremenopausalPostmenopausal
NoncasesCasesPNoncasesCasesP
N 33,356 560  67,419 1,236  
Age at enrollment, y (SD) 46.2 (4.0) 46.5 (4.0) 0.083 59.7 (5.5) 60.5 (5.1) <0.001 
White race, n (%) 30,974 (92.9) 527 (93.9) 0.324 64,954 (96.3) 1,201 (97.2) 0.125 
Socioeconomic status, Towsend index (SD) −1.4 (3.0) −1.6 (3.0) 0.093 −1.7 (2.8) −1.9 (2.8) 0.042 
Family history of breast cancer, n (%) 3,307 (9.7) 93 (16.4) <0.001 7,703 (11.2) 210 (16.7) <0.001 
Age at menarche, y (SD) 12.8 (3.0) 12.9 (2.5) 0.458 12.7 (2.9) 12.7 (2.9) 0.888 
Age at menopause, y (SD) — —  46.6 (12.9) 47.7 (12.6) 0.007 
Nulliparous, n (%) 8,879 (26.1) 171 (30.1) 0.259 12,634 (18.4) 247 (19.7) 0.025 
Age first live birtha, y (SD) 27.6 (5.0) 28.5 (4.9) <0.001 25.6 (4.5) 25.9 (4.4) 0.046 
OC use, n (%) 
 Never 3,834 (11.3) 54 (9.5) 0.001 14,006 (20.4) 259 (20.6) 0.835 
 Former 27,863 (82.0) 454 (79.9)  54,764 (79.6) 998 (79.4)  
 Current 2,301 (6.8) 60 (10.6)  — —  
HRT use, n (%) 
 Never 32,415 (95.3) 544 (96.8) 0.566 34,969 (50.9) 577 (45.9) <0.001 
 Former 550 (1.6) 6 (1.1)  26,214 (38.1) 467 (37.2)  
 Current 1,033 (3.0) 18 (3.2)  7,587 (11.0) 213 (17.0)  
Mammogram ever, n (%) 12,964 (38.2) 237 (41.8) 0.147 65,309 (95.0) 1,227 (97.6) <0.001 
Years since last mammogram, y (SD) 3.1 (4.2) 3.3 (4.8) 0.424 1.7 (1.6) 1.7 (1.3) 0.531 
HLI,bn (%) 
 Low 9,397 (34.2) 173 (36.8) 0.488 18,044 (34.5) 371 (2.0) 0.004 
 Medium 12,390 (45.1) 204 (43.6)  22,637 (43.3) 387 (41.1)  
 High 5,694 (20.7) 92 (19.6)  11,657 (22.3) 183 (19.5)  
Diet index,cn (%) lowest group 17,660 (53.6) 322 (58.0) 0.111 31,791 (47.6) 627 (51.1) 0.045 
Physical activity, n (%) <600 (MET-min/wk) 4,281 (15.1) 84 (17.5) 0.346 7,391 (13.7) 163 (16.9) 0.014 
Alcohol intake, n (%) no 5,393 (15.9) 103 (18.2) 0.112 15,007 (21.8) 282 (22.6) 0.252 
Smoking, n (%) never 3,596 (10.6) 47 (8.3) 0.180 6,164 (9.0) 120 (9.6) 0.617 
Waist circumference, n (%) ≥88 cm 635 (1.9) 13 (2.3) 0.128 2,222 (3.2) 65 (5.2) <0.001 
BMI, kg/m2 (SD) 22.4 (1.7) 22.6 (21.6) 0.004 22.6 (1.7) 22.8 (1.6) <0.001 
Type-1 and -2 diabetes, n (%) 325 (1.0) 2 (0.4) 0.452 1,004 (1.5) 22 (1.8) 0.643 

Abbreviations: HRT, hormone replacement therapy; OC, oral contraceptive.

aAmong women who had ≥ 1 live birth.

bCut-off points for the HLI tertiles: <3.25; 3.25–<4.00; ≥4.00.

cDiet index included red and processed meat, vegetables, fruits, and whole-grain intake (see details in Supplementary Table S1). Cut-off points for the diet index groups; <1.25, 1.25, >1.25.

