4.6 Article

Associations between Dietary Intake of Choline and Betaine and Lung Cancer Risk

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054561

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [RO1 CA149462, RO1 CA55769, RO1 CA127219]
  2. NIH Centers for Translational Science Award (NIH CTSA) by the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) [UL1 RR024148]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evidence from human and animal research indicates that choline metabolic pathways may be activated during a variety of diseases, including cancer. We report results of a case-control study of 2821 lung cancer cases and 2923 controls that assessed associations of choline and betaine dietary intakes with lung cancer. Using multivariable logistic regression analyses, we report a significant association between higher betaine intake and lower lung cancer risk that varied by smoking status. Specifically, no significant association was observed between betaine intake and lung cancer among never-smokers. However, higher betaine intake was significantly associated with reduced lung cancer risk among smokers, and the protective effect was more evident among current than former smokers: for former and current smokers, the ORs (95% CI) of lung cancer for individuals with highest as compared to lowest quartiles of intake were 0.70(0.55-0.88) and 0.51(0.39-0.66) respectively. Significant linear trend of higher betaine intake and lower lung cancer risk was observed among both former (p(trend)=0.002) and current (p(trend)<0.0001) smokers. A similar protective effect was also observed with choline intake both in overall analysis as well as among current smokers, with p-values for chi-square tests being 0.001 and 0.004 respectively, but the effect was less evident, as no linear trend was observed. Our results suggest that choline and betaine intake, especially higher betaine intake, may be protective against lung cancer through mitigating the adverse effect of smoking.

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