4.0 Article

THE ROLE OF DIETARY AND LIFESTYLE FACTORS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF COLORECTAL CANCER: CASE CONTROL STUDY IN MINIA, EGYPT

Journal

CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 22, Issue 4, Pages 215-222

Publisher

NATL INST PUBLIC HEALTH
DOI: 10.21101/cejph.a3919

Keywords

colorectal cancer; life style; diet; case-control study; Minia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide, after lung and breast cancer, and is associated with the population dietary and lifestyle factors. Aim: To determine the relation between dietary and lifestyle factors and development of CRC in patients attending Minia oncology centre and compare them with their control. Methods: Study included 150 CRC patients attending Minia oncology centre and 300 control subjects matched by age and sex. Subjects participating in the study filled in a questionnaire including questions about socio-demographic data, medical data concerning CRC and its treatment as well as dietary and lifestyle factors. Results: The most significant dietary and lifestyle CRC risk factors were higher consumption of red meat (OR = 57.1), preserved food (OR = 39.4), artificial sweeteners (OR = 20.8), fast foods (OR=12.8), soft drinks (OR=4.6), spicy foods (OR=4.2), processed meat (OR = 2.4), and smoking (OR = 8.8). The most significant protective factors were physical activity (OR= 0.001), calcium rich diet (OR = 0.08), higher consumption of fruits and vegetable (OR = 0.02), cruciferous vegetables (broccoli OR = 0.11, cauliflower OR = 0.30 and cabbage OR = 0.30), high fiber bread (OR= 0.15), fruit juice.(OR = 0.18), and sea foods (tuna OR = 0.28 and fish OR = 0.38). Conclusion: Sedentary lifestyle and unhealthy dietary choices were prevalent among CRC cases. This study provides strong evidence that lifestyle and dietary modification are important factors in the prevention of colorectal cancer.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available