Among premenopausal women, there was no association between the HLI and risk of breast cancer (Fig. 1), while in postmenopausal women, a relatively high HLI was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer overall (adjusted HR3rd tertile = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64–0.91), and by histologic subtypes (ductal: adjusted HR3rd tertile = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64–0.94; and lobular: adjusted HR3rd tertile = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51–0.99). Analyses excluding women with less than 2 years of follow-up (leaving 1,217 cases and 100,474 noncases) showed results similar to those obtained in the main analyses (Supplementary Table S2). In premenopausal women, exclusion of individual components of the HLI one factor at a time showed that a relatively high HLI without the smoking score was associated with reduced risk of breast cancer (adjusted HR3rd tertile = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56–0.90), while the exclusion of other factors produced results similar to those obtained with the full HLI score (Fig. 2A). Among postmenopausal women, higher HLI remained associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer independently of the component excluded (Fig. 2B).

Figure 1.

Association between HLI and risk of breast cancer overall and by histologic subtypes, by menopausal status, among women with BMI 18.5 to <25 kg/m2 in the UK Biobank. aModel adjusted for age at enrollment, socioeconomic status, race, education, parity, height, family history of breast cancer, status of oral contraceptive use, history of mammogram screening. bModel adjusted as in model “a” plus age at menopause and use of HRT. Score cut-off points for the HLI tertiles: <3.25; 3.25 to <4.00; ≥4.00. BC, breast cancer.

Figure 1.

Association between HLI and risk of breast cancer overall and by histologic subtypes, by menopausal status, among women with BMI 18.5 to <25 kg/m2 in the UK Biobank. aModel adjusted for age at enrollment, socioeconomic status, race, education, parity, height, family history of breast cancer, status of oral contraceptive use, history of mammogram screening. bModel adjusted as in model “a” plus age at menopause and use of HRT. Score cut-off points for the HLI tertiles: <3.25; 3.25 to <4.00; ≥4.00. BC, breast cancer.

Close modal
Figure 2.

Association between HLI and risk of breast cancer among premenopausal women (A) and postmenopausal women (B) with BMI 18.5 to <25 kg/m2 in the UK Biobank. HLI scores were categorized by tertiles. All models were adjusted for age at enrollment, education, socioeconomic status, family history of breast cancer, parity, height, status of oral contraceptive use, mammogram history. aModels adjusted for WC. bModels adjusted for diet index scores. cModels adjusted for alcohol intake. dModels adjusted for physical activity. eModels adjusted for smoking status. fModels adjusted for status of HRT use. BC, breast cancer; PA, physical activity; ref., referent tertile.

Figure 2.

Association between HLI and risk of breast cancer among premenopausal women (A) and postmenopausal women (B) with BMI 18.5 to <25 kg/m2 in the UK Biobank. HLI scores were categorized by tertiles. All models were adjusted for age at enrollment, education, socioeconomic status, family history of breast cancer, parity, height, status of oral contraceptive use, mammogram history. aModels adjusted for WC. bModels adjusted for diet index scores. cModels adjusted for alcohol intake. dModels adjusted for physical activity. eModels adjusted for smoking status. fModels adjusted for status of HRT use. BC, breast cancer; PA, physical activity; ref., referent tertile.

Close modal

We also evaluated the individual components of the HLI score for their associations with breast cancer risk (Table 2). In premenopausal women, higher scores, indicating healthier behaviors, showed statistically nonsignificant reductions in risk of breast cancer for all of the factors except for smoking, for which there was a statistically nonsignificant increase in risk. Among postmenopausal women, higher scores for each HLI component were associated with reduced risk of breast cancer; however, the results were significant only for waist circumference (HR<80 cm = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48–0.86) and physical activity (for MET≥3,000 (min/wk): HR = 0.76; 95% CI 0.63–0.92).

