In their meta-analysis, Gao et al. ( 1 ) concluded that “High intake of dairy products and calcium may be associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer, although the increase appears to be small.” We report findings from the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (MCCS), a prospective study of 41 528 people (17 049 men) who were 27–75 years old at baseline (99.3% were 40–69 years old). As previously described ( 2 , 3 ) , volunteers were recruited from November 26, 1990, to October 25, 1994, from among the residents of Melbourne, Australia. At baseline, subjects completed a questionnaire about potential risk factors for cancer as well as a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) that was developed specifically for the MCCS ( 4 ) . In the FFQ, the dairy products category included milk, cheese, yogurt, cream, and custard. Butter and margarine were categorized separately. Calcium and energy intakes were calculated by using data from the FFQ, the mean sex-specific portion sizes from weighed food records, and Australian food composition tables ( 5 ) . Calcium density was calculated by dividing calcium intake by the total energy intake. After excluding 2407 men who did not complete the FFQ ( n = 35), who had a confirmed diagnosis of prostate cancer prior to baseline ( n = 105), who reported having a previous medical condition (i.e., self-reported angina, myocardial infarction, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, or stroke; n = 1928), or whose reported energy intake was in the lowest or highest 1% of the sex-specific distribution ( n = 339), 14 642 men were available for analysis. Incident cases of prostate cancer were ascertained through the state cancer registries in Australia; deaths were identified from state death records for Victoria and the Australian National Death Index. By the end of 2004, 23 men (fewer than 0.2%) were known to have left Australia and were considered lost to follow-up. Follow-up began at baseline and continued until the date of diagnosis of prostate cancer, of death, or of emigration from Australia or December 31, 2004, whichever came first.

During an average of 10.9 years of follow-up, we identified 674 prostate cancers among the eligible subjects, including 107 cases of aggressive prostate cancer [defined as a Gleason score >7 or stage T4, N+, or M+ ( 6 ) ]. Table 1 presents the hazard ratios for total, nonaggressive, and aggressive prostate cancer from the Cox proportional hazards models ( 7 ) . Tests based on Schoenfeld residuals showed no evidence that proportional hazard assumptions were violated. All statistical tests were two-sided. The hazard ratios for total prostate cancer ranged from 0.87 to 1.28, and all but one 95% confidence interval included 1. There was no evidence of a dose–response relationship between intakes and prostate cancer risk (all Ptrend ≥.1).

Table 1.

Hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for associations between calcium and dairy product intakes and the risk of prostate cancer among 14 642 men participating in the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study *

