4.3 Article

Effects of beta-carotene supplementation on cancer incidence by baseline characteristics in the Physicians' Health Study (United States)

Journal

CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL
Volume 11, Issue 7, Pages 617-626

Publisher

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1008995430664

Keywords

beta-carotene; neoplasms; prevention; randomized trial

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA34944, CA40360] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: The Physicians' Health Study (PHS) was a randomized trial of beta-carotene (50 mg, alternate days) and aspirin in primary prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease among 22,071 US male physicians. This report updates results for beta-carotene and examines effect modification by baseline characteristics. Methods: Beta-carotene's effect on cancer over nearly 13 years was examined overall and within subgroups defined by baseline characteristics using proportional-hazards models. Results: 2667 incident cancers were confirmed, with 1117 prostate, 267 colon, and 178 lung cancers. There were no significant differences with supplementation in total (relative risk (RR) = 1.0, 95% confidence interval(CI) = 0.9-1.0); prostate (RR = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.9-1.1); colon (RR = 0.9, 95% CI = 0.7-1.2); or lung (RR = 0.9, 95% CI = 0.7-1.2) cancer, and no differences over time. In subgroup analyses, total cancer was modestly reduced with supplementation among those aged 70+ years (RR = 0.8, 95% CI = 0.7-1.0), daily drinkers of alcohol (RR = 0.9, 95% CI = 0.8-1.0), and those in the highest BMI quartile (RR = 0.9, 95% CI = 0.7-1.0). Prostate cancer was reduced with supplementation among those in the highest BMI quartile (RR = 0.8, 95% CI = 0.6-1.0). and colon cancer was reduced among daily drinkers of alcohol (RR = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.3-0.8). Conclusions: The PHS found no overall effect of beta-carotene on total cancer, or the three most common site-specific cancers. The possibility of risk reduction within specific subgroups remains.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available