Table 2.

Association between HLI individual components and risk of invasive breast cancer by menopausal status among women with BMI 18.5 to <25 kg/m2 in UK Biobank.

PremenopausalPostmenopausal
HR (95% CI)HR (95% CI)
Cases/noncasesIR/1,000 PYAge adjustedMultivariable adjustedaCases/noncasesIR/1,000 PYAge adjustedMultivariable adjustedb
WC (cm) 
 ≥88 13/635 2.86 ref. ref. 65/2,218 4.15 ref. ref. 
 ≥80–<88 95/4,759 2.77 0.97 (0.54–1.74) 1.03 (0.53–1.99) 281/14,316 2.75 0.68 (0.52–0.89) 0.68 (0.50–0.92) 
 <80 452/27,962 2.24 0.80 (0.46–1.38) 0.89 (0.47–1.68) 890/50,885 2.46 0.62 (0.48–0.79) 0.64 (0.48–0.86) 
Ptrend   0.063 0.101   0.001 0.027 
Diet index (groups)c 
 1st 322/17,660 2.53 ref. ref. 627/31,791 2.77 ref. ref. 
 2nd 159/10,356 2.13 0.84 (0.70–1.02) 0.85 (0.69–1.05) 378/22,470 2.37 0.85 (0.75–0.97) 0.90 (0.78–1.05) 
 3rd 74/4,955 2.08 0.82 (0.64–1.06) 0.81 (0.61–1.06) 223/12,548 2.50 0.90 (0.77–1.04) 0.91 (0.76–1.08) 
Ptrend   0.051 0.049   0.052 0.220 
Physical activity (MET-min/wk) 
 <600 84/4,204 2.76 ref. ref. 160/7,223 3.10 ref. ref. 
 600–<3,000 254/15,110 2.33 0.86 (0.67–1.10) 0.86 (0.67–1.10) 483/27,398 2.48 0.78 (0.66–0.94) 0.80 (0.67–0.95) 
 ≥3000 136/8,441 2.26 0.84 (0.64–1.11) 0.84 (0.64–1.11) 307/18,227 2.38 0.74 (0.61–0.89) 0.76 (0.63–0.92) 
Ptrend   0.220 0.407   0.004 0.010 
Smoking status 
 Current 46/3,495 1.83 ref. ref. 118/5,902 2.82 ref. ref. 
 Former 146/8,161 2.49 1.33 (0.96–1.86) 1.34 (0.92–1.94) 396/21,139 2.63 0.89 (0.72–1.09) 0.92 (0.73–1.18) 
 Never 366/21,549 2.35 1.26 (0.93–1.71) 1.35 (0.95–1.91) 717/40,173 2.50 0.85 (0.70–1.04) 0.87 (0.69–1.10) 
Ptrend   0.344 0.223   0.201 0.269 
Alcohol intake (g/day) 
 >14.0 102/5,296 2.67 ref. ref. 279/14,683 2.67 ref. ref. 
 >0–≤14.0 430/25,840 2.31 0.88 (0.71–1.09) 0.91 (0.72–1.14) 868/47,114 2.58 0.99 (0.86–1.13) 1.02 (0.88–1.19) 
 None 27/2,111 1.73 0.65 (0.42–1.00) 0.67 (0.41–1.09) 88/5,568 2.25 0.83 (0.66–1.06) 0.86 (0.64–1.14) 
