4.6 Article

trans Fatty Acid Intake Is Associated with Increased Risk and n3 Fatty Acid Intake with Reduced Risk of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 143, 期 5, 页码 672-681

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3945/jn.112.168658

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R01 CA92153, P50 CA97274]
  2. Predolin Foundation
  3. [R25 CA92049]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We evaluated the association of dietary fat and protein intake with risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in a clinic-based study in 603 cases (including 218 chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, 146 follicular lymphoma, and 105 diffuse large B-cell lymphoma) and 1007 frequency-matched controls. Usual diet was assessed with a 128-item food-frequency questionnaire. Unconditional logistic regression was used to estimate ORs and 95% CIs, and polytomous logistic regression was used to assess subtype-specific risks. trans Fatty acid (TFA) intake was positively associated with NHL risk [OR = 1.60 for highest vs. lowest quartile (95% CI = 1.18, 2.15); P-trend = 0.0014], n3(omega 3) fatty acid intake was inversely associated with risk [OR = 0.48(95% CI = 0.35, 0.65); P-trend <0.0001], and there was no association with total, animal, plant-based, or saturated fat intake. When examining intake of specific foods, processed meat [OR = 1.37 (95% CI = 1.02, 1.83); P-trend = 0.03], milk containing any fat [OR = 1.47 (95% CI = 1.16, 1.88); P-trend = 0.0025], and high-fat ice cream [OR = 4.03(95% CI = 2.80, 5.80); P-trend < 0.0001], intakes were positively associated with risk, whereas intakes of fresh fish and total seafood [OR = 0.61 (95% CI = 0.46, 0.80); P-trend = 0.0025] were inversely associated with risk. Overall, there was little evidence for NHL subtype-specific heterogeneity. In conclusion, diets high in TFAs, processed meats, and higher fat dairy products were positively associated with NHL risk, whereas diets high in n3 fatty acids and total seafood were inversely associated with risk. J. Nutr. 143: 672-681, 2013.

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

4.6
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