Quartile
Intake1234PtrendP§
All prostate cancer ( N = 674)
    Calcium1.00 (referent)0.95 (0.76 to 1.19)0.87 (0.68 to 1.12)0.98 (0.72 to 1.33).9
    Calcium (density)1.00 (referent)1.15 (0.93 to 1.42)1.05 (0.84 to 1.30)1.02 (0.82 to 1.27).9
    Dairy product1.00 (referent)0.99 (0.80 to 1.23)1.16 (0.93 to 1.44)0.99 (0.78 to 1.26).8
    Butter1.00 (referent)1.00 (0.80 to 1.24)0.90 (0.72 to 1.13)1.11 (0.85 to 1.46).6
    Margarine1.00 (referent)1.28 (1.02 to 1.60)1.10 (0.87 to 1.41)1.25 (0.99 to 1.58).2
Nonaggressive cases ( N = 563)
    Calcium1.00 (referent)1.11 (0.87 to 1.41)0.94 (0.72 to 1.23)1.06 (0.77 to 1.47).9
    Calcium (density)1.00 (referent)1.18 (0.93 to 1.49)1.13 (0.89 to 1.43)1.11 (0.87 to 1.41).6
    Dairy product1.00 (referent)1.07 (0.84 to 1.37)1.26 (0.99 to 1.60)1.07 (0.82 to 1.39).4
    Butter1.00 (referent)1.03 (0.81 to 1.31)0.95 (0.75 to 1.21)1.14 (0.85 to 1.54).5
    Margarine1.00 (referent)1.30 (1.02 to 1.66)1.11 (0.85 to 1.45)1.25 (0.97 to 1.61).3
Aggressive cases ( N = 107)
    Calcium1.00 (referent)0.43 (0.24 to 0.78)0.65 (0.38 to 1.10)0.74 (0.43 to 1.27).6.5
    Calcium (density)1.00 (referent)1.03 (0.63 to 1.70)0.70 (0.40 to 1.21)0.72 (0.42 to 1.24).1.1
    Dairy product1.00 (referent)0.71 (0.42 to 1.21)0.81 (0.48 to 1.36)0.77 (0.45 to 1.31).4.3
    Butter1.00 (referent)0.88 (0.50 to 1.56)0.62 (0.32 to 1.17)1.03 (0.53 to 2.00).8.6
    Margarine1.00 (referent)1.20 (0.68 to 2.12)1.15 (0.64 to 2.06)1.25 (0.73 to 2.15).5.9
Quartile
Intake1234PtrendP§
All prostate cancer ( N = 674)
    Calcium1.00 (referent)0.95 (0.76 to 1.19)0.87 (0.68 to 1.12)0.98 (0.72 to 1.33).9
    Calcium (density)1.00 (referent)1.15 (0.93 to 1.42)1.05 (0.84 to 1.30)1.02 (0.82 to 1.27).9
    Dairy product1.00 (referent)0.99 (0.80 to 1.23)1.16 (0.93 to 1.44)0.99 (0.78 to 1.26).8
    Butter1.00 (referent)1.00 (0.80 to 1.24)0.90 (0.72 to 1.13)1.11 (0.85 to 1.46).6
    Margarine1.00 (referent)1.28 (1.02 to 1.60)1.10 (0.87 to 1.41)1.25 (0.99 to 1.58).2
Nonaggressive cases ( N = 563)
    Calcium1.00 (referent)1.11 (0.87 to 1.41)0.94 (0.72 to 1.23)1.06 (0.77 to 1.47).9
    Calcium (density)1.00 (referent)1.18 (0.93 to 1.49)1.13 (0.89 to 1.43)1.11 (0.87 to 1.41).6
    Dairy product1.00 (referent)1.07 (0.84 to 1.37)1.26 (0.99 to 1.60)1.07 (0.82 to 1.39).4
    Butter1.00 (referent)1.03 (0.81 to 1.31)0.95 (0.75 to 1.21)1.14 (0.85 to 1.54).5
    Margarine1.00 (referent)1.30 (1.02 to 1.66)1.11 (0.85 to 1.45)1.25 (0.97 to 1.61).3
Aggressive cases ( N = 107)
    Calcium1.00 (referent)0.43 (0.24 to 0.78)0.65 (0.38 to 1.10)0.74 (0.43 to 1.27).6.5
    Calcium (density)1.00 (referent)1.03 (0.63 to 1.70)0.70 (0.40 to 1.21)0.72 (0.42 to 1.24).1.1
    Dairy product1.00 (referent)0.71 (0.42 to 1.21)0.81 (0.48 to 1.36)0.77 (0.45 to 1.31).4.3
    Butter1.00 (referent)0.88 (0.50 to 1.56)0.62 (0.32 to 1.17)1.03 (0.53 to 2.00).8.6
    Margarine1.00 (referent)1.20 (0.68 to 2.12)1.15 (0.64 to 2.06)1.25 (0.73 to 2.15).5.9
*

Hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazards models with age as time metric, left censored at the age at baseline, and adjusted for country of birth and total energy intake (except for the model for calcium energy density). Further adjustment for other potential confounders including education level, body mass index (derived from measured height and weight), fat and fat-free mass [measured from resistance and reactance to an electric current ( 3 ) ], smoking status and history, and alcohol consumption did not materially change the estimated rate ratios (relative change <5%). Cox regression models fitted using competing risks methods ( 7 ) were used to obtain separate estimates for aggressive and nonaggressive tumors. Models were fitted using Stata software (version 8.2; Stata Corporation, College Station, TX). — = not applicable.

The 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles correspond to 617, 804, and 1033 mg/day, respectively, for calcium intake (the median values for increasing quartiles were 507, 710, 909, and 1238 mg/day); 70, 82, and 95 μg/kJ, respectively, for calcium intake as nutrient density (the median values for increasing quartiles were 62, 76, 88, and 106 μg/kJ); 17, 31, and 47 times/week, respectively, for dairy product (the median values for increasing quartiles were 10, 24, 39, and 56 times/week); and 0.5, 7, and 17.5 times/week, respectively, for margarine (the median values for increasing quartiles were 0, 3, 7, and 17.5 times/week). Approximately 59% of the participants did not consume butter and so they were included in the referent category for butter intake whereas the participants who did consume butter were categorized by tertiles: the 33rd and 67th percentiles correspond to 1 and 7 times/week, respectively (the median values for increasing tertiles were 0.5, 5.5, and 7.5 times/week).

The hypothesis of a linear trend in the hazard ratio was tested by including in the model a pseudo-continuous variable computed assigning the median intake for each quartile.

§

Test for difference in the estimates for the pseudo-continuous variables (i.e., linear trend) between aggressive and nonaggressive cases.