Ptrend   0.040 0.090   0.222 0.613 
PremenopausalPostmenopausal
HR (95% CI)HR (95% CI)
Cases/noncasesIR/1,000 PYAge adjustedMultivariable adjustedaCases/noncasesIR/1,000 PYAge adjustedMultivariable adjustedb
WC (cm) 
 ≥88 13/635 2.86 ref. ref. 65/2,218 4.15 ref. ref. 
 ≥80–<88 95/4,759 2.77 0.97 (0.54–1.74) 1.03 (0.53–1.99) 281/14,316 2.75 0.68 (0.52–0.89) 0.68 (0.50–0.92) 
 <80 452/27,962 2.24 0.80 (0.46–1.38) 0.89 (0.47–1.68) 890/50,885 2.46 0.62 (0.48–0.79) 0.64 (0.48–0.86) 
Ptrend   0.063 0.101   0.001 0.027 
Diet index (groups)c 
 1st 322/17,660 2.53 ref. ref. 627/31,791 2.77 ref. ref. 
 2nd 159/10,356 2.13 0.84 (0.70–1.02) 0.85 (0.69–1.05) 378/22,470 2.37 0.85 (0.75–0.97) 0.90 (0.78–1.05) 
 3rd 74/4,955 2.08 0.82 (0.64–1.06) 0.81 (0.61–1.06) 223/12,548 2.50 0.90 (0.77–1.04) 0.91 (0.76–1.08) 
Ptrend   0.051 0.049   0.052 0.220 
Physical activity (MET-min/wk) 
 <600 84/4,204 2.76 ref. ref. 160/7,223 3.10 ref. ref. 
 600–<3,000 254/15,110 2.33 0.86 (0.67–1.10) 0.86 (0.67–1.10) 483/27,398 2.48 0.78 (0.66–0.94) 0.80 (0.67–0.95) 
 ≥3000 136/8,441 2.26 0.84 (0.64–1.11) 0.84 (0.64–1.11) 307/18,227 2.38 0.74 (0.61–0.89) 0.76 (0.63–0.92) 
Ptrend   0.220 0.407   0.004 0.010 
Smoking status 
 Current 46/3,495 1.83 ref. ref. 118/5,902 2.82 ref. ref. 
 Former 146/8,161 2.49 1.33 (0.96–1.86) 1.34 (0.92–1.94) 396/21,139 2.63 0.89 (0.72–1.09) 0.92 (0.73–1.18) 
 Never 366/21,549 2.35 1.26 (0.93–1.71) 1.35 (0.95–1.91) 717/40,173 2.50 0.85 (0.70–1.04) 0.87 (0.69–1.10) 
Ptrend   0.344 0.223   0.201 0.269 
Alcohol intake (g/day) 
 >14.0 102/5,296 2.67 ref. ref. 279/14,683 2.67 ref. ref. 
 >0–≤14.0 430/25,840 2.31 0.88 (0.71–1.09) 0.91 (0.72–1.14) 868/47,114 2.58 0.99 (0.86–1.13) 1.02 (0.88–1.19) 
 None 27/2,111 1.73 0.65 (0.42–1.00) 0.67 (0.41–1.09) 88/5,568 2.25 0.83 (0.66–1.06) 0.86 (0.64–1.14) 
Ptrend   0.040 0.090   0.222 0.613 

