4.7 Article

Omega-3 Fatty Acids Survey in Men under Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: from Intake to Prostate Tissue Level

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 11, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu11071616

关键词

Omega-3 fatty acids; Eicosapentaenoic acid; Gleason score; High-grade prostate cancer; Active surveillance

资金

  1. Fonds de recherche du Quebec en sante (FRQS)
  2. Canadian Urological Association (CUA Foundation Scholarship Grant)
  3. American Urological Association
  4. Prostate Cancer Canada
  5. Fondation du Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) de Quebec

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dietary omega-3 fatty acids (omega 3), particularly long-chain omega 3 (LC omega 3), have protective effects against prostate cancer (PCa) in experimental studies. Observational studies are conflicting, possibly because of the biomarker used. This study aimed at evaluating associations between grade reclassification and omega 3 levels assessed in prostatic tissue, red blood cells (RBC), and diet. We conducted a validation cross-sectional study nested within a phase II clinical trial. We identified 157 men diagnosed with low-risk PCa who underwent a first active surveillance repeat prostate biopsy session. Fatty acid (FA) intake was assessed using a food frequency questionnaire and their levels measured in prostate tissue and RBC. Associations were evaluated using logistic regression. At first repeat biopsy session, 39 (25%) men had high-grade PCa (grade group >= 2). We found that high LC omega 3-eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) level in prostate tissue (odds ratio (OR) 0.25; 95% (confidence interval (CI) 0.08-0.79; p-trend = 0.03) was associated with lower odds of high-grade PCa. Similar results were observed for LC omega 3 dietary intake (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.11-0.83; p-trend = 0.02) but no association for RBC. LC omega 3-EPA levels in the target prostate tissue are inversely associated with high-grade PCa in men with low-risk PCa, supporting that prostate tissue FA, but not RBC FA, is a reliable biomarker of PCa risk.

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