| Literature DB >> 20596306 |
Lakshmi Labani1, B Andallu, M Meera, S Asthana, L Satyanarayana.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The uterine cervix is the second most common site of cancer among Indian women.Though the human papillomavirus has been demonstrated to be a causative agent for this cancer, a variety of other risk factors are in play, such as sexual and reproductive patterns, socioeconomic, hygienic practices, and diet. The accumulated evidence suggests that cervical cancer is preventable and is highly suitable for primary prevention. The dietary intake of antioxidants and vitamins like vitamin A, carotenoids, vitamin C, folacin and tocopherol is found to have protective effects against cancer of the cervix. Dietary data regarding cervical cancer are still scanty.Entities:
Keywords: Cervical cancer; food consumption; low socioeconomic women
Year: 2009 PMID: 20596306 PMCID: PMC2885877 DOI: 10.4103/0971-5851.60051
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol ISSN: 0971-5851
Sociodemographic factors responsible for cervical cancer
| Sociodemographic factors | Patients % ( | Controls % ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age at study (years) | |||
| 25–35 | 15 (9) | 11.7 (7) | N.S. |
| 36–45 | 33.3 (20) | 45 (27) | |
| 46–55 | 33.3 (20) | 31.6 (19) | |
| 56–65 | 18.4 (11) | 11.7 (7) | |
| Marital status | |||
| Single | 0.0 (0) | 0.0 (0) | N.S. |
| Married | 86.7 (52) | 76.7 (46) | |
| Divorced/widowed | 13.3 (8) | 23.3 (14) | |
| Educational status | |||
| Illiterate | 73.3 (44) | 70.0 (42) | N.S. |
| Primary level | 16.7 (10) | 13.3 (8) | |
| Secondary level | 6.7 (4) | 13.3 (8) | |
| Graduate | 1.7 (1) | 3.3 (2) | |
| Postgraduate | 1.7 (1) | 0.0 (0) | |
| Income (per capita) | |||
| Very poor (>300) | 8.3 (5) | 30.0 (18) | 0.002 |
| Poor (300–1,000) | 60.0 (36) | 61.7 (37) | |
| Low (1000–2,000) | 30.0 (18) | 6.7 (4) | |
| Medium (2,000–3,000) | 1.7 (1) | 1.7 (1) | |
| Religion | |||
| Hindu | 95.0 (57) | 40.0 (24) | <0.001 |
| Muslim | 5 (3) | 51.7 (31) | |
| Sikh | 0.0 (0) | 5.0 (3) | |
| Others | 0.0 (0) | 3.3 (2) |
N.S.: Not significant
Sexual and reproductive factors for cervical cancer cases and controls
| Sexual and reproductive factors | Patients ( | Controls ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 47.2 (10.3) | 45.8 (9.2) | N.S. |
| Age at marriage (years) | 14.4 (3.7) | 16.7 (4.2) | 0.001 |
| Age at first sexual intercourse (years) | 16.2 (1.9) | 17.5 (3.4) | 0.001 |
| Age at first child birth (years) | 19.4 (3.7) | 20.5 (4.0) | N.S. |
| Parity | |||
| 0–3 | 23.3% (14) | 41.6% (25) | 0.03 |
| >3 | 76.5% (46) | 58.3% (35) | |
| Menstrual history | |||
| Regular | 10% (6) | 30% (18) | <0.001 |
| Irregular | 21.7% (13) | 40% (24) | |
| Menopause | 68.3% (41) | 30% (18) | |
| Hygiene pattern (mat. used) | |||
| Sanitary napkins | 0% (0) | 1.7% (1) | N.S. |
| Homemade cloth pads | 31.7% (19) | 48.3% (29) | |
| N.A. | 68.3% (41) | 50% (30) | |
| Polygamous husband | |||
| Yes | 16.7% (10) | 0% (0) | 0.001 |
| No | 83.3% (50) | 100% (60) |
Mean (SD) values are given in parentheses. N.S.: not significant.
Frequency of consumption of various food items in cervical cancer cases and controls
| Frequency of consumption | Type | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case ( | Control ( | ||||
| Pulses | Frequent | No. | 22 | 15 | N.S. |
| % | 36.7 | 25.0 | |||
| Rare | No. | 38 | 45 | ||
| % | 63.3 | 75.0 | |||
| Green leafy vegetables | Frequent | No. | 10 | 7 | N.S. |
| % | 16.7 | 11.7 | |||
| Rare | No. | 50 | 53 | ||
| % | 83.3 | 88.3 | |||
| Tomato | Frequent | No. | 47 | 48 | N.S. |
| % | 78.3 | 80 | |||
| Rare | No. | 13 | 12 | ||
| % | 21.6 | 20 | |||
| Carrot | Frequent | No. | 9 | 15 | N.S. |
| % | 15.0 | 25.0 | |||
| Rare | No. | 51 | 45 | ||
| % | 85.0% | 75.0% | |||
| Pumpkin | Rare | No. | 60 | 60 | - |
| % | 100.0 | 100.0 | |||
| Other vegetables | Frequent | No. | 51 | 43 | N.S. |
| % | 85.0 | 71.7 | |||
| Rare | No. | 9 | 17 | ||
| % | 15.0 | 28.3 | |||
| Fruits | Frequent | No. | 27 | 19 | N.S. |
| % | 45.0 | 31.7 | |||
| Rare | No. | 33 | 41 | ||
| % | 55.0 | 68.3 | |||
| Milk products | Frequent | No. | 36 | 21 | 0.006 |
| % | 60.0 | 35.0 | |||
| Rare | No. | 24 | 39 | ||
| Eggs | Frequent | No. | 4 | 1 | N.S. |
| % | 6.7 | 1.7 | |||
| Rare | No. | 56 | 59 | ||
| % | 93.3 | 98.3 | |||
| Meat products | Frequent | No. | 6 | 3 | N.S. |
| % | 10.0 | 5.0 | |||
| Rare | No. | 54 | 57 | ||
| % | 90.0 | 95.0 | |||
N.S.: not significant.
Nutrient intake levels in cervical cancer cases and controls
| Type | Statistics | Energy | Protein | Fat | Calcium | Fe | Mg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case | Median | 867.2 | 25.6 | 25.2 | 181.1 | 7.4 | 174.2 |
| Minimum | 108.9 | 2.3 | 0.8 | 43.5 | 1.0 | 21.9 | |
| Maximum | 2,434.5 | 69.9 | 166.5 | 1,204.9 | 21.4 | 464.0 | |
| Control | Median | 764.5 | 22.0 | 22.2 | 164.0 | 7.6 | 174.7 |
| Minimum | 309.7 | 10.8 | 1.8 | 78.9 | 2.4 | 24.8 | |
| Maximum | 1,680.1 | 45.1 | 61.1 | 675.7 | 18.1 | 385.2 | |
| 0.057 | 0.17 | 0.056 | 0.09 | 0.69 | 0.56 | ||
| Case | Median | 0.9 | 3.1 | 183.3 | 45.0 | 0.6 | 0.3 |
| Minimum | 0.1 | 0.2 | 19.9 | 5.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | |
| Maximum | 2.3 | 8.1 | 3,108.5 | 794.4 | 1.8 | 1.2 | |
| Control | Median | 0.9 | 3.4 | 141.1 | 35.3 | 0.6 | 0.3 |
| Minimum | 0.2 | 0.3 | 60.6 | 15.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | |
| Maximum | 37.6 | 251.9 | 1,438.5 | 359.6 | 1.3 | 30.7 | |
| 0.94 | 0.68 | 0.098 | 0.15 | 0.55 | 0.63 | ||
| Case | Median | 5.1 | 0.0 | 20.3 | 23.8 | 0.1 | 123.3 |
| Minimum | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Maximum | 17.6 | 0.6 | 165.7 | 387.2 | 1.2 | 396.5 | |
| Control | Median | 5.0 | 0.0 | 14.8 | 15.6 | 0.1 | 98.1 |
| Minimum | 2.1 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 2.6 | 0.0 | 31.5 | |
| Maximum | 15.4 | 0.3 | 105.9 | 368.3 | 0.8 | 455.0 | |
| 0.87 | 0.37 | 0.048 | 0.