Abbreviations: IR, incidence rate; PY person-years; WC, waist circumference.

aModel adjusted for age at enrollment, education, socioeconomic status, height, status of OC use, family history of breast cancer, parity, mammogram history, and the HLI components.

bModel adjusted as model “a” plus age at menopause and use of HRT status.

cCut-off points for the diet index groups; <1.25, 1.25, >1.25.

In this large prospective study of women with normal BMI, we found that a high HLI score, reflective of a relatively low waist circumference, a diet low in red and processed meat, and high in vegetable, fruit, and fiber, no alcohol consumption, no cigarette smoking, and moderate to high levels of physical activity, was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer among postmenopausal women. The results were not specifically linked to any particular component of the index, as indicated when individual factors were excluded in turn from the total score. Among premenopausal women, the association between the HLI and risk of breast cancer showed a similar trend, although it did not reach statistical significance. The latter results may be due in part to menopause-related hormonal and physiologic differences (34) or potentially to the smaller sample size for this group compared with the postmenopausal group. Of note, however, when smoking (which showed an inverse association with breast cancer risk) was excluded from the composite score, a relatively high HLI was associated with a significant risk reduction in premenopausal women.

Previous case-control and cohort studies have explored the association of the HLI with risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women regardless of BMI, consistently showing that higher scores were associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer (10–21). While previous data on premenopausal women are limited, they have also shown an inverse association between HLI and breast cancer risk regardless of BMI (14). No data have been previously published on HLI and breast cancer risk by histologic subtypes.

Obesity is associated with an increased risk of cancer for at least 13 anatomical sites including the breast in postmenopausal women (35), as well as for chronic conditions such as type-2 diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and kidney disease (36–38). Public health recommendations have often advised that individuals reduce their weight if overweight/obese or maintain a healthy weight to lower their risk of such adverse health outcomes. This is the first study that has evaluated the HLI association with breast cancer risk among women with normal BMI, a group usually considered to be at lower breast cancer risk after the menopause. We have shown here that among postmenopausal women, a high HLI score, with or without the inclusion of excessive abdominal adiposity measured as waist circumference, is associated with reduced risk of breast cancer in women with a normal BMI. This result suggests that following a healthy lifestyle with moderate to high levels of physical activity, a diet with high content of fruit, vegetable, and whole grains, and low in red and processed meat, with no alcohol and no smoking, might provide benefit against breast cancer risk beyond that obtained by weight control and a low level of abdominal fat. Importantly, although premenopausal women with a normal BMI have been shown to be at increased risk of breast cancer (39), we found that with the exception of smoking, adopting a combination of healthy lifestyle habits was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer at this stage of life, although no individual modifiable behavior was independently associated with a lower risk.

Our study was conducted in a large population with detailed information on health and reproductive characteristics collected at the time of enrollment, when the participants were breast cancer–free. All the analyses were adjusted by several important risk factors and potential confounders. Although the information used to calculate the score was based on a single point in time, previous analysis has demonstrated the reproducibility of the study variables (28); nevertheless, changes in healthy behaviors and BMI may have occurred after the baseline measurements. The HLI used in the study was based on five of the eight components recommended by the WCRF/AICR guideline (4), given that some of the dietary information such as polyunsaturated, saturated, and trans fats, and glycemic load, was not available; therefore, we could not estimate the full impact of these factors. Following the guideline of the Cancer Research UK, additional modifiable risk factors more specific to breast cancer risk, such as oral contraceptive and hormone replacement therapy for postmenopausal women, were included in the HLI score in one study (40). In the present study we have decided to include these factors in the final model as confounders to remove their effects in other to better compare the results obtained using the WCRF/AICR guideline with those present in the literature. Future analyses should evaluate the association of a HLI score with the inclusion of other modifiable factors (e.g., oral contraceptive and hormone replacement therapy use). Other studies on premenopausal women have reversed the score for waist circumference, assigning the highest score to the group with the highest waist circumference values (14). In this group of premenopausal women, we did not find a reverse association between waist circumference and risk of breast cancer, therefore, following current public health recommendations, we did not reverse the score for waist circumference (4). Estimates of total energy intake were not available in the present study and therefore could not be taken into account as a potential confounding factor. We did not have information on breastfeeding history, which is included in the HLI guidelines of modifiable factors for the prevention of breast cancer. However, given the age of the women in the study, it is unlikely that this exposure can be considered modifiable. We also did not have access to information on the hormone receptor status of the breast cancer cases and therefore we were unable to address potential heterogeneity in the association by tumor subtype. In addition, given the average age of the premenopausal group, it is possible that some of the women had changed their menopausal status by the date that the breast cancer was diagnosed. Finally, the UK Biobank study includes volunteer participants who are, on average, a healthier sample compared with the UK population at large (41).

