0
selected
-
1.
Meta-analysis of 16 studies of the association of alcohol with colorectal cancer.
McNabb, S, Harrison, TA, Albanes, D, Berndt, SI, Brenner, H, Caan, BJ, Campbell, PT, Cao, Y, Chang-Claude, J, Chan, A, et al
International journal of cancer. 2020;(3):861-873
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Alcohol consumption is an established risk factor for colorectal cancer (CRC). However, while studies have consistently reported elevated risk of CRC among heavy drinkers, associations at moderate levels of alcohol consumption are less clear. We conducted a combined analysis of 16 studies of CRC to examine the shape of the alcohol-CRC association, investigate potential effect modifiers of the association, and examine differential effects of alcohol consumption by cancer anatomic site and stage. We collected information on alcohol consumption for 14,276 CRC cases and 15,802 controls from 5 case-control and 11 nested case-control studies of CRC. We compared adjusted logistic regression models with linear and restricted cubic splines to select a model that best fit the association between alcohol consumption and CRC. Study-specific results were pooled using fixed-effects meta-analysis. Compared to non-/occasional drinking (≤1 g/day), light/moderate drinking (up to 2 drinks/day) was associated with a decreased risk of CRC (odds ratio [OR]: 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88-0.98, p = 0.005), heavy drinking (2-3 drinks/day) was not significantly associated with CRC risk (OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.99-1.24, p = 0.08) and very heavy drinking (more than 3 drinks/day) was associated with a significant increased risk (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.11-1.40, p < 0.001). We observed no evidence of interactions with lifestyle risk factors or of differences by cancer site or stage. These results provide further evidence that there is a J-shaped association between alcohol consumption and CRC risk. This overall pattern was not significantly modified by other CRC risk factors and there was no effect heterogeneity by tumor site or stage.
-
2.
Different dietary fibre sources and risks of colorectal cancer and adenoma: a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies.
Oh, H, Kim, H, Lee, DH, Lee, A, Giovannucci, EL, Kang, SS, Keum, N
The British journal of nutrition. 2019;(6):605-615
Abstract
Dietary fibre is believed to provide important health benefits including protection from colorectal cancer. However, the evidence on the relationships with different dietary fibre sources is mixed and little is known about which fibre source provides the greatest benefits. We conducted a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohorts to summarise the relationships of different fibre sources with colorectal cancer and adenoma risks. Analyses were restricted to publications that reported all fibre sources (cereals, vegetables, fruits, legumes) to increase comparability between results. PubMed and Embase were searched through August 2018 to identify relevant studies. The summary relative risks (RR) and 95 % CI were estimated using a random-effects model. This analysis included a total of ten prospective studies. The summary RR of colorectal cancer associated with each 10 g/d increase in fibre intake were 0·91 (95 % CI 0·82, 1·00; I2 = 0 %) for cereal fibre, 0·95 (95 % CI 0·87, 1·03, I2 = 0 %) for vegetable fibre, 0·91 (95 % CI 0·78, 1·06, I2 = 43 %) for fruit fibre and 0·84 (95 % CI 0·63, 1·13, I2 = 45 %) for legume fibre. For cereal fibre, the association with colorectal cancer risk remained statistically significant after adjustment for folate intake (RR 0·89, 95 % CI 0·80, 0·99, I2 = 2 %). For vegetable and fruit fibres, the dose-response curve suggested evidence of non-linearity. All fibre sources were inversely associated with incident adenoma (per 10 g/d increase: RR 0·81 (95 % CI 0·54, 1·21) cereals, 0·84 (95 % CI 0·71, 0·98) for vegetables, 0·78 (95 % CI 0·65, 0·93) for fruits) but not associated with recurrent adenoma. Our data suggest that, although all fibre sources may provide some benefits, the evidence for colorectal cancer prevention is strongest for fibre from cereals/grains.
-
3.
Genome-wide association study of colorectal cancer identifies six new susceptibility loci.
Schumacher, FR, Schmit, SL, Jiao, S, Edlund, CK, Wang, H, Zhang, B, Hsu, L, Huang, SC, Fischer, CP, Harju, JF, et al
Nature communications. 2015;:7138
Abstract
Genetic susceptibility to colorectal cancer is caused by rare pathogenic mutations and common genetic variants that contribute to familial risk. Here we report the results of a two-stage association study with 18,299 cases of colorectal cancer and 19,656 controls, with follow-up of the most statistically significant genetic loci in 4,725 cases and 9,969 controls from two Asian consortia. We describe six new susceptibility loci reaching a genome-wide threshold of P<5.0E-08. These findings provide additional insight into the underlying biological mechanisms of colorectal cancer and demonstrate the scientific value of large consortia-based genetic epidemiology studies.
-
4.
Calcium intake and colorectal cancer risk: dose-response meta-analysis of prospective observational studies.
Keum, N, Aune, D, Greenwood, DC, Ju, W, Giovannucci, EL
International journal of cancer. 2014;(8):1940-8
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Mechanistic and epidemiologic studies provide considerable evidence for a protective association between calcium intake and incident colorectal cancer (CRC). While the relationship has not been substantiated by short-duration randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CRC, trials do show a benefit on adenomas, a precursor to CRC. To address some of this inconsistency, we conducted dose-response meta-analyses by sources of calcium intake, based on prospective observational studies published up to December 2013 identified from PubMed, Embase, and BIOSIS. Summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. For total calcium intake, each 300 mg/day increase was associated with an approximately 8% reduced risk of CRC (summary RR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.89-0.95, I(2) = 47%, 15 studies with 12,305 cases, intake = 250-1,900 mg/day, follow-up = 3.3-16 years). While the risk decreased less steeply in higher range of total calcium intake (P(non-linearity) = 0.04), the degree of curvature was mild and statistical significance of non-linearity was sensitive to one study. For supplementary calcium, each 300 mg/day increase was associated with an approximately 9% reduced risk of CRC (summary RR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.86-0.98, I(2) = 67%, six studies with 8,839 cases, intake = 0-1,150 mg/day, follow-up = 5-10 years). The test for non-linearity was not statistically significant (P(non-linearity) = 0.11). In conclusion, both dietary and supplementary calcium intake may continue to decrease CRC risk beyond 1,000 mg/day. Calcium supplements and non-dairy products fortified with calcium may serve as additional targets in the prevention of CRC. RCTs of calcium supplements with at least 10 years of follow-up are warranted to confirm a benefit of calcium supplements on CRC risk.