4.6 Article

A prospective cohort study of dietary indices and incidence of epithelial ovarian cancer

Journal

JOURNAL OF OVARIAN RESEARCH
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s13048-014-0112-4

Keywords

Alternative healthy eating index; Healthy eating index; Mediterranean diet score; Dietary pattern; Ovarian cancer; Prospective cohort; Epidemiology

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [P01CA87969]
  2. Harvard University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Several dietary indices have been developed to measure overall diet quality, including the Healthy Eating Index-2005 (HEI-2005), which measures adherence to the 2005 Dietary Guidelines from the USDA; the Alternative Healthy Eating Index-2010 (AHEI-2010), which is based on foods and nutrients predictive of chronic disease risk; and the Alternate Mediterranean Diet Score (aMDS), which is an index that characterizes traditional food patterns of Mediterranean countries. Few studies have evaluated diet quality and ovarian cancer risk. Methods: We assessed the associations of the HEI-2005, AHEI-2010, and aMDS with risk of epithelial ovarian cancer prospectively among women in the Nurses' Health Study. We used Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for known ovarian cancer risk factors. Results: During 24 years of follow-up, we documented 696 incident epithelial ovarian cancer cases among 82,948 women with diet information. The multivariate adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval; Ptrend) of epithelial ovarian cancer comparing the highest with the lowest quintile were 1.03 (0.80-1.34; 0.77) for the AHEI-2010, 0.85 (0.65-1.12; 0.57) for the HEI-2005, and 0.91 (0.71-1.18; 0.44) for the aMDS. Conclusions: We did not observe any clear association of three diet quality scores with ovarian cancer risk. Further work should other metrics of evaluating diet quality that may be more relevant cancer risk.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available