4.7 Article

Milk and lactose intakes and ovarian cancer risk in the Swedish Mammography Cohort1-3

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 80, 期 5, 页码 1353-1357

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL NUTRITION
DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/80.5.1353

关键词

ovarian cancer; milk; lactose; galactose; diet; epidemiology; cohort studies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: High intakes of dairy products and of the milk sugar lactose have been hypothesized to increase ovarian cancer risk, but prospective data are scarce. Objective: We examined the association between intakes of dairy products and lactose and the risk of total epithelial ovarian cancer and its subtypes. Design: This was a prospective population-based cohort Study of 61084 women aged 38-76 y who were enrolled in the Swedish Mammography Cohort. Diet was assessed in 1987-1990 with the use of a self-administered food-frequency questionnaire. During an average follow-up of 13.5 y 266 women were diagnosed with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer: 125 of those women had serous ovarian cancer. Results: After adjustment for potential confounders, women who consumed greater than or equal to4 servings of total dairy products/d had a risk of serous ovarian cancer (rate ratio: 2.0: 95% CI: 1.1 3.7; P for trend = 0.06) twice that of women who consumed <2 servings/d. No significant association was found for other subtypes of ovarian cancer. Milk was the dairy product with the strongest positive association with serous ovarian cancer (rate ratio comparing consuming greater than or equal to2 glasses milk/d with consuming milk never or seldom: 2.0; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.7; P for trend = 0.04). We observed a positive association between lactose intake and serous ovarian cancer risk (P for trend = 0.006). Conclusions: Our data indicate that hi-h intakes of lactose and dairy products, particularly milk. are associated with an increased risk of serous ovarian cancer but not of other subtypes of ovarian cancer. Future studies should consider ovarian cancer subtypes separately.

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