4.3 Article

Dietary inflammatory index, Mediterranean diet score, and lung cancer: a prospective study

期刊

CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL
卷 27, 期 7, 页码 907-917

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10552-016-0770-1

关键词

Diet; Inflammation; Lung cancer; Prospective; Smoking; Epidemiology

资金

  1. VicHealth
  2. Cancer Council Victoria
  3. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council [209057, 251553, 1050198]
  4. United States National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [R44DK103377]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To investigate prospectively the associations of Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII) and Mediterranean Diet Score (MDS) with lung cancer. Methods We used data from men and women aged 40-69 years at recruitment in 1990-1994, who were participants in the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (n = 35,303). A total of 403 incident lung cancer cases were identified over an average 18-year follow-up. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated using Cox regression, adjusting for smoking status and other risk factors, with age as the time metric. Results An inverse correlation was observed between the DII and MDS (rho = -0.45), consistent with a higher DII being pro-inflammatory and less 'healthy,' while a high MDS reflects a 'healthier' diet. The DII was positively associated with risk of lung cancer in current smokers [HRQ4 (vs) (Q1) = 1.70 (1.02, 2.82); P-trend = 0.008] (p interaction between DII quartiles and smoking status = 0.03). The MDS was inversely associated with lung cancer risk overall [HR7-9 (vs 0-3) = 0.64 (0.45, 0.90); P-trend = 0.005] and for current smokers (HR7-9 vs 0-3 = 0.38 (0.19, 0.75); P-trend = 0.005) (p interaction between MDS categories and smoking status = 0.31). Conclusions The MDS showed an inverse association with lung cancer risk, especially for current smokers. A high DII, indicating a more pro-inflammatory diet, was associated with risk of lung cancer only for current smokers. A healthy diet may reduce the risk of lung cancer, especially in smokers.

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