Displaying all 7 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Matejcic M, Lesueur F, Biessy C, Renault AL, Mebirouk N, Yammine S, et al.
    Int J Cancer, 2018 Nov 15;143(10):2437-2448.
    PMID: 30110135 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.31797
    There are both limited and conflicting data on the role of dietary fat and specific fatty acids in the development of pancreatic cancer. In this study, we investigated the association between plasma phospholipid fatty acids and pancreatic cancer risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort. The fatty acid composition was measured by gas chromatography in plasma samples collected at recruitment from375 incident pancreatic cancer cases and375 matched controls. Associations of specific fatty acids with pancreatic cancer risk were evaluated using multivariable conditional logistic regression models with adjustment for established pancreatic cancer risk factors. Statistically significant inverse associations were found between pancreatic cancer incidence and levels of heptadecanoic acid (ORT3-T1 [odds ratio for highest versus lowest tertile] =0.63; 95%CI[confidence interval] = 0.41-0.98; ptrend = 0.036), n-3 polyunsaturated α-linolenic acid (ORT3-T1 = 0.60; 95%CI = 0.39-0.92; ptrend = 0.02) and docosapentaenoic acid (ORT3-T1 = 0.52; 95%CI = 0.32-0.85; ptrend = 0.008). Industrial trans-fatty acids were positively associated with pancreatic cancer risk among men (ORT3-T1 = 3.00; 95%CI = 1.13-7.99; ptrend = 0.029), while conjugated linoleic acids were inversely related to pancreatic cancer among women only (ORT3-T1 = 0.37; 95%CI = 0.17-0.81; ptrend = 0.008). Among current smokers, the long-chain n-6/n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids ratio was positively associated with pancreatic cancer risk (ORT3-T1 = 3.40; 95%CI = 1.39-8.34; ptrend = 0.007). Results were robust to a range of sensitivity analyses. Our findings suggest that higher circulating levels of saturated fatty acids with an odd number of carbon atoms and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids may be related to lower risk of pancreatic cancer. The influence of some fatty acids on the development of pancreatic cancer may be sex-specific and modulated by smoking.
  2. Cirera L, Huerta JM, Chirlaque MD, Overvad K, Lindström M, Regnér S, et al.
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2019 06;28(6):1089-1092.
    PMID: 31160392 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-18-1153
    BACKGROUND: To analyze the potential effect of social inequality on pancreatic cancer risk in Western Europe, by reassessing the association within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) Study, including a larger number of cases and an extended follow-up.

    METHODS: Data on highest education attained were gathered for 459,170 participants (70% women) from 10 European countries. A relative index of inequality (RII) based on adult education was calculated for comparability across countries and generations. Cox regression models were applied to estimate relative inequality in pancreatic cancer risk, stratifying by age, gender, and center, and adjusting for known pancreatic cancer risk factors.

    RESULTS: A total of 1,223 incident pancreatic cancer cases were included after a mean follow-up of 13.9 (±4.0) years. An inverse social trend was found in models adjusted for age, sex, and center for both sexes [HR of RII, 1.27; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02-1.59], which was also significant among women (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.05-1.92). Further adjusting by smoking intensity, alcohol consumption, body mass index, prevalent diabetes, and physical activity led to an attenuation of the RII risk and loss of statistical significance.

    CONCLUSIONS: The present reanalysis does not sustain the existence of an independent social inequality influence on pancreatic cancer risk in Western European women and men, using an index based on adult education, the most relevant social indicator linked to individual lifestyles, in a context of very low pancreatic cancer survival from (quasi) universal public health systems.

    IMPACT: The results do not support an association between education and risk of pancreatic cancer.

