4.7 Article

Folic acid and prevention of colorectal adenomas: a combined analysis of randomized clinical trials

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 129, 期 1, 页码 192-203

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.25872

关键词

folic acid; supplementation; colorectal adenomas; clinical trial

类别

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health [N01-CO-12400, R01-CA-059005, U54-CA-100971, CA 55075, CA95589, R01 CA 67883]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Observational data suggest that lower folate status is associated with an increased risk of colorectal neoplasia, implying that folate may be useful as a chemopreventive agent. We conducted a combined analysis of three large randomized trials of folic acid supplementation for the prevention of metachronous adenomas in patients with an adenoma history. Participants included 2,632 men and women who had a history of adenomas randomized to either 0.5 or 1.0 mg/day of folic acid or placebo and who had a follow-up endoscopy 6 to 42 months after randomization [mean = 30.6 (standard deviation = 8.1) months]. We used random-effects meta-analysis to estimate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The RR comparing folic acid versus placebo was 0.98 (95% CI = 0.82-1.17) for all adenomas and 1.06 (95% CI = 0.81-1.39) for advanced lesions. Folic acid was associated with a nonsignificant decreased risk of any adenoma among subjects in the lowest quartile of baseline plasma folate (<= 11 nmol/L) and no effect among individuals in the highest quartile (> 29 nmol/L, p for trend = 0.17). There was a nonsignificant trend of decreasing risk of any adenoma associated with folic acid supplements with increasing alcohol intake. During the early follow-up reported here, more deaths occurred in the placebo group than in the folic acid group (1.7% vs. 0.5%, p = 0.002). In conclusion, after up to 3.5 years of folic acid use, there is no clear decrease or increase in the occurrence of new adenomas in patients with a history of adenoma.

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