4.7 Article

Long-term use of supplemental multivitamins, vitamin C, vitamin E, and folate does not reduce the risk of lung cancer

出版社

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.200709-1398OC

关键词

bronchial neoplasm; diet; dietary supplements; public health

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA74846] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States. Although supplements are used by half the population, limited information is available about their specific effect on lung cancer risk. Objectives: To explore the association of supplemental multivitamins, vitamin C, vitamin E, and folate with incident lung cancer. Methods: Prospective cohort of 77,721 men and women aged 50-76 years from Washington State in the VITAL (VITamins And Lifestyle) study. Cases were identified through the Seattle-Puget Sound SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) cancer registry. Measurements and Main Results: Hazard ratios (HRs) for incident lung cancer according to 10-year average daily use of supplemental multivitamins, vitamin C, vitamin E, and folate. A total of 521 cases of lung cancer were identified. Adjusting for smoking, age, and sex, there was no inverse association with any supplement. Supplemental vitamin E was associated with a small increased risk of lung cancer (HR, 1.05 for every 100-mg/d increase in dose; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.09; P = 0.033).This risk of supplemental vitamin E was largely confined to current smokers (HR, 1.11 for every 100-mg/d increase; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19; P < 0.01) and was greatest for non-small cell lung cancer (HR, 1.07 for every 1 00-mg/d increase; 95% CI, 1.02-1.12; P = 0.004). Conclusions- Supplemental multivitamins, vitamin C, vitamin E, and folate were not associated with a decreased risk of lung cancer. Supplemental vitamin E was associated with a small increased risk. Patients should be counseled against using these supplements to prevent lung cancer.

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