| 1. |
- Emaus, Marleen J., et al.
(författare)
-
Vegetable and fruit consumption and the risk of hormone receptor-defined breast cancer in the EPIC cohort
- 2016
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. - : Elsevier BV. - 0002-9165 .- 1938-3207. ; 103:1, s. 168-177
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The recent literature indicates that a high vegetable intake and not a high fruit intake could be associated with decreased steroid hormone receptor–negative breast cancer risk.Objective: This study aimed to investigate the association between vegetable and fruit intake and steroid hormone receptor–defined breast cancer risk.Design: A total of 335,054 female participants in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort were included in this study (mean ± SD age: 50.8 ± 9.8 y). Vegetable and fruit intake was measured by country-specific questionnaires filled out at recruitment between 1992 and 2000 with the use of standardized procedures. Cox proportional hazards models were stratified by age at recruitment and study center and were adjusted for breast cancer risk factors.Results: After a median follow-up of 11.5 y (IQR: 10.1–12.3 y), 10,197 incident invasive breast cancers were diagnosed [3479 estrogen and progesterone receptor positive (ER+PR+); 1021 ER and PR negative (ER−PR−)]. Compared with the lowest quintile, the highest quintile of vegetable intake was associated with a lower risk of overall breast cancer (HRquintile 5–quintile 1: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.80, 0.94). Although the inverse association was most apparent for ER−PR− breast cancer (ER−PR−: HRquintile 5–quintile 1: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.57, 0.96; P-trend = 0.03; ER+PR+: HRquintile 5–quintile 1: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.79, 1.05; P-trend = 0.14), the test for heterogeneity by hormone receptor status was not significant (P-heterogeneity = 0.09). Fruit intake was not significantly associated with total and hormone receptor–defined breast cancer risk.Conclusion: This study supports evidence that a high vegetable intake is associated with lower (mainly hormone receptor–negative) breast cancer risk.
|
|
| 2. |
- Murphy, Neil, et al.
(författare)
-
A Nested Case-Control Study of Metabolically Defined Body Size Phenotypes and Risk of Colorectal Cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)
- 2016
-
Ingår i: PLoS Medicine. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1549-1277 .- 1549-1676. ; 13:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Obesity is positively associated with colorectal cancer. Recently, body size subtypes categorised by the prevalence of hyperinsulinaemia have been defined, and metabolically healthy overweight/obese individuals (without hyperinsulinaemia) have been suggested to be at lower risk of cardiovascular disease than their metabolically unhealthy (hyperinsulinaemic) overweight/obese counterparts. Whether similarly variable relationships exist for metabolically defined body size phenotypes and colorectal cancer risk is unknown.Methods and Findings The association of metabolically defined body size phenotypes with colorectal cancer was investigated in a case-control study nested within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study. Metabolic health/body size phenotypes were defined according to hyperinsulinaemia status using serum concentrations of C-peptide, a marker of insulin secretion. A total of 737 incident colorectal cancer cases and 737 matched controls were divided into tertiles based on the distribution of C-peptide concentration amongst the control population, and participants were classified as metabolically healthy if below the first tertile of C-peptide and metabolically unhealthy if above the first tertile. These metabolic health definitions were then combined with body mass index (BMI) measurements to create four metabolic health/body size phenotype categories: (1) metabolically healthy/normal weight (BMI < 25 kg/m(2)), (2) metabolically healthy/overweight (BMI >= 25 kg/m2), (3) metabolically unhealthy/normal weight (BMI < 25 kg/m2), and (4) metabolically unhealthy/overweight (BMI >= 25 kg/m2). Additionally, in separate models, waist circumference measurements (using the International Diabetes Federation cut-points [>= 80 cm for women and >= 94 cm for men]) were used (instead of BMI) to create the four metabolic health/body size phenotype categories. Statistical tests used in the analysis were all two-sided, and a p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. In multivariable-adjusted conditional logistic regression models with BMI used to define adiposity, compared with metabolically healthy/normal weight individuals, we observed a higher colorectal cancer risk among metabolically unhealthy/normal weight (odds ratio [OR] = 1.59, 95% CI 1.10-2.28) and metabolically unhealthy/overweight (OR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.01-1.94) participants, but not among metabolically healthy/overweight individuals (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.65-1.42). Among the overweight individuals, lower colorectal cancer risk was observed for metabolically healthy/overweight individuals compared with metabolically unhealthy/overweight individuals (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.96). These associations were generally consistent when waist circumference was used as the measure of adiposity. To our knowledge, there is no universally accepted clinical definition for using C-peptide level as an indication of hyperinsulinaemia. Therefore, a possible limitation of our analysis was that the classification of individuals as being hyperinsulinaemic-based on their C-peptide level-was arbitrary. However, when we used quartiles or the median of C-peptide, instead of tertiles, as the cut-point of hyperinsulinaemia, a similar pattern of associations was observed.Conclusions These results support the idea that individuals with the metabolically healthy/overweight phenotype (with normal insulin levels) are at lower colorectal cancer risk than those with hyperinsulinaemia. The combination of anthropometric measures with metabolic parameters, such as C-peptide, may be useful for defining strata of the population at greater risk of colorectal cancer.
|
|
