Displaying all 5 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Kühn T, Stepien M, López-Nogueroles M, Damms-Machado A, Sookthai D, Johnson T, et al.
    J Natl Cancer Inst, 2020 May 01;112(5):516-524.
    PMID: 31435679 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djz166
    BACKGROUND: Bile acids have been proposed to promote colon carcinogenesis. However, there are limited prospective data on circulating bile acid levels and colon cancer risk in humans.

    METHODS: Associations between prediagnostic plasma levels of 17 primary, secondary, and tertiary bile acid metabolites (conjugated and unconjugated) and colon cancer risk were evaluated in a nested case-control study within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort. Bile acid levels were quantified by tandem mass spectrometry in samples from 569 incident colon cancer cases and 569 matched controls. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for colon cancer risk across quartiles of bile acid concentrations.

    RESULTS: Positive associations were observed between colon cancer risk and plasma levels of seven conjugated bile acid metabolites: the primary bile acids glycocholic acid (ORquartile 4 vs quartile 1= 2.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.52 to 3.26), taurocholic acid (OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.23 to 2.58), glycochenodeoxycholic acid (OR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.13 to 2.48), taurochenodeoxycholic acid (OR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.11 to 2.36), and glycohyocholic acid (OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.13 to 2.40), and the secondary bile acids glycodeoxycholic acid (OR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.12 to 2.54) and taurodeoxycholic acid (OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.02 to 2.31). By contrast, unconjugated bile acids and tertiary bile acids were not associated with risk.

    CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study showed that prediagnostic levels of certain conjugated primary and secondary bile acids were positively associated with risk of colon cancer. Our findings support experimental data to suggest that a high bile acid load is colon cancer promotive.

  2. Butt J, Jenab M, Pawlita M, Tjønneland A, Kyrø C, Boutron-Ruault MC, et al.
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2020 Jul;29(7):1475-1481.
    PMID: 32332031 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-1545
    BACKGROUND: While Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is the major cause of gastric cancer, it has also been suggested to be involved in colorectal cancer development. However, prospective studies addressing H. pylori and colorectal cancer are sparse and inconclusive. We assessed the association of antibody responses to H. pylori proteins with colorectal cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort.

    METHODS: We applied H. pylori multiplex serology to measure antibody responses to 13 H. pylori proteins in prediagnostic serum samples from 485 colorectal cancer cases and 485 matched controls nested within the EPIC study. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using multivariable conditional logistic regression to estimate the association of H. pylori overall and protein-specific seropositivity with odds of developing colorectal cancer.

    RESULTS: Fifty-one percent of colorectal cancer cases were H. pylori seropositive compared with 44% of controls, resulting in an OR of 1.36 (95% CI, 1.00-1.85). Among the 13 individual H. pylori proteins, the association was driven mostly by seropositivity to Helicobacter cysteine-rich protein C (HcpC; OR: 1.66; 95% CI, 1.19-2.30) and Vacuolating cytotoxin A (VacA) (OR: 1.34; 95% CI, 0.99-1.82), the latter being nonstatistically significant only in the fully adjusted model.

    CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective multicenter European study, antibody responses to H. pylori proteins, specifically HcpC and VacA, were associated with an increased risk of developing colorectal cancer.

    IMPACT: Biological mechanisms for a potential causal role of H. pylori in colorectal carcinogenesis need to be elucidated, and subsequently whether H. pylori eradication may decrease colorectal cancer incidence.

  3. Mullee A, Romaguera D, Pearson-Stuttard J, Viallon V, Stepien M, Freisling H, et al.
    JAMA Intern Med, 2019 Nov 01;179(11):1479-1490.
    PMID: 31479109 DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2478
    IMPORTANCE: Soft drinks are frequently consumed, but whether this consumption is associated with mortality risk is unknown and has been understudied in European populations to date.

    OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between total, sugar-sweetened, and artificially sweetened soft drink consumption and subsequent total and cause-specific mortality.

    DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This population-based cohort study involved participants (n = 451 743 of the full cohort) in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), an ongoing, large multinational cohort of people from 10 European countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom), with participants recruited between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 2000. Excluded participants were those who reported cancer, heart disease, stroke, or diabetes at baseline; those with implausible dietary intake data; and those with missing soft drink consumption or follow-up information. Data analyses were performed from February 1, 2018, to October 1, 2018.

