METHODS: Dietary intake of fish (total, fatty/oily, lean/white) and n-3 LC-PUFA were estimated by food frequency questionnaires given to 521,324 participants in the EPIC study; among these, 6291 individuals developed CRC (median follow up, 14.9 years). Levels of phospholipid LC-PUFA were measured by gas chromatography in plasma samples from a sub-group of 461 CRC cases and 461 matched individuals without CRC (controls). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards and conditional logistic regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs), respectively, with 95% CIs.
RESULTS: Total intake of fish (HR for quintile 5 vs 1, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96; Ptrend = .005), fatty fish (HR for quintile 5 vs 1, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98; Ptrend = .009), and lean fish (HR for quintile 5 vs 1, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-1.00; Ptrend = .016) were inversely associated with CRC incidence. Intake of total n-3 LC-PUFA (HR for quintile 5 vs 1, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95; Ptrend = .010) was also associated with reduced risk of CRC, whereas dietary ratio of n-6:n-3 LC-PUFA was associated with increased risk of CRC (HR for quintile 5 vs 1, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.18-1.45; Ptrend < .001). Plasma levels of phospholipid n-3 LC-PUFA was not associated with overall CRC risk, but an inverse trend was observed for proximal compared with distal colon cancer (Pheterogeneity = .026).
CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of dietary patterns of participants in the EPIC study, we found regular consumption of fish, at recommended levels, to be associated with a lower risk of CRC, possibly through exposure to n-3 LC-PUFA. Levels of n-3 LC-PUFA in plasma were not associated with CRC risk, but there may be differences in risk at different regions of the colon.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: This prospective analysis included 471,495 adults from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC, 1992-2014, median follow-up: 15.3 y), among whom there were 49,794 incident cancer cases (main locations: breast, n = 12,063; prostate, n = 6,745; colon-rectum, n = 5,806). Usual food intakes were assessed with standardized country-specific diet assessment methods. The FSAm-NPS was calculated for each food/beverage using their 100-g content in energy, sugar, saturated fatty acid, sodium, fibres, proteins, and fruits/vegetables/legumes/nuts. The FSAm-NPS scores of all food items usually consumed by a participant were averaged to obtain the individual FSAm-NPS Dietary Index (DI) scores. Multi-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were computed. A higher FSAm-NPS DI score, reflecting a lower nutritional quality of the food consumed, was associated with a higher risk of total cancer (HRQ5 versus Q1 = 1.07; 95% CI 1.03-1.10, P-trend < 0.001). Absolute cancer rates in those with high and low (quintiles 5 and 1) FSAm-NPS DI scores were 81.4 and 69.5 cases/10,000 person-years, respectively. Higher FSAm-NPS DI scores were specifically associated with higher risks of cancers of the colon-rectum, upper aerodigestive tract and stomach, lung for men, and liver and postmenopausal breast for women (all P < 0.05). The main study limitation is that it was based on an observational cohort using self-reported dietary data obtained through a single baseline food frequency questionnaire; thus, exposure misclassification and residual confounding cannot be ruled out.
CONCLUSIONS: In this large multinational European cohort, the consumption of food products with a higher FSAm-NPS score (lower nutritional quality) was associated with a higher risk of cancer. This supports the relevance of the FSAm-NPS as underlying nutrient profiling system for front-of-pack nutrition labels, as well as for other public health nutritional measures.