4.7 Article

Pre-diagnostic cruciferous vegetables intake and lung cancer survival among Chinese women

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/srep10306

关键词

-

资金

  1. Shanghai Health Bureau Key Disciplines and Specialties Foundation
  2. United States National Institutes of Health [R37 CA070867]
  3. Fogarty International Clinical Research Scholars and Fellows Support Center at the Vanderbilt Institute for Global Health
  4. Fogarty International Center, NIH [D43 TW008313]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

No study to date has prospectively evaluated the association between pre-diagnostic cruciferous vegetables intake and lung cancer survival among women. This analysis included 547 incident lung cancer cases identified from the Shanghai Women's Health Study (SWHS) during the follow-up period of 1997-2011. Dietary intake was assessed for all SWHS participants at enrollment and reassessed 2-3 years later. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with adjustment for potential confounders. Of the 547 lung cancer patients, 412 patients died during the follow-up. A total of 393 (95.4%) deaths from lung cancer were documented with median survival time of 10.3 months (interquartile range, 3.6-21.1 months). High cruciferous vegetables intake was significantly associated with improved lung cancer-specific survival after adjusting for all nonclinical prognostic factors (n = 547, HR = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.49-0.95; P trend = 0.02) for the highest versus lowest quartile. A slightly stronger association of cruciferous vegetables intake with lung cancer-specific survival was observed in analyses restricted to patients with known clinical prognostic factors (n = 331, HR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.41-0.97; P trend = 0.03) or never smokers (n = 308, HR = 0.58; 95% CI = 0.37-0.91; P trend = 0.02). In conclusion, pre-diagnostic cruciferous vegetables intake is associated with better survival of lung cancer in Chinese women.

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