4.7 Article

Association of vegetable, fruit, and grain intakes with colorectal cancer: the Multiethnic Cohort Study

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
Volume 88, Issue 3, Pages 730-737

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/88.3.730

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R37 CA054281] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: It is uncertain whether or not vegetables, fruit, or grains protect against colorectal cancer. Objective: In a large prospective study, we investigated the association of vegetable, fruit, and grain intakes with colorectal cancer risk. Design: Between 1993 and 1996, 85 903 men and 105 108 women completed a quantitative food-frequency questionnaire that included approximate to 180 foods and beverages in the Multiethnic Cohort Study. A diagnosis of colorectal cancer was made in 1138 men and 972 women after an average follow-up of 7.3 y. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate multivariate-adjusted relative risks and 95% CIs for colorectal cancer. Results: In men, multivariate adjustment for energy intake, dietary, and nondietary variables resulted in relative risks in the highest quintile group of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.59, 0.93; P for trend = 0.02) for vegetables and fruit combined, 0.80 ( 95% CI: 0.64, 0.99; P for trend = 0.09) for fruit alone, and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.69, 1.05; P for trend = 0.05) for vegetables alone. When colon and rectal cases were separated among men, the inverse associations were stronger for colon than for rectal cancer. In women, none of the associations with vegetables, fruit, or vegetables and fruit combined were significant. Grain intake was not associated with colorectal cancer for either men or women. Conclusion: The intake of vegetables and fruit was inversely related to colorectal cancer risk among men but not among women. The association appears stronger for colon than for rectal 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available