Cruciferous vegetable intake is inversely associated with lung cancer risk among smokers: a case-control study
Tang L, Zirpoli GR, Jayaprakash V, Reid ME, McCann SE, Nwogu CE, Zhang Y, Ambrosone CB, Moysich KB
BMC cancer · 45 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Case-control study (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Clinical events such as disease or death
- Intake measured by
- Not stated
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- Government
- National Cancer Institute
- Government
- NCI NIH HHS
- Grants
- National Cancer Institute (R25CA114101)
Based on 2 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.
Publication
- Published
- 2010-04-27 · BMC Cancer · vol. 10 · issue 1 · p. 162
- Publisher
- BioMed Central
- Cited
- 67 citations · more than 91% of similar papers · 2.8× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 35 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Genomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stress · Glutathione Transferases and Polymorphisms · Antioxidant Activity and Oxidative Stress
- Keywords
- Cruciferous vegetables, Medicine, Lung cancer, Case-control study, Cancer, Internal medicine, Cancer prevention, Environmental health, Physiology
- MeSH
- humans, brassicaceae, vegetables, lung neoplasms, isothiocyanates, anticarcinogenic agents, registries, logistic models, odds ratio, risk assessment, risk factors, chi-square distribution, case-control studies, feeding behavior, smoking, smoking cessation, adult, aged, aged, 80 and over, middle aged, smoking prevention
9 authors
From US
- Li Tang · correspondingRoswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center
- Gary ZirpoliRoswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center
- Vijayvel JayaprakashRoswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center
- Mary E. ReidRoswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center
- Susan E. McCannRoswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center
- Chukwumere E. NwoguRoswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center
Abstract
Background
Inverse associations between cruciferous vegetable intake and lung cancer risk have been consistently reported. However, associations within smoking status subgroups have not been consistently addressed.
Methods
We conducted a hospital-based case-control study with lung cancer cases and controls matched on smoking status, and further adjusted for smoking status, duration, and intensity in the multivariate models. A total of 948 cases and 1743 controls were included in the analysis.
Results
Inverse linear trends were observed between intake of fruits, total vegetables, and cruciferous vegetables and risk of lung cancer (ORs ranged from 0.53-0.70, with P for trend < 0.05). Interestingly, significant associations were observed for intake of fruits and total vegetables with lung cancer among never smokers. Conversely, significant inverse associations with cruciferous vegetable intake were observed primarily among smokers, in particular former smokers, although significant interactions were not detected between smoking and intake of any food group. Of four lung cancer histological subtypes, significant inverse associations were observed primarily among patients with squamous or small cell carcinoma - the two subtypes more strongly associated with heavy smoking.
Conclusions
Our findings are consistent with the smoking-related carcinogen-modulating effect of isothiocyanates, a group of phytochemicals uniquely present in cruciferous vegetables. Our data support consumption of a diet rich in cruciferous vegetables may reduce the risk of lung cancer among smokers.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.