fat intake, the uncorrected HR was 1.15 (95% CI = 1.05 to 1.26) and the corrected HR was 1.32 (95% CI = 1.11 to 1.58). Thus, even with correction for measurement error, this study provides further evidence that the association between total fat intake and the risk of breast cancer among postmenopausal women is likely to be modest. Analyses of specifi c subtypes of fat yielded increased risks that ranged from 10% to 13% for a doubling of percent energy from fat, an unrealistic scenario except, perhaps, for the small minority of women with the lowest intakes . When all types of fat were considered simultaneously, only the association for saturated fat re mained statistically signifi cant. Thiebaut et al. found a stronger association between saturated and monounsaturated fat intakes and breast cancer risk among current users of menopausal hormone therapy than among never or former users, which suggests that dietary fat intake may have more infl uence on breast cancer risk when it occurs in the context of an estrogen-rich environment (i.e., menopausal hormone therapy users or premenopausal women). Indeed, the pooled analysis of prospective studies ( 4 ) reported positive associations for polyunsaturated fat and vegetable fat among current users of menopausal hormones but not among never or former users. Furthermore, in the Women’s Health Initiative Dietary Modifi cation Trial ( 6 ), women who were randomly assigned to the low-fat group and who were either using postmenopausal hormones at baseline or who were also randomly assigned to the estrogen plus progestin arm of the trial had a 17% (95% CI = 1% to 31%) reduction in breast cancer incidence compared with the control group; by contrast, there was no difference in breast cancer incidence between the low-fat dietary pattern group and the control group among women not using postmenopausal hormones ( P for interaction = .06). Similarly, in the predominantly premenopausal Nurses’ Health