A tumor was classified as aggressive if the Gleason score was >7 or stage ( 6 ) was advanced (T4 or N+ or M+). We were not able to define aggressiveness for four cases because Gleason score and tumor stage were not available (clinical diagnoses only).

Table 1.

Hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for associations between calcium and dairy product intakes and the risk of prostate cancer among 14 642 men participating in the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study *

Quartile
Intake1234PtrendP§
All prostate cancer ( N = 674)
    Calcium1.00 (referent)0.95 (0.76 to 1.19)0.87 (0.68 to 1.12)0.98 (0.72 to 1.33).9
    Calcium (density)1.00 (referent)1.15 (0.93 to 1.42)1.05 (0.84 to 1.30)1.02 (0.82 to 1.27).9
    Dairy product1.00 (referent)0.99 (0.80 to 1.23)1.16 (0.93 to 1.44)0.99 (0.78 to 1.26).8
    Butter1.00 (referent)1.00 (0.80 to 1.24)0.90 (0.72 to 1.13)1.11 (0.85 to 1.46).6
    Margarine1.00 (referent)1.28 (1.02 to 1.60)1.10 (0.87 to 1.41)1.25 (0.99 to 1.58).2
Nonaggressive cases ( N = 563)
    Calcium1.00 (referent)1.11 (0.87 to 1.41)0.94 (0.72 to 1.23)1.06 (0.77 to 1.47).9
    Calcium (density)1.00 (referent)1.18 (0.93 to 1.49)1.13 (0.89 to 1.43)1.11 (0.87 to 1.41).6
    Dairy product1.00 (referent)1.07 (0.84 to 1.37)1.26 (0.99 to 1.60)1.07 (0.82 to 1.39).4
    Butter1.00 (referent)1.03 (0.81 to 1.31)0.95 (0.75 to 1.21)1.14 (0.85 to 1.54).5
    Margarine1.00 (referent)1.30 (1.02 to 1.66)1.11 (0.85 to 1.45)1.25 (0.97 to 1.61).3
Aggressive cases ( N = 107)
    Calcium1.00 (referent)0.43 (0.24 to 0.78)0.65 (0.38 to 1.10)0.74 (0.43 to 1.27).6.5
    Calcium (density)1.00 (referent)1.03 (0.63 to 1.70)0.70 (0.40 to 1.21)0.72 (0.42 to 1.24).1.1
    Dairy product1.00 (referent)0.71 (0.42 to 1.21)0.81 (0.48 to 1.36)0.77 (0.45 to 1.31).4.3
    Butter1.00 (referent)0.88 (0.50 to 1.56)0.62 (0.32 to 1.17)1.03 (0.53 to 2.00).8.6
    Margarine1.00 (referent)1.20 (0.68 to 2.12)1.15 (0.64 to 2.06)1.25 (0.73 to 2.15).5.9
Quartile
Intake1234PtrendP§
All prostate cancer ( N = 674)
    Calcium1.00 (referent)0.95 (0.76 to 1.19)0.87 (0.68 to 1.12)0.98 (0.72 to 1.33).9
    Calcium (density)1.00 (referent)1.15 (0.93 to 1.42)1.05 (0.84 to 1.30)1.02 (0.82 to 1.27).9
    Dairy product1.00 (referent)0.99 (0.80 to 1.23)1.16 (0.93 to 1.44)0.99 (0.78 to 1.26).8
    Butter1.00 (referent)1.00 (0.80 to 1.24)0.90 (0.72 to 1.13)1.11 (0.85 to 1.46).6
    Margarine1.00 (referent)1.28 (1.02 to 1.60)1.10 (0.87 to 1.41)1.25 (0.99 to 1.58).2
Nonaggressive cases ( N = 563)
    Calcium1.00 (referent)1.11 (0.87 to 1.41)0.94 (0.72 to 1.23)1.06 (0.77 to 1.47).9
    Calcium (density)1.00 (referent)1.18 (0.93 to 1.49)1.13 (0.89 to 1.43)1.11 (0.87 to 1.41).6
    Dairy product1.00 (referent)1.07 (0.84 to 1.37)1.26 (0.99 to 1.60)1.07 (0.82 to 1.39).4
    Butter1.00 (referent)1.03 (0.81 to 1.31)0.95 (0.75 to 1.21)1.14 (0.85 to 1.54).5
    Margarine1.00 (referent)1.30 (1.02 to 1.66)1.11 (0.85 to 1.45)1.25 (0.97 to 1.61).3
Aggressive cases ( N = 107)
    Calcium1.00 (referent)0.43 (0.24 to 0.78)0.65 (0.38 to 1.10)0.74 (0.43 to 1.27).6.5
    Calcium (density)1.00 (referent)1.03 (0.63 to 1.70)0.70 (0.40 to 1.21)0.72 (0.42 to 1.24).1.1
    Dairy product1.00 (referent)0.71 (0.42 to 1.21)0.81 (0.48 to 1.36)0.77 (0.45 to 1.31).4.3
    Butter1.00 (referent)0.88 (0.50 to 1.56)0.62 (0.32 to 1.17)1.03 (0.53 to 2.00).8.6
    Margarine1.00 (referent)1.20 (0.68 to 2.12)1.15 (0.64 to 2.06)1.25 (0.73 to 2.15).5.9
*

Hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazards models with age as time metric, left censored at the age at baseline, and adjusted for country of birth and total energy intake (except for the model for calcium energy density). Further adjustment for other potential confounders including education level, body mass index (derived from measured height and weight), fat and fat-free mass [measured from resistance and reactance to an electric current ( 3 ) ], smoking status and history, and alcohol consumption did not materially change the estimated rate ratios (relative change <5%). Cox regression models fitted using competing risks methods ( 7 ) were used to obtain separate estimates for aggressive and nonaggressive tumors. Models were fitted using Stata software (version 8.2; Stata Corporation, College Station, TX). — = not applicable.

The 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles correspond to 617, 804, and 1033 mg/day, respectively, for calcium intake (the median values for increasing quartiles were 507, 710, 909, and 1238 mg/day); 70, 82, and 95 μg/kJ, respectively, for calcium intake as nutrient density (the median values for increasing quartiles were 62, 76, 88, and 106 μg/kJ); 17, 31, and 47 times/week, respectively, for dairy product (the median values for increasing quartiles were 10, 24, 39, and 56 times/week); and 0.5, 7, and 17.5 times/week, respectively, for margarine (the median values for increasing quartiles were 0, 3, 7, and 17.5 times/week). Approximately 59% of the participants did not consume butter and so they were included in the referent category for butter intake whereas the participants who did consume butter were categorized by tertiles: the 33rd and 67th percentiles correspond to 1 and 7 times/week, respectively (the median values for increasing tertiles were 0.5, 5.5, and 7.5 times/week).

The hypothesis of a linear trend in the hazard ratio was tested by including in the model a pseudo-continuous variable computed assigning the median intake for each quartile.

§

Test for difference in the estimates for the pseudo-continuous variables (i.e., linear trend) between aggressive and nonaggressive cases.

A tumor was classified as aggressive if the Gleason score was >7 or stage ( 6 ) was advanced (T4 or N+ or M+). We were not able to define aggressiveness for four cases because Gleason score and tumor stage were not available (clinical diagnoses only).

To examine whether prevalent cancers affected associations between intakes and prostate cancer risk, we included a time-dependent covariate in the Cox regression model. All hazard ratios for the first 2 years of follow-up were higher than the corresponding hazard ratios for the remainder of the follow-up period, although only the difference for butter intake was statistically significant ( P = .03). The hazard ratios for aggressive prostate cancer were generally lower than those for nonaggressive disease, but the differences were not statistically significant (all P ≥.1). We conclude that our findings are not consistent with any association between dairy product, butter, margarine, and calcium intakes and the risk of prostate cancer. The conclusions of the meta-analysis by Gao et al. were based on a very small effect size and relatively weak statistical evidence, and we question whether they would change if our data were included.

References

(1)

Gao X, LaValley MP, Tucker KL. Prospective studies of dairy product and calcium intakes and prostate cancer risk: a meta-analysis.

J Natl Cancer Inst
2005
;
97
:
1768
–77.

(2)

Giles GG, English DR. The Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study.

IARC Sci Publ
2002
;
156
:
69
–70.

(3)

MacInnis RJ, English DR, Gertig DM, Hopper JL, Giles GG. Body size and composition and prostate cancer risk.

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2003
;
12
:
1417
–21.

(4)

Ireland P, Jolley D, Giles G, O'Dea K, Powles J, Rutishauser I, et al. Development of the Melbourne FFQ: a food frequency questionnaire for use in an Australian prospective study involving an ethnically diverse cohort.

Asia Pac J Clin Nutr
1994
;
3
:
19
–31.

(5)

Lewis J, Milligan G, Hunt A. NUTTAB95 Nutrient Data Table for Use in Australia. Canberra (Australia): Australian Government Publishing Service;

1995
.

(6)

AJCC cancer staging manual. 5th ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-Raven;

1997
.

(7)

Lunn M, McNeil D. Applying Cox regression to competing risks.

Biometrics
1995
;
51
:
524
–32.