Overall, the results of this study show that healthy lifestyle behaviors may significantly reduce the risk of breast cancer among normal weight postmenopausal women, and possibly among normal weight premenopausal women as well. Recommendations to follow a healthy lifestyle, even for normal weight women, may contribute to a reduction in breast cancer risk.

No disclosures were reported.

R. Peila: Data curation, formal analysis, methodology, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing. R.S. Arthur: Data curation, writing–review and editing. A.J. Dannenberg: Writing–review and editing. T.E. Rohan: Conceptualization, resources, funding acquisition, writing–review and editing.

T.E. Rohan is supported in part by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF-21-140).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1.
Siegel
RL
,
Miller
KD
,
Jemal
A
.
Cancer statistics, 2019
.
CA Cancer J Clin
2019
;
69
:
7
34
.
2.
Ferlay
J
,
Soerjomataram
I
,
Dikshit
R
,
Eser
S
,
Mathers
C
,
Rebelo
M
, et al
.
Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012
.
Int J Cancer
2015
;
136
:
E359
86
.
3.
Key
TJ
,
Verkasalo
PK
,
Banks
E
.
Epidemiology of breast cancer
.
Lancet Oncol
2001
;
2
:
133
40
.
4.
Shams-White
MM
,
Brockton
NT
,
Mitrou
P
,
Romaguera
D
,
Brown
S
,
Bender
A
, et al
.
Operationalizing the 2018 World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR) cancer prevention recommendations: a standardized scoring system
.
Nutrients
2019
;
11
:
1572
.
5.
Stoll
BA
.
Perimenopausal weight gain and progression of breast cancer precursors
.
Cancer Detect Prev
1999
;
23
:
31
36
.
6.
Shield
KD
,
Soerjomataram
I
,
Rehm
J
.
Alcohol use and breast cancer: a critical review
.
Alcohol Clin Exp Res
2016
;
40
:
1166
81
.
7.
Macacu
A
,
Autier
P
,
Boniol
M
,
Boyle
P
.
Active and passive smoking and risk of breast cancer: a meta-analysis
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2015
;
154
:
213
24
.
8.
Buja
A
,
Pierbon
M
,
Lago
L
,
Grotto
G
,
Baldo
V
.
Breast cancer primary prevention and diet: an umbrella review
.
Int J Environ Res Public Health
2020
;
17
:
4731
.
9.
de Boer
MC
,
Wörner
EA
,
Verlaan
D
,
van Leeuwen
PAM
.
The mechanisms and effects of physical activity on breast cancer
.
Clin Breast Cancer
2017
;
17
:
272
8
.
10.
Arthur
R
,
Kirsh
VA
,
Kreiger
N
,
Rohan
T
.
A healthy lifestyle index and its association with risk of breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancer among Canadian women
.
Cancer Causes Control
2018
;
29
:
485
93
.
11.
Ghosn
B
,
Benisi-Kohansal
S
,
Ebrahimpour-Koujan
S
,
Azadbakht
L
,
Esmaillzadeh
A
.
Association between healthy lifestyle score and breast cancer
.
Nutr J
2020
;
19
:
4
.
12.
Khalis
M
,
Chajès
V
,
Moskal
A
,
Biessy
C
,
Huybrechts
I
,
Rinaldi
S
, et al
.
Healthy lifestyle and breast cancer risk: a case-control study in Morocco
.
Cancer Epidemiol
2019
;
58
:
160
6
.
13.
McKenzie
F
,
Ellison-Loschmann
L
,
Jeffreys
M
,
Firestone
R
,
Pearce
N
,
Romieu
I
.
Healthy lifestyle and risk of breast cancer for indigenous and non-indigenous women in New Zealand: a case control study
