4.5 Article

Dietary folate and vitamin B12 intake before diagnosis decreases gastric cancer mortality risk among susceptible MTHFR 677TT carriers

期刊

NUTRITION
卷 26, 期 2, 页码 201-208

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2009.05.006

关键词

Gastric cancer survival; Methyl; Folate; Vitamin B12; MTHFR polymorphism

资金

  1. CONACYT [Salud-2002-001-7107]
  2. Mount Sinai School of Medicine International Training and Research in Environmental and Occupational Health [D43TW00640]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess gastric cancer survival in relation to dietary intake of methyl donors and the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase 677C > T (MTHFR 677C > T) polymorphism Methods: A prospective cohort of 257 incidental, histologically confirmed gastric cancer cases was assembled in January 2004 and followed until June 2006. Patients were recruited from the main oncology and/or gastroenterology units in Mexico City and were queried regarding their sociodemographic information, clinical history, and dietary habits 3 y before the onset of their symptoms The intake of methyl donors was estimated with a food-frequency questionnaire and the MTHFR 677C > T polymorphisms were determined by polymerase chain reaction/restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis Cox's multivariate regression models were used to estimate the mortality risk of gastric cancer Results: MTHFR 67771 carriers with low folate and vitamin B12 intakes had the lowest survival rate in cases of gastric cancer High intakes of folate and vitamin B12 before diagnosis was associated with decreased gastric cancel mortality risk in susceptible MTHFR 677TT carriers (mortality risk for folate 0 14, 95% confidence Interval 0.04-0 46. P for trend = 0 001, mortality risk for vitamin B12 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.08-0 66, P for trend = 0 008). Conclusion: Folate and related B vitamins may be used as an intervention strategy to improve the survival outcome of gastric cancer. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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