Displaying publications 21 - 26 of 26 in total

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Naudin S, Li K, Jaouen T, Assi N, Kyrø C, Tjønneland A, et al.
    Int J Cancer, 2018 Aug 15;143(4):801-812.
    PMID: 29524225 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.31367
    Recent evidence suggested a weak relationship between alcohol consumption and pancreatic cancer (PC) risk. In our study, the association between lifetime and baseline alcohol intakes and the risk of PC was evaluated, including the type of alcoholic beverages and potential interaction with smoking. Within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study, 1,283 incident PC (57% women) were diagnosed from 476,106 cancer-free participants, followed up for 14 years. Amounts of lifetime and baseline alcohol were estimated through lifestyle and dietary questionnaires, respectively. Cox proportional hazard models with age as primary time variable were used to estimate PC hazard ratios (HR) and their 95% confidence interval (CI). Alcohol intake was positively associated with PC risk in men. Associations were mainly driven by extreme alcohol levels, with HRs comparing heavy drinkers (>60 g/day) to the reference category (0.1-4.9 g/day) equal to 1.77 (95% CI: 1.06, 2.95) and 1.63 (95% CI: 1.16, 2.29) for lifetime and baseline alcohol, respectively. Baseline alcohol intakes from beer (>40 g/day) and spirits/liquors (>10 g/day) showed HRs equal to 1.58 (95% CI: 1.07, 2.34) and 1.41 (95% CI: 1.03, 1.94), respectively, compared to the reference category (0.1-2.9 g/day). In women, HR estimates did not reach statistically significance. The alcohol and PC risk association was not modified by smoking status. Findings from a large prospective study suggest that baseline and lifetime alcohol intakes were positively associated with PC risk, with more apparent risk estimates for beer and spirits/liquors than wine intake.
  2. Bhoo-Pathy N, Uiterwaal CS, Dik VK, Jeurnink SM, Bech BH, Overvad K, et al.
    Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2013 Nov;11(11):1486-92.
    PMID: 23756220 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.05.029
    BACKGROUND & AIMS: Few modifiable risk factors have been implicated in the etiology of pancreatic cancer. There is little evidence for the effects of caffeinated coffee, decaffeinated coffee, or tea intake on risk of pancreatic cancer. We investigated the association of total coffee, caffeinated coffee, decaffeinated coffee, and tea consumption with risk of pancreatic cancer.

    METHODS: This study was conducted within the European Prospective Investigation into Nutrition and Cancer cohort, comprising male and female participants from 10 European countries. Between 1992 and 2000, there were 477,312 participants without cancer who completed a dietary questionnaire and were followed up to determine pancreatic cancer incidence. Coffee and tea intake was calibrated with a 24-hour dietary recall. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were computed using multivariable Cox regression.

    RESULTS: During a mean follow-up period of 11.6 y, 865 first incidences of pancreatic cancers were reported. When divided into fourths, neither total intake of coffee (HR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-1.27; high vs low intake), decaffeinated coffee (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.76-1.63; high vs low intake), nor tea were associated with risk of pancreatic cancer (HR, 1.22, 95% CI, 0.95-1.56; high vs low intake). Moderately low intake of caffeinated coffee was associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.02-1.74), compared with low intake. However, no graded dose response was observed, and the association attenuated after restriction to histologically confirmed pancreatic cancers.

    CONCLUSIONS: Based on an analysis of data from the European Prospective Investigation into Nutrition and Cancer cohort, total coffee, decaffeinated coffee, and tea consumption are not related to the risk of pancreatic cancer.

  3. Muller DC, Murphy N, Johansson M, Ferrari P, Tsilidis KK, Boutron-Ruault MC, et al.
    BMC Med, 2016 Jun 14;14:87.
    PMID: 27296932 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-016-0630-6
    BACKGROUND: Life expectancy is increasing in Europe, yet a substantial proportion of adults still die prematurely before the age of 70 years. We sought to estimate the joint and relative contributions of tobacco smoking, hypertension, obesity, physical inactivity, alcohol and poor diet towards risk of premature death.

    METHODS: We analysed data from 264,906 European adults from the EPIC prospective cohort study, aged between 40 and 70 years at the time of recruitment. Flexible parametric survival models were used to model risk of death conditional on risk factors, and survival functions and attributable fractions (AF) for deaths prior to age 70 years were calculated based on the fitted models.

    RESULTS: We identified 11,930 deaths which occurred before the age of 70. The AF for premature mortality for smoking was 31 % (95 % confidence interval (CI), 31-32 %) and 14 % (95 % CI, 12-16 %) for poor diet. Important contributions were also observed for overweight and obesity measured by waist-hip ratio (10 %; 95 % CI, 8-12 %) and high blood pressure (9 %; 95 % CI, 7-11 %). AFs for physical inactivity and excessive alcohol intake were 7 % and 4 %, respectively. Collectively, the AF for all six risk factors was 57 % (95 % CI, 55-59 %), being 35 % (95 % CI, 32-37 %) among never smokers and 74 % (95 % CI, 73-75 %) among current smokers.

    CONCLUSIONS: While smoking remains the predominant risk factor for premature death in Europe, poor diet, overweight and obesity, hypertension, physical inactivity, and excessive alcohol consumption also contribute substantially. Any attempt to minimise premature deaths will ultimately require all six factors to be addressed.

  4. Aad G, Abbott B, Abeling K, Abicht NJ, Abidi SH, Aboulhorma A, et al.
    Phys Rev Lett, 2024 Jan 12;132(2):021803.
    PMID: 38277607 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.021803
    The first evidence for the Higgs boson decay to a Z boson and a photon is presented, with a statistical significance of 3.4 standard deviations. The result is derived from a combined analysis of the searches performed by the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations with proton-proton collision datasets collected at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) from 2015 to 2018. These correspond to integrated luminosities of around 140  fb^{-1} for each experiment, at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The measured signal yield is 2.2±0.7 times the standard model prediction, and agrees with the theoretical expectation within 1.9 standard deviations.
  5. Klionsky DJ, Abdelmohsen K, Abe A, Abedin MJ, Abeliovich H, Acevedo Arozena A, et al.
    Autophagy, 2016;12(1):1-222.
    PMID: 26799652 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356
  6. Klionsky DJ, Abdel-Aziz AK, Abdelfatah S, Abdellatif M, Abdoli A, Abel S, et al.
    Autophagy, 2021 Jan;17(1):1-382.
    PMID: 33634751 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280
    In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links