4.3 Article

Intake of meat and fish and risk of head-neck cancer subtypes in the Netherlands Cohort Study

Journal

CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL
Volume 28, Issue 6, Pages 647-656

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10552-017-0892-0

Keywords

Meat; Head-neck cancer; Prospective cohort studies; Risk factors; Fish

Funding

  1. World Cancer Research Fund International (WCRF)
  2. Wereld Kanker Onderzoeks Fonds (WCRF NL) [2010/253]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To date, the role of meat and fish intake in head-neck cancer (HNC) etiology is not well understood and prospective evidence is limited. This prompted us to study the association between meat, fish, and HNC subtypes, i.e., oral cavity cancer (OCC), oro- and hypopharyngeal cancer (OHPC), and laryngeal cancer (LC), within the Netherlands Cohort Study (NLCS). Methods In 1986, 120,852 participants (aged 55-69 years) completed a baseline 150-item food frequency questionnaire (FFQ), from which daily meat and fish intake were calculated. After 20.3 years of follow-up, 430 HNC overall (134 OCC, 90 OHPC and 203 LC) cases and 4,111 subcohort members were found to be eligible for case-cohort analysis. Multivariate hazard ratios were calculated using Cox's proportional hazards model within quartiles of energy-adjusted meat and fish intake. Results Processed meat intake, but not red meat intake, was positively associated with HNC overall [HR(Q4 vs. Q1) = 1.46, 95% CI 1.06-2.00; ptrend = 0.03]. Among HNC subtypes, processed meat was positively associated with OCC, while no associations were found with OHPC and LC. Fish intake was not associated with HNC risk. Tests for interaction did not reveal statistically significant interaction between meat, fish, and alcohol or smoking on HNC overall risk. Conclusions In this large cohort study, processed meat intake was positively associated with HNC overall and HNC subtype OCC, but not with OHPC and LC.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available