4.4 Article

Different forms and sources of iron in relation to colorectal cancer risk: a case-control study in China

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 121, 期 7, 页码 735-747

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114519000023

关键词

Iron; Haem iron; Non-haem iron; Iron from red meat; Colorectal cancer

资金

  1. Guangdong Natural Science Foundation [2016A030313225, 2014A030313188]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Few studies have examined the association of various types of Fe with colorectal cancer risk. The aim of this study was to investigate different forms and sources of Fe in relation to colorectal cancer risk in a Chinese population. A total of 2138 patients with colorectal cancer and 2144 sex- and age-matched (5-year interval) controls were recruited from July 2010 to November 2017. Dietary information was assessed by face-to-face interviews using a validated FFQ. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the OR and 95 % CI on models. Intake of Fe from plants and Fe from white meat were inversely associated with the risk of colorectal cancer, while haem Fe and Fe from red meat were positively associated with colorectal cancer risk. The multivariable OR for the highest quartile v. the lowest quartile were 0 center dot 72 (95 % CI 0 center dot 59, 0 center dot 87, P-trend<0 center dot 001) for Fe from plants, 0 center dot 54 (95 % CI 0 center dot 45, 0 center dot 66, P-trend<0 center dot 001) for Fe from white meat, 1 center dot 26 (95 % CI 1 center dot 04, 1 center dot 53, P-trend=0 center dot 005) for haem Fe and 1 center dot 83 (95 % CI 1 center dot 49, 2 center dot 24, P-trend<0 center dot 001) for Fe from red meat intake, respectively. However, no significant association was found between the consumption of total dietary Fe, non-haem Fe, Fe from meat and colorectal cancer risk. This study showed that lower intake of Fe from plants and white meat, as well as higher intake of haem Fe and Fe from red meat, were associated with colorectal cancer risk in a Chinese population.

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

4.4
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