4.5 Article

The 1944-1945 Dutch famine and subsequent overall cancer incidence

Journal

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
Volume 14, Issue 8, Pages 1981-1985

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-04-0839

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Caloric restriction seems to be the most potent dietary intervention to protect against a variety of cancers in animals. We investigated whether overall cancer risk is affected in humans after exposure to a brief famine, followed by a period of abundance. We used data of -15,000 women who were exposed at various degrees to the 1944-1945 Dutch famine at ages between 2 and 33 years. Between 1983 and 1986, these women were asked about their individual experiences of famine exposure (absent, moderate, or severe exposure). During follow-up until January 2000, 1,602 new cancer cases were identified by the regional cancer registry. We assessed the relation between famine and total cancer risk by weighted Cox regression models, in which a 15% random sample was used to represent person-years lived in the entire cohort. In these models, we adjusted for potential confounders. Overall cancer risk was increased in women having been severely famine exposed compared with women having been unexposed (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.55). Exclusion of breast cancer cases from our analyses showed that this increase in risk was largely driven by the previously reported increase in breast cancer risk: women who were severely exposed to the famine were at a 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.43) times increased risk of non-breast cancer compared with the unexposed. In conclusion, we found no indications that this brief famine has affected overall cancer risk, exclusive of breast cancer. Counteracting increased caloric intake following the famine, however, may have obscured any relation.

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