    EXPOSURE: Consumption of total, sugar-sweetened, and artificially sweetened soft drinks.

    MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total mortality and cause-specific mortality. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for other mortality risk factors.

    RESULTS: In total, 521 330 individuals were enrolled. Of this total, 451 743 (86.7%) were included in the study, with a mean (SD) age of 50.8 (9.8) years and with 321 081 women (71.1%). During a mean (range) follow-up of 16.4 (11.1 in Greece to 19.2 in France) years, 41 693 deaths occurred. Higher all-cause mortality was found among participants who consumed 2 or more glasses per day (vs consumers of <1 glass per month) of total soft drinks (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% CI, 1.11-1.22; P 

  4. Heath AK, Muller DC, van den Brandt PA, Papadimitriou N, Critselis E, Gunter M, et al.
    Breast Cancer Res, 2020 01 13;22(1):5.
    PMID: 31931881 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-019-1244-7
    BACKGROUND: Several dietary factors have been reported to be associated with risk of breast cancer, but to date, unequivocal evidence only exists for alcohol consumption. We sought to systematically assess the association between intake of 92 foods and nutrients and breast cancer risk using a nutrient-wide association study.

    METHODS: Using data from 272,098 women participating in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study, we assessed dietary intake of 92 foods and nutrients estimated by dietary questionnaires. Cox regression was used to quantify the association between each food/nutrient and risk of breast cancer. A false discovery rate (FDR) of 0.05 was used to select the set of foods and nutrients to be replicated in the independent Netherlands Cohort Study (NLCS).

    RESULTS: Six foods and nutrients were identified as associated with risk of breast cancer in the EPIC study (10,979 cases). Higher intake of alcohol overall was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer (hazard ratio (HR) for a 1 SD increment in intake = 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.07), as was beer/cider intake and wine intake (HRs per 1 SD increment = 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.06 and 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06, respectively), whereas higher intakes of fibre, apple/pear, and carbohydrates were associated with a lower risk of breast cancer (HRs per 1 SD increment = 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.98; 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.99; and 0.96, 95% CI 0.95-0.98, respectively). When evaluated in the NLCS (2368 cases), estimates for each of these foods and nutrients were similar in magnitude and direction, with the exception of beer/cider intake, which was not associated with risk in the NLCS.

    CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm a positive association of alcohol consumption and suggest an inverse association of dietary fibre and possibly fruit intake with breast cancer risk.

  5. Travis RC, Perez-Cornago A, Appleby PN, Albanes D, Joshu CE, Lutsey PL, et al.
    Cancer Res, 2019 Jan 01;79(1):274-285.
    PMID: 30425058 DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-2318
    Previous prospective studies assessing the relationship between circulating concentrations of vitamin D and prostate cancer risk have shown inconclusive results, particularly for risk of aggressive disease. In this study, we examine the association between prediagnostic concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D [1,25(OH)2D] and the risk of prostate cancer overall and by tumor characteristics. Principal investigators of 19 prospective studies provided individual participant data on circulating 25(OH)D and 1,25(OH)2D for up to 13,462 men with incident prostate cancer and 20,261 control participants. ORs for prostate cancer by study-specific fifths of season-standardized vitamin D concentration were estimated using multivariable-adjusted conditional logistic regression. 25(OH)D concentration was positively associated with risk for total prostate cancer (multivariable-adjusted OR comparing highest vs. lowest study-specific fifth was 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.31; P trend < 0.001). However, this association varied by disease aggressiveness (P heterogeneity = 0.014); higher circulating 25(OH)D was associated with a higher risk of nonaggressive disease (OR per 80 percentile increase = 1.24, 1.13-1.36) but not with aggressive disease (defined as stage 4, metastases, or prostate cancer death, 0.95, 0.78-1.15). 1,25(OH)2D concentration was not associated with risk for prostate cancer overall or by tumor characteristics. The absence of an association of vitamin D with aggressive disease does not support the hypothesis that vitamin D deficiency increases prostate cancer risk. Rather, the association of high circulating 25(OH)D concentration with a higher risk of nonaggressive prostate cancer may be influenced by detection bias. SIGNIFICANCE: This international collaboration comprises the largest prospective study on blood vitamin D and prostate cancer risk and shows no association with aggressive disease but some evidence of a higher risk of nonaggressive disease.
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

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

External Links