  3. Obón-Santacana M, Luján-Barroso L, Freisling H, Naudin S, Boutron-Ruault MC, Mancini FR, et al.
    Int J Cancer, 2020 Jan 01;146(1):76-84.
    PMID: 31107546 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.32415
    Four epidemiologic studies have assessed the association between nut intake and pancreatic cancer risk with contradictory results. The present study aims to investigate the relation between nut intake (including seeds) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazards ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for nut intake and PDAC risk. Information on intake of nuts was obtained from the EPIC country-specific dietary questionnaires. After a mean follow-up of 14 years, 476,160 participants were eligible for the present study and included 1,283 PDAC cases. No association was observed between consumption of nuts and PDAC risk (highest intake vs nonconsumers: HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72-1.10; p-trend = 0.70). Furthermore, no evidence for effect-measure modification was observed when different subgroups were analyzed. Overall, in EPIC, the highest intake of nuts was not statistically significantly associated with PDAC risk.
  4. Honda K, Katzke VA, Hüsing A, Okaya S, Shoji H, Onidani K, et al.
    Int J Cancer, 2019 Apr 15;144(8):1877-1887.
    PMID: 30259989 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.31900
    Recently, we identified unique processing patterns of apolipoprotein A2 (ApoA2) in patients with pancreatic cancer. Our study provides a first prospective evaluation of an ApoA2 isoform ("ApoA2-ATQ/AT"), alone and in combination with carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), as an early detection biomarker for pancreatic cancer. We performed ELISA measurements of CA19-9 and ApoA2-ATQ/AT in 156 patients with pancreatic cancer and 217 matched controls within the European EPIC cohort, using plasma samples collected up to 60 months prior to diagnosis. The detection discrimination statistics were calculated for risk scores by strata of lag-time. For CA19-9, in univariate marker analyses, C-statistics to distinguish future pancreatic cancer patients from cancer-free individuals were 0.80 for plasma taken ≤6 months before diagnosis, and 0.71 for >6-18 months; for ApoA2-ATQ/AT, C-statistics were 0.62, and 0.65, respectively. Joint models based on ApoA2-ATQ/AT plus CA19-9 significantly improved discrimination within >6-18 months (C = 0.74 vs. 0.71 for CA19-9 alone, p = 0.022) and ≤ 18 months (C = 0.75 vs. 0.74, p = 0.022). At 98% specificity, and for lag times of ≤6, >6-18 or ≤ 18 months, sensitivities were 57%, 36% and 43% for CA19-9 combined with ApoA2-ATQ/AT, respectively, vs. 50%, 29% and 36% for CA19-9 alone. Compared to CA19-9 alone, the combination of CA19-9 and ApoA2-ATQ/AT may improve detection of pancreatic cancer up to 18 months prior to diagnosis under usual care, and may provide a useful first measure for pancreatic cancer detection prior to imaging.
  5. Duell EJ, Lujan-Barroso L, Sala N, Deitz McElyea S, Overvad K, Tjonneland A, et al.
    Int J Cancer, 2017 Sep 01;141(5):905-915.
    PMID: 28542740 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.30790
    Noninvasive biomarkers for early pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) diagnosis and disease risk stratification are greatly needed. We conducted a nested case-control study within the Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort to evaluate prediagnostic microRNAs (miRs) as biomarkers of subsequent PDAC risk. A panel of eight miRs (miR-10a, -10b, -21-3p, -21-5p, -30c, -106b, -155 and -212) based on previous evidence from our group was evaluated in 225 microscopically confirmed PDAC cases and 225 controls matched on center, sex, fasting status and age/date/time of blood collection. MiR levels in prediagnostic plasma samples were determined by quantitative RT-PCR. Logistic regression was used to model levels and PDAC risk, adjusting for covariates and to estimate area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC). Plasma miR-10b, -21-5p, -30c and -106b levels were significantly higher in cases diagnosed within 2 years of blood collection compared to matched controls (all p-values <0.04). Based on adjusted logistic regression models, levels for six miRs (miR-10a, -10b, -21-5p, -30c, -155 and -212) overall, and for four miRs (-10a, -10b, -21-5p and -30c) at shorter follow-up time between blood collection and diagnosis (≤5 yr, ≤2 yr), were statistically significantly associated with risk. A score based on the panel showed a linear dose-response trend with risk (p-value = 0.0006). For shorter follow-up (≤5 yr), AUC for the score was 0.73, and for individual miRs ranged from 0.73 (miR-212) to 0.79 (miR-21-5p).
  6. 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.
  7. Huang J, Zagai U, Hallmans G, Nyrén O, Engstrand L, Stolzenberg-Solomon R, et al.
    Int J Cancer, 2017 Apr 15;140(8):1727-1735.
    PMID: 28032715 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.30590
    The association between H. pylori infection and pancreatic cancer risk remains controversial. We conducted a nested case-control study with 448 pancreatic cancer cases and their individually matched control subjects, based on the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort, to determine whether there was an altered pancreatic cancer risk associated with H. pylori infection and chronic corpus atrophic gastritis. Conditional logistic regression models were applied to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for matching factors and other potential confounders. Our results showed that pancreatic cancer risk was neither associated with H. pylori seropositivity (OR = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.70, 1.31) nor CagA seropositivity (OR = 1.07; 95% CI: 0.77, 1.48). We also did not find any excess risk among individuals seropositive for H. pylori but seronegative for CagA, compared with the group seronegative for both antibodies (OR = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.38). However, we found that chronic corpus atrophic gastritis was non-significantly associated with an increased pancreatic cancer risk (OR = 1.35; 95% CI: 0.77, 2.37), and although based on small numbers, the excess risk was particularly marked among individuals seronegative for both H. pylori and CagA (OR = 5.66; 95% CI: 1.59, 20.19, p value for interaction 
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

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

External Links