4.5 Article

Epidemiologic assessment of sugars consumption using biomarkers: Comparisons of obese and nonobese individuals in the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer Norfolk

Journal

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
Volume 16, Issue 8, Pages 1651-1654

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-1050

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council [G0401527, MC_U106179471] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Medical Research Council [G0401527, MC_U106179471] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We have previously shown that urinary sugars excretion in 24 h urine collections can serve as an independent biomarker of sugars consumption. In the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer (EPIC) Norfolk study of nutrition and cancer, this biomarker in spot urines has been assessed in a cross-sectional comparison of 404 obese individuals aged 45 to 75 years with a body mass index (BMI) of > 30 kg/m(2) and 471 normal weight individuals aged 45 to 75 years with a BMI of < 25 kg/m(2). In individuals of normal weight, sucrose, protein, and vitamin C intake were positively and highly significantly related to biomarkers in spot urine or plasma (P < 0.001), but there were no significant associations between biomarkers and food intake reports in the obese. Odds ratios for a BMI of > 30 were significantly elevated for urinary sucrose [trend per milligram per liter quintile, 1.13; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.02-1.25; P = 0.016], and the odds ratio for urinary sucrose/fructose ratio was highly significant (trend per quintile, 1.264; 95% CI, 1.142-1.401; P < 0.001). No associations for sugars intake and obesity were found using a food frequency questionnaire, and dietary vitamin C was apparently associated with increased risk (P < 0.001) despite an inverse association for plasma vitamin C. Nutritional biomarkers of consumption can complement existing methods for assessing cancer risk from diet in epidemiologic studies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available