4.7 Article

Higher dietary intakes of choline and betaine are associated with a lower risk of primary liver cancer: a case-control study

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-00773-w

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81472966, 81273050]
  2. Key Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong, China [2015A030311035]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The dietary intake of methyl donors is favorably associated with many diseases, but the findings regarding primary liver cancer (PLC) risk are limited. This study investigated the association between the intake of choline, betaine and methionine and PLC risk in adults. This 1: 1 matched case-control study enrolled 644 hospital-based PLC patients and 644 community-based controls who were matched by sex and age, in Guangzhou, China. An interviewer-administered questionnaire and a food-frequency questionnaire were used to collect general information and dietary intake information. Conditional logistic regression showed a significantly inverse association between total choline and betaine intakes and PLC risk. The multivariable-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for PLC for the top (vs. bottom) tertile were 0.34 (0.24-0.49; P-trend < 0.001) for total choline and 0.67 (0.48-0.93; P-trend = 0.011) for betaine. No significant association was observed between the intake of methionine and PLC risk (P > 0.05). For individual choline compounds, higher consumptions of free choline, glycerophosphocholine, phosphocholine, phosphatidylcholine and sphingomyelin were associated with a lower PLC risk (all P-trend < 0.05). The studied associations were not significantly modified by the folate intake (P-interactions: 0.488-0.890). Our findings suggest that higher choline and betaine intakes may be associated with a lower risk of PLC.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available