4.6 Article

Increased Risk of Colorectal Cancer in Type 2 Diabetes Is Independent of Diet Quality

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074616

关键词

-

资金

  1. Washington University School of Medicine
  2. National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health [CA112159]
  3. DDRCC [P30 DK-52574]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Poor diet increases the risk of both colorectal cancer and type 2 diabetes. We investigated the role of diet in the association between diabetes and colorectal cancer. Methods: We analyzed data from 484,020 individuals, aged 50-71 years who participated in the prospective National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study and were cancer free at baseline (1995-1996). History of diabetes was self-reported. Diet quality was measured with the Healthy Eating Index-2005 (HEI-2005), using a self-administered food-frequency questionnaire. Cox regression models were constructed to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of first primary incident colorectal cancer, overall and by anatomical location. Results: During an average follow-up of 9.2 years, we identified 7,598 new cases of colorectal cancer. After controlling for non-dietary confounders, diabetes was associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer (HR 1.27, 95% CI: 1.18, 1.36). Further adjustment for diet quality did not attenuate this association. Diabetes was associated with a HR of 1.23 (95% CI: 1.07, 1.40) in individuals with good diet (quartile 4 of HEI-2005) and 1.58 (95% CI: 1.34, 1.86) in those with poor diet (quartile 1 of HEI-2005), compared to those with no diabetes and good diet. Moreover, diabetes was associated with a stronger risk of proximal than distal colon cancer (HR: 1.33 vs. HR: 1.20), while poor diet was associated with a weaker risk of proximal colon cancer (HR: 1.18 vs. HR: 1.46). Conclusion: Diabetes and poor diet, independently and additively are associated with the increased risk of colorectal cancer.

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