.
BMC Cancer
2014
;
14
:
12
.
14.
Arthur
RS
,
Wang
T
,
Xue
X
,
Kamensky
V
,
Rohan
TE
.
Genetic factors, adherence to healthy lifestyle behavior, and risk of invasive breast cancer among women in the UK Biobank
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2020
;
112
:
893
901
.
15.
Catsburg
C
,
Miller
AB
,
Rohan
TE
.
Adherence to cancer prevention guidelines and risk of breast cancer
.
Int J Cancer
2014
;
135
:
2444
52
.
16.
Arthur
R
,
Wassertheil-Smoller
S
,
Manson
JE
,
Luo
J
,
Snetselaar
L
,
Hastert
T
, et al
.
The combined association of modifiable risk factors with breast cancer risk in the women's health initiative
.
Cancer Prev Res
2018
;
11
:
317
26
.
17.
Sánchez-Zamorano
LM
,
Flores-Luna
L
,
Angeles-Llerenas
A
,
Romieu
I
,
Lazcano-Ponce
E
,
Miranda-Hernández
H
, et al
.
Healthy lifestyle on the risk of breast cancer
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2011
;
20
:
912
22
.
18.
Dartois
L
,
Fagherazzi
G
,
Boutron-Ruault
MC
,
Mesrine
S
,
Clavel-Chapelon
F
.
Association between five lifestyle habits and cancer risk: results from the E3N cohort
.
Cancer Prev Res
2014
;
7
:
516
25
.
19.
Castelló
A
,
Martín
M
,
Ruiz
A
,
Casas
AM
,
Baena-Cañada
JM
,
Lope
V
, et al
.
Lower breast cancer risk among women following the world cancer research fund and American Institute for Cancer Research Lifestyle Recommendations: EpiGEICAM case-control study
.
PLoS One
2015
;
10
:
e0126096
.
20.
Hastert
TA
,
Beresford
SA
,
Patterson
RE
,
Kristal
AR
,
White
E
.
Adherence to WCRF/AICR cancer prevention recommendations and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2013
;
22
:
1498
508
.
21.
Romaguera
D
,
Vergnaud
A-C
,
Peeters
PH
,
van Gils
CH
,
Chan
DS
,
Ferrari
P
, et al
.
Is concordance with World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research guidelines for cancer prevention related to subsequent risk of cancer? Results from the EPIC study
.
Am J Clin Nutr
2012
;
96
:
150
63
.
22.
Park
YM
,
White
AJ
,
Nichols
HB
,
O'Brien
KM
,
Weinberg
CR
,
Sandler
DP
.
The association between metabolic health, obesity phenotype and the risk of breast cancer
.
Int J Cancer
2017
;
140
:
2657
66
.
23.
Iyengar
NM
,
Arthur
R
,
Manson
JE
,
Chlebowski
RT
,
Kroenke
CH
,
Peterson
L
, et al
.
Association of body fat and risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women with normal body mass index: a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial and observational study
.
JAMA Oncol
2019
;
5
:
155
63
.
24.
Arthur
RS
,
Dannenberg
AJ
,
Kim
M
,
Rohan
TE
.
The association of body fat composition with risk of breast, endometrial, ovarian and colorectal cancers among normal weight participants in the UK Biobank
.
Br J Cancer
2021
:
124
:
1592
605
.
25.
Iyengar
NM
,
Brown
KA
,
Zhou
XK
,
Gucalp
A
,
Subbaramaiah
K
,
Giri
DD
, et al
.
Metabolic obesity, adipose inflammation and elevated breast aromatase in women with normal body mass index
.
Cancer Prev Res
2017
;
10
:
235
43
.
26.
Liu
B
,
Giffney
HE
,
Arthur
RS
,
Rohan
TE
,
Dannenberg
AJ
.
Cancer risk in normal weight individuals with metabolic obesity: a narrative review
.
Cancer Prev Res
2021
;
14
:
509
20
.
27.
Sudlow
C
,
Gallacher
J
,
Allen
N
,
Beral
V
,
Burton
P
,
Danesh
J
, et al
.
UK biobank: an open access resource for identifying the causes of a wide range of complex diseases of middle and old age
.
PLoS Med
2015
;
12
:
e1001779
.
28.
Bradbury
KE
,
Young
HJ
,
Guo
W
,
Key
TJ
.
Dietary assessment in UK Biobank: an evaluation of the performance of the touchscreen dietary questionnaire
.
J Nutr Sci
2018
;
7
:
e6
.
29.
Chudasama
YV
,
Khunti
KK
,
Zaccardi
F
,
Rowlands
AV
,
Yates
T
,
Gillies
CL
, et al
.
Physical activity, multimorbidity, and life expectancy: a UK Biobank longitudinal study
.
BMC Med
2019
;
17
:
108
.
30.
World Health Organization
.
International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems
.
10th Revision
.
Geneva (Switzerland)
:
WHO
;
2010
.
31.
Modules NCI-ST
.
Morphology & Grade
.
ICD-0-3
Available from: https://training.seer.cancer.gov/breast/abstract-code-stage/codes.html.
32.
Guo
W
,
Key
TJ
,
Reeves
GK
.
Adiposity and breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women: Results from the UK Biobank prospective cohort
.
Int J Cancer
2018
;
143
:
1037
46
.
33.
Townsend
P
,
Phillimore
P
,
Beattie
A
,
editors
.
Health and deprivation: Inequality and the North
.
London
:
Croom Helm Ltd
;
1987
.
34.
Wiacek
M
,
Jegal
BS
,
Hagner
W
,
Hagner-Derengowska
M
,
Zubrzycki
IZ
.
Age- and menopause-related differences in physiological factors of health quality in women aged 35–60
.
Arch Gerontol Geriatr
2012
;
54
:
385
90
.
35.
Vucenik
I
,
Stains
JP
.
Obesity and cancer risk: evidence, mechanisms, and recommendations
.
Ann N Y Acad Sci
2012
;
1271
:
37
43
.
36.
Bray
GA
,
Heisel
WE
,
Afshin
A
,
Jensen
MD
,
Dietz
WH
,
Long
M
, et al
.
The science of obesity management: an endocrine society scientific statement
.
Endocr Rev
2018
;
39
:
79
132
.
37.
Neuhouser
ML
,
Aragaki
AK
,
Prentice
RL
,
Manson
JE
,
Chlebowski
R
,
Carty
CL
, et al
.
Overweight, obesity, and postmenopausal invasive breast cancer risk: a secondary analysis of the women's health initiative randomized clinical trials
.
JAMA Oncol
2015
;
1
:
611
21
.
38.
Picon-Ruiz
M
,
Morata-Tarifa
C
,
Valle-Goffin
JJ
,
Friedman
ER
,
Slingerland
JM
.
Obesity and adverse breast cancer risk and outcome: Mechanistic insights and strategies for intervention
.
CA Cancer J Clin
2017
;
67
:
378
97
.
39.
Premenopausal Breast Cancer Collaborative Group
,
Schoemaker
MJ
,
Nichols
HB
,
Wright
LB
,
Brook
MN
,
Jones
ME
, et al
.
Association of body mass index and age with subsequent breast cancer risk in premenopausal women
.
JAMA Oncol
2018
;
4
:
e181771
.
40.
Al Ajmi
K
,
Lophatananon
A
,
Mekli
K
,
Ollier
W
,
Muir
KR
.
Association of nongenetic factors with breast cancer risk in genetically predisposed groups of women in the UK Biobank Cohort
.
JAMA Netw Open
2020
;
3
:
e203760
.
41.
Fry
A
,
Littlejohns
TJ
,
Sudlow
C
,
Doherty
N
,
Adamska
L
,
Sprosen
T
, et al
.
Comparison of sociodemographic and health-related characteristics of UK Biobank participants with those of the general population
.
Am J Epidemiol
2017
;
186
:
1026
34
.

Supplementary data