4.5 Article

Calcium, vitamin D, and apoptosis in the rectal epithelium

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 525-528

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-04-0466

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA44684] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK34987] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Decreased apoptosis in the colon is potentially an early indicator of colon cancer risk and may be influenced by calcium and vitamin D. This report describes the associations of calcium intake and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels with apoptosis in colorectal epithelium. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopies were recruited for a study designed to examine risk and etiologic factors for colorectal adenomas. Diet was assessed by food frequency questionnaire, and in one subpopulation, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were measured using an enzyme immunoassay. Apoptosis was scored from normal rectal mucosal pinch biopsies. Linear and logistic regression analyses were used to examine associations between calcium, serum vitamin D, and apoptotic scores. Data were available for 498 and 280 patients for the calcium and vitamin D analyses, respectively. Results: Associations of calcium intake and vitamin D with apoptosis were modified by adenoma case-status. In an adjusted logistic regression model, patients with adenomas in the highest versus lowest tertile of dietary calcium intake had 3.4 times higher odds [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.9-12.9] of elevated apoptotic scores. In adenoma-free patients, high calcium intake was not related to apoptosis (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.6-2.7). In contrast, the highest level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D was associated with higher apoptosis in adenoma-free patients (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-6.2) and slightly lower levels in patients with adenomas (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.2-2.2). Conclusion: These results are consistent with a calcium and vitamin D-mediated apoptotic mechanism in colon carcinogenesis.

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

4.5
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