4.7 Article

Processed meat consumption, dietary nitrosamines and stomach cancer risk in a cohort of Swedish women

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 119, 期 4, 页码 915-919

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.21925

关键词

cohort studies; diet; gastric cancer; meat; nitrosamines; poultry; prospective studies; stomach cancer

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Processed meat consumption has been associated with ail increased risk of stomach cancer in some epidemiological studies (mainly case-control). Nitrosamines may be responsible for this association, but few studies have directly examined nitrosamine intake in relation to stomach cancer risk. We prospectively investigated the associations between intakes of processed meant. other meats and N-nitrosodimethylamine (the most frequently occurring nitrosamine in foods) with risk of stomach cancer among 61,433 women who were enrolled in the population-based Swedish Mammography Cohort. Information on diet was collected at baseline (between 1987 and 1990) and updated in 1997. During 18 years of follow-up, 156 incident cases of stomach cancer were ascertained. High consumption of processed meat, but not or other meats (i.e.. red meat, fish and poultry), was associated with a statistically significant increased risk 4 stomach cancer. After adjustment for potential confounders, the hazard ratios for the highest compared with the lowest category of intake were 1.66 (95% CI = 1.17-2.4-5) for all processed meats, 1.55 (95% CI = 1.00-2.41) for bacon or side pork, 1.50 (95% CI = 0.93-2.41) for sausage or hotdogs and 1.48 (95% CI= 0.99-2.22) for ham or salami. Stomach cancer risk was 2-fold higher among women in the top quintile of N-nitrosodimethylamine intake when compared with those in the bottom quintile (hazard ratio = 1.96; 95% CI = 1.08-3.58). Our findings suggest that high consumption of processed meat may increase the risk of stomach cancer. Dietary nitrosainines might be responsible for the positive association. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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