4.4 Article

Dietary risk factors for colon and rectal cancers: A comparative case-control study

Journal

JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages 125-135

Publisher

JAPAN EPIDEMIOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2188/jea.16.125

Keywords

diet; colonic neoplasms; rectal neoplasms; case-control studies; Japan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: In Japan, the incidence rate of colon cancer has more rapidly increased than that of rectal cancer. The differential secular trends may be due to different dietary factors in the development of colon and rectal cancers. METHODS: To compare dietary risk factors between colon and rectal cancers, we undertook a case-control study at Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Japan. Subjects were 507 patients with newly diagnosed colon (n = 265) and rectal (n = 242) cancers, and 2,535 cancer-free outpatients (controls). Intakes of nutrients and food groups were assessed with a food frequency questionnaire, and multivariate-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using unconditional logistic models. RESULTS: We found a decreasing risk of colon cancer with increasing intakes of calcium and insoluble dietary fiber; the multivariate ORs across quartiles of intake were 1.00, 0.90, 0.80, and 0.67 (trend p = 0.040), and 1.00, 0.69, 0.64, and 0.65 (trend p = 0.027), respectively. For rectal cancer, a higher consumption of carotene and meat was associated with a reduced risk; the corresponding ORs were 1.00, 1.10, 0.71, and 0.70 for carotene (trend p = 0.028), and 1.00, 0.99, 0.68, and 0.72 for meat (trend p = 0.036). Carbohydrate intake was positively correlated with the risk of rectal cancer (ORs over quartiles: 1.00, 1.14, 1.42, and 1.54; trend p = 0.048). This association was stronger in women, while fat consumption was inversely correlated with the risk of female colon and rectal cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Dietary risk factors appear to considerably differ between colon and rectal cancers.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available