4.6 Article

Nutrient intake and nutrient patterns and risk of lung cancer among heavy smokers: results from the COSMOS screening study with annual low-dose CT

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 28, Issue 6, Pages 503-511

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10654-013-9803-1

Keywords

Nutrient patterns; LD-CT screening; Lung cancer; Nutrient intake; Vitamin supplement

Funding

  1. Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC)
  2. Italian Foundation for Cancer Research (FIRC)
  3. European Institute of Oncology (IEO)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The role of nutrients in lung cancer aetiology remains controversial and has never been evaluated in the context of screening. Our aim was to investigate the role of single nutrients and nutrient patterns in the aetiology of lung cancer in heavy smokers. Asymptomatic heavy smokers (a parts per thousand yen20 pack-years) were invited to undergo annual low-dose computed tomography. We assessed diet using a self-administered food frequency questionnaire and collected information on multivitamin supplement use. We performed principal component analysis identifying four nutrient patterns and used Cox proportional Hazards regression to assess the association between nutrients and nutrients patterns and lung cancer risk. During a mean follow-up of 5.7 years, 178 of 4,336 participants were diagnosed with lung cancer by screening. We found a significant risk reduction of lung cancer with increasing vegetable fat consumption (HR for highest vs. lowest quartile = 0.50, 95 % CI = 0.31-0.80; P-trend = 0.02). Participants classified in the high vitamins and fiber pattern score had a significant risk reduction of lung cancer (HR = 0.57; 95 % CI = 0.36-0.90, P-trend = 0.01). Among heavy smokers enrolled in a screening trial, high vegetable fat intake and adherence to the vitamin and fiber nutrient pattern were associated with reduced lung cancer incidence.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available