4.7 Article

A longitudinal study of serum insulin and glucose levels in relation to colorectal cancer risk among postmenopausal women

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 106, Issue 1, Pages 227-232

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2011.512

Keywords

serum insulin; glucose; homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance; colorectal cancer

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether circulating insulin or glucose levels are associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer. Few prospective studies have examined this question, and only one study had repeated measurements. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of colorectal cancer risk using the subsample of women in the Women's Health Initiative study whose fasting blood samples, collected at baseline and during follow-up, were analysed for insulin and glucose. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess associations with colorectal cancer risk in both baseline and time-dependent covariates analyses. RESULTS: Among 4902 non-diabetic women with baseline fasting serum insulin and glucose values, 81 incident cases of colorectal cancer were identified over 12 years of follow-up. Baseline glucose levels were positively associated with colorectal cancer and colon cancer risk : multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) comparing the highest (>= 99.5 mg dl(-1)) with the lowest tertile (<89.5 mg dl(-1)): 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97-3.15 and 2.25, 95% CI: 1.12-4.51, respectively. Serum insulin and homeostasis model assessment were not associated with risk. Analyses of repeated measurements supported the baseline results. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that elevated serum glucose levels may be a risk factor for colorectal cancer in postmenopausal women. British Journal of Cancer (2012) 106, 227-232. doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.512 www.bjcancer.com Published online 29 November 2011 & 2012 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