4.3 Article

Dietary B vitamin and methionine intakes and lung cancer risk among female never smokers in China

期刊

CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL
卷 23, 期 12, 页码 1965-1975

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10552-012-0074-z

关键词

B vitamins; Methionine; Lung cancer; Never smokers; Women

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [R37CA070867]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

B vitamins and methionine have been postulated to have potential effects on carcinogenesis; however, findings from previous epidemiologic studies on B vitamins, methionine, and lung cancer risk are inconsistent. We investigated associations of dietary intakes of B vitamins (i.e., riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B6, folate, and vitamin B12) and methionine with lung cancer risk among female never smokers. The Shanghai Women's Health Study, a population-based, prospective cohort study, included 74,941 women. During a median follow-up of 11.2 years, 428 incident lung cancer cases accrued among 71,267 women with no history of smoking or cancer at baseline. Baseline dietary intakes were derived from a validated, interviewer-administered food frequency questionnaire. Cancer incidence and vital status were ascertained through annual linkage to the Shanghai Cancer Registry and Shanghai Vital Statistics Registry databases and through biennial in-person follow-ups with participants. Adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using Cox regression. Dietary riboflavin intake was inversely associated with lung cancer risk (HR = 0.62; 95 % CI = 0.43-0.89; p trend = 0.03 for the highest quartile compared with the lowest). A higher than median intake of methionine was associated with lower risk of lung cancer (HR = 0.78; 95 % CI = 0.60-0.99); however, there was no dose-response relation. Intakes of other B vitamins were not associated with lung cancer risk. Our study suggests that dietary riboflavin intake may be inversely associated with lung cancer risk among female never smokers, which warrants further investigation.

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

4.3
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