4.6 Article

Fish, Vitamin D, and Flavonoids in Relation to Renal Cell Cancer Among Smokers

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 170, 期 6, 页码 717-729

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwp178

关键词

carcinoma (renal cell); fish products; flavonoids; vitamin D

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health
  2. US Public Health Service [N01-CN-45165, N01-RC45035, N01-RC-37004]
  3. National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fish, vitamin D, flavonoids, and flavonoid-containing foods may have cardiovascular benefits and therefore may also reduce the risk of renal cell cancer. Risk was prospectively assessed in the Alpha-Tocopherol Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study (1985-2002) cohort (N = 27,111; 15.2 mean person-years of follow-up). At enrollment, demographic, health, and dietary history information was recorded. Individuals who smoked less than 5 cigarettes/day, with chronic renal insufficiency or prior cancer, were excluded. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals from Cox regression were used to compare upper quartiles (quartiles 2-4) with the lowest quartile (quartile 1) of dietary intake. Among 228 cases, risk (quartile 4 vs. quartile 1) was associated with consumption of the flavonoid quercetin (hazard ratio = 0.6, 95% confidence interval: 0.4, 0.9; P-trend = 0.015) and Baltic herring (hazard ratio = 2.0, 95% confidence interval: 1.4, 3.0; P-trend < 0.001), with adjustment for age, body mass index, smoking, blood pressure, alcohol use, physical activity, urban residence, and education. In geographically stratified models, the risks associated with herring and total fish intake appeared to be highest in the urban coast region, although the interaction was not statistically significant. These results suggest that the flavonoid quercetin may prevent renal cell cancer among male smokers. The possible risk associated with fish intake warrants further investigation before conclusions may be drawn.

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

4.6
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