4.3 Article

Green tea drinking and risk of pancreatic cancer: A large-scale, population-based case-control study in urban Shanghai

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 36, 期 6, 页码 E354-E358

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2012.08.004

关键词

Pancreatic cancer; Tea; Case-control study; China

资金

  1. U.S. National Cancer Institute [5R01CA114421]
  2. Science and Technology Commission of the Shanghai Municipality [08411954100]
  3. Shanghai Municipal Health Bureau [20114080]
  4. Shanghai Cancer Institute [SB10-06]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Little is known about the etiology of pancreatic cancer. Epidemiological studies on tea consumption and pancreatic cancer risk have been inconclusive. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the association between green tea drinking and the risk of pancreatic cancer in urban Shanghai, China. Methods: In this population-based case-control study conducted in urban Shanghai, 908 cases of pancreatic cancer and 1067 healthy controls were recruited. Information on tea drinking, including type of tea, amount of tea consumption, temperature of tea, and the duration of regular tea drinking, were collected via interview questionnaire. Results: We examined the association of multiple tea drinking habits with the risk of pancreatic cancer. In women, regular green tea drinking was associated with 32% reduction of pancreatic cancer risk (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.96), compared to those who did not drink tea regularly. Increased consumption and longer duration of tea drinking were both associated with reduced pancreatic cancer risk in women. Among regular tea drinkers, lower temperature of tea was associated with reduced risk of pancreatic cancer in both men and women, independent of amount or duration of tea drinking. Conclusions: Habits of green tea drinking, including regular drinking, amount of consumption, persistence of the habit, and tea temperature, may lower pancreatic cancer risk. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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