4.7 Article

Diet Quality and Risk of Lung Cancer in the Multiethnic Cohort Study

Journal

NUTRIENTS
Volume 13, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu13051614

Keywords

cohort; diet quality; lung cancer; multiethnic population

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute [R03 CA223890, U01 CA164973]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

High-quality diets were found to be associated with a lower risk of lung cancer, especially for squamous cell carcinomas. This association was consistent across different ethnicities and not affected by sex, race, or smoking status.
Diet quality, assessed by the Healthy Eating Index-2015 (HEI-2015), the Alternative Healthy Eating Index-2010 (AHEI-2010), the alternate Mediterranean Diet (aMED) score, the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) score, and the Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII(R)), was examined in relation to risk of lung cancer in the Multiethnic Cohort Study. The analysis included 179,318 African Americans, Native Hawaiians, Japanese Americans, Latinos, and Whites aged 45-75 years, with 5350 incident lung cancer cases during an average follow-up of 17.5 +/- 5.4 years. In multivariable Cox models comprehensively adjusted for cigarette smoking, the hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for the highest vs. lowest quality group based on quintiles were as follows: 0.85 (0.77-0.93) for HEI-2015; 0.84 (0.77-0.92) for AHEI-2010; 0.83 (0.76-0.91) for aMED; 0.83 (0.73-0.91) for DASH; and 0.90 (0.82-0.99) for DII. In histological cell type-specific analyses, the inverse association was stronger for squamous cell carcinoma than for adeno-, small cell, and large cell carcinomas for all indexes. There was no indication of differences in associations by sex, race/ethnicity, and smoking status. These findings support that high-quality diets are associated with lower risk of lung cancer, especially squamous cell carcinomas, in a multiethnic population.

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