4.7 Article

Intakes of fruits and vegetables, carotenoids and vitamins A, E, C in relation to the risk of bladder cancer in the ATBC cohort study

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 87, Issue 9, Pages 960-965

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600604

Keywords

vitamins; carotenoids; fruit; vegetables; bladder cancer; cohort studies; epidemiology

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [N01 CN045165, N01 CN045035] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We examined the relation between dietary fruit and vegetables, carotenoids and vitamin intakes and the risk of bladder cancer among male smokers in a prospective cohort study. Over a median of 11 years, we followed 27111 male smokers aged 5069 years who were initially enrolled in the Alpha-Tocopherol Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study. During this period, 344 men developed bladder cancer. All of these men had completed a 276-food item dietary questionnaire at baseline. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the relative risks and 95% confidence intervals and to simultaneously adjust for age, smoking history, energy intake and intervention group. Consumption of fruits and vegetables was not associated with the risk of bladder cancer (relative risk = 1.28; 95% confidence intervals CI: 0.89 - 1.84, for highest vs lowest quintile). Similarly, no associations were observed for groups of fruits or vegetables (berries and cruciferous vegetables), or for specific fruits and vegetables. Dietary intakes of alpha-carotene, beta-carotene, lycopene, lutein/zeaxanthin, beta-cryptoxanthin, vitamins A, E, and C, and folate were not related to the risk of bladder cancer. These findings suggest that fruit and vegetable intakes are not likely to be associated with bladder cancer risk. However, these results may not be generalisable to nonsmokers. (C) 2002 Cancer Research UK.

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