4.3 Article

Baseline serum folate, vitamin B12 and the risk of prostate and breast cancer using data from the Swedish AMORIS cohort

期刊

CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL
卷 30, 期 6, 页码 603-615

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10552-019-01170-6

关键词

Prostate cancer (PCa); Breast cancer (BC); Vitamin B12; Folate; Severity

资金

  1. Swedish Cancer Society
  2. Gunnar and Ingmar Jungner Foundation for Laboratory Medicine, Stockholm, Sweden
  3. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeThe roles of folate and vitamin B12 in prostate cancer (PCa) or breast cancer (BC) development are unclear. We investigated their roles using the prospective Swedish Apolipoprotein MOrtality RISk (AMORIS) study.Methods8,783 men and 19,775 women with vitamin B12 and folate serum measurements were included. Their associations with PCa and BC risk categories were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression.ResultsDuring mean follow-up of 13years, 703 men developed PCa. There was an inverse association between folate>32nmol/L and high-risk PCa [hazard ratio (HR) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02-0.90], and a positive association between folate<5nmol/L and metastatic PCa (HR 5.25, 95% CI 1.29-21.41), compared with folate 5-32nmol/L. No associations with vitamin B12 were found. 795 women developed BC during mean follow-up of 14years. When restricting to the fasting population, there was a positive association between folate>32nmol/L and BC (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.06-2.04).ConclusionHigh folate levels may protect against PCa and low folate levels may increase risk of metastatic PCa. High fasting folate levels may be associated with an increased BC risk. Vitamin B12 was not found to be linked with risk of PCa or BC. Longitudinal studies with serum and dietary information could help define new prevention targets and add information on the role of folate fortification.

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

4.3
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