3.8 Article

Traditional Dietary Pattern Increases Risk of Prostate Cancer in Argentina: Results of a Multilevel Modeling and Bias Analysis from a Case-Control Study

Journal

JOURNAL OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 2015, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2015/179562

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Science and Technology Agency [PICTO 2006-36035, PICT 2008-1814]
  2. National Scientific and Technical Research Council
  3. Cordoba Tumor Registry

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There is increasing evidence that dietary habits play a role in prostate cancer (PC) occurrence. Argentinean cancer risk studies require additional attention because of the singular dietary pattern of this population. A case-control study (147 PC cases, 300 controls) was conducted in Cordoba (Argentina) throughout 2008-2013. A principal component factor analysis was performed to identify dietary patterns. A mixed logistic regression model was applied, taking into account family history of cancer. Possible bias was evaluated by probabilistic bias analysis. Four dietary patterns were identified: Traditional (fatty red meats, offal, processed meat, starchy vegetables, added sugars and sweets, candies, fats, and vegetable oils), Prudent (nonstarchy vegetables, whole grains), Carbohydrate (sodas/juices and bakery products), and Cheese (cheeses). High adherence to the Traditional (OR 2.82, 95% CI: 1.569-5.099) and Carbohydrate Patterns (OR 2.14, 95% CI: 1.470-3.128) showed a promoting effect for PC, whereas the Prudent and Cheese Patterns were independent factors. PC occurrence was also associated with family history of PC. Bias adjusted ORs indicate that the validity of the present study is acceptable. High adherence to characteristic Argentinean dietary patterns was associated with increased PC risk. Our results incorporate original contributions to knowledge about scenarios in South American dietary patterns and PC occurrence.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available