18 May 2018 In Cancer

Importance: Inflammation is important in colorectal cancer development. Diet modulates inflammation and may thus be a crucial modifiable factor in colorectal cancer prevention.

Objective: To examine whether proinflammatory diets are associated with increased colorectal cancer risk by using an empirical dietary inflammatory pattern (EDIP) score based on a weighted sum of 18 food groups that characterizes dietary inflammatory potential based on circulating levels of inflammation biomarkers.

Design, Settings, and Participants: Cohort study of 46804 men (Health Professionals Follow-up Study: 1986-2012) and 74246 women (Nurses' Health Study: 1984-2012) followed for 26 years to examine associations between EDIP scores and colorectal cancer risk using Cox regression. We also examined associations in categories of alcohol intake and body weight. Data analysis began January 17, 2017, and was completed August 9, 2017.

Exposures: EDIP scores calculated from food frequency questionnaires administered every 4 years.

Main Outcomes and Measures: Incident colorectal cancer.

Results: We documented 2699 incident colorectal cancer cases over 2571831 person-years of follow-up. Compared with participants in the lowest EDIP quintile (Q) who had a colorectal cancer incidence rate (per 100000 person-years) of 113 (men) and 80 (women), those in the highest Q had an incidence rate of 151 (men) and 92 (women), leading to an unadjusted rate difference of 38 and 12 more colorectal cancer cases, respectively, among those consuming highly proinflammatory diets. Comparing participants in the highest vs lowest EDIP Qs in multivariable-adjusted analyses, higher EDIP scores were associated with 44% (men: hazard ratio [HR], 1.44; 95% CI, 1.19-1.74; P < .001 for trend), 22% (women: HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.02-1.45; P = .007 for trend), and 32% (men and women: pooled HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12-1.55; P < .001 for trend) higher risk of developing colorectal cancer. In both men and women, associations were observed in all anatomic subsites except for the rectum in women. In subgroups (P </= .02 for all interactions), associations differed by alcohol intake level, with stronger associations among men (Q5 vs Q1 HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.05-2.49; P = .002 for trend) and women (Q5 vs Q1 HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.97-1.81; P = .03 for trend) not consuming alcohol; and by body weight, with stronger associations among overweight/obese men (Q5 vs Q1 HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.12-1.94; P = .008 for trend) and lean women (Q5 vs Q1 HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.99-1.74; P = .01 for trend).

Conclusions and Relevance: Findings suggest that inflammation is a potential mechanism linking dietary patterns and colorectal cancer development. Interventions to reduce the adverse role of proinflammatory diets may be more effective among overweight/obese men and lean women or men and women who do not consume alcohol.

18 May 2018 In Cancer

Recent evidence suggested a weak relationship between alcohol consumption and pancreatic cancer (PC) risk. In our study, the association between lifetime and baseline alcohol intakes and the risk of PC was evaluated, including the type of alcoholic beverages and potential interaction with smoking. Within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study, 1,283 incident PC (57% women) were diagnosed from 476,106 cancer-free participants, followed up for 14 years. Amounts of lifetime and baseline alcohol were estimated through lifestyle and dietary questionnaires, respectively. Cox proportional hazard models with age as primary time variable were used to estimate PC hazard ratios (HR) and their 95% confidence interval (CI). Alcohol intake was positively associated with PC risk in men. Associations were mainly driven by extreme alcohol levels, with HRs comparing heavy drinkers (>60 g/day) to the reference category (0.1-4.9 g/day) equal to 1.77 (95% CI: 1.06, 2.95) and 1.63 (95% CI: 1.16, 2.29) for lifetime and baseline alcohol, respectively. Baseline alcohol intakes from beer (>40 g/day) and spirits/liquors (>10 g/day) showed HRs equal to 1.58 (95% CI: 1.07, 2.34) and 1.41 (95% CI: 1.03, 1.94), respectively, compared to the reference category (0.1-2.9 g/day). In women, HR estimates did not reach statistically significance. The alcohol and PC risk association was not modified by smoking status. Findings from a large prospective study suggest that baseline and lifetime alcohol intakes were positively associated with PC risk, with more apparent risk estimates for beer and spirits/liquors than wine intake.

03 May 2018 In Pregnant Women
Women who drink light-to-moderately during pregnancy have been observed to have lower risk of unfavourable pregnancy outcomes than abstainers. This has been suggested to be a result of bias. In a pooled sample, including 193 747 live-born singletons from nine European cohorts, we examined the associations between light-to-moderate drinking and preterm birth, birth weight, and small-for-gestational age in term born children (term SGA). To address potential sources of bias, we compared the associations from the total sample with a sub-sample restricted to first-time pregnant women who conceived within six months of trying, and examined whether the associations varied across calendar time. In the total sample, drinking up to around six drinks per week as compared to abstaining was associated with lower risk of preterm birth, whereas no significant associations were found for birth weight or term SGA. Drinking six or more drinks per week was associated with lower birth weight and higher risk of term SGA, but no increased risk of preterm birth. The analyses restricted to women without reproductive experience revealed similar results. Before 2000 approximately half of pregnant women drank alcohol. This decreased to 39% in 2000-2004, and 14% in 2005-2011. Before 2000, every additional drink was associated with reduced mean birth weight, whereas in 2005-2011, the mean birth weight increased with increasing intake. The period-specific associations between low-to-moderate drinking and birth weight, which also were observed for term SGA, are indicative of bias. It is impossible to distinguish if the bias is attributable to unmeasured confounding, which change over time or cohort heterogeneity
03 May 2018 In Pregnant Women
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of low-to-moderate levels of maternal alcohol consumption in pregnancy on pregnancy and longer-term offspring outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Psychinfo from inception to 11 July 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Prospective observational studies, negative control and quasiexperimental studies of pregnant women estimating effects of light drinking in pregnancy (=32 g/week) versus abstaining. Pregnancy outcomes such as birth weight and features of fetal alcohol syndrome were examined. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer extracted data and another checked extracted data. Random effects meta-analyses were performed where applicable, and a narrative summary of findings was carried out otherwise. MAIN RESULTS: 24 cohort and two quasiexperimental studies were included. With the exception of birth size and gestational age, there was insufficient data to meta-analyse or make robust conclusions. Odds of small for gestational age (SGA) and preterm birth were higher for babies whose mothers consumed up to 32 g/week versus none, but estimates for preterm birth were also compatible with no association: summary OR 1.08, 95% CI (1.02 to 1.14), I2 0%, (seven studies, all estimates were adjusted) OR 1.10, 95% CI (0.95 to 1.28), I2 60%, (nine studies, includes one unadjusted estimates), respectively. The earliest time points of exposure were used in the analysis. CONCLUSION: Evidence of the effects of drinking =32 g/week in pregnancy is sparse. As there was some evidence that even light prenatal alcohol consumption is associated with being SGA and preterm delivery, guidance could advise abstention as a precautionary principle but should explain the paucity of evidence
Page 3 of 266


The authors have taken reasonable care in ensuring the accuracy of the information herein at the time of publication and are not responsible for any errors or omissions. Read more on our disclaimer and Privacy Policy.