4.7 Article

Citrus consumption and cancer incidence: the Ohsaki cohort study

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 127, 期 8, 页码 1913-1922

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.25203

关键词

citrus; cancer; incidence; prospective cohort study; green tea

类别

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan
  2. [H21-3jigan-ippan-001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Basic research and case-control studies have suggested that citrus consumption may protect against cancer. However, the protective effect has been observed from few prospective studies. This study investigated the association of citrus consumption with cancer incidence among 42,470 Japanese adults in the Ohsaki National Health Insurance Cohort, which covered an age range of 40-79 years, and was followed up from 1995 to 2003 for all-cancer and individual cancer incidence. Citrus consumption was assessed using a self-administered questionnaire. The Cox proportional hazard model was applied to estimate relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs. During the 323,204 person-years of follow-up, 3,398 cases were identified totally. Citrus consumption, especially daily consumption, was correlated with reduced all-cancer incidence, the RRs were 0.89 (95% CI = 0.80-0.98) for total participants, 0.86 (0.76-0.98) for males and 0.93 (0.79-1.09) for females, as well as multiple cancers at individual sites, especially pancreatic (RR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.38-1.00) and prostate cancer (RR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.41-0.97). Joint effect analysis showed a reduced risk of overall cancer existed only for subjects who consumed >= 1 cup green tea/day (RR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.73-0.93) as well as for males (RR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.71-0.97) or females (RR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.68-0.99). These findings suggest that citrus consumption is associated with reduced all-cancer incidence, especially for subjects having simultaneously high green tea consumption. Further work on the specific citrus constituents is warranted, and clinical trials are ultimately necessary to confirm the protective effect.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据