4.3 Article

Intakes of selected nutrients, foods, and phytochemicals and prostate cancer risk in western New York

期刊

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1207/s15327914nc5301_4

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A number of epidemiological studies have suggested that diet may affect the etiology of prostate cancer, but few have investigated the impact of phytochemical intakes on this cancer We conducted a case-control study of diet and prostate cancer in western New York involving 433 men with primary, histologically confirmed prostate cancer and 538 population-based controls, frequency matched to cases on age and county of residence. Diet was assessed with a detailed food-frequency questionnaire. We calculated daily intakes of nutrients and the phytochemicals P-sitosterol, campesterol, stigmasterol, total phytosterols, total lignan precursors, quercetin, and kaempferol based on published food composition data. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) describing the association of prostate cancer risk with selected nutrients, phytochemicals, and food groups were estimated with unconditional logistic regression. Compared with men in the lowest quartile of intake, reduced risks were observed for men in the highest quartile of intake of vitamin C (OR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.33-0.74), beta-carotene (OR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.36-0.79), alpha-carotene (OR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.47-0.97), lutein (OR = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.37-0.81), lycopene (OR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.42-0.92), total lignan precursors (OR = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.47-0.94), quercetin (OR = 0. 64; 95% CI = 0.44-0.92), and total vegetables (OR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.36-0.79), but weak increased risks were observed for snacks and sweets (OR = 1.46; 95% CI = 0.95-2.23). Estimates associated with nutrients and phytochemicals were attenuated after adjustment for total vegetable intake. Nevertheless, our results support the hypothesis that a phytochemical-rich, plant-based diet is of importance in reducing risks of hormone-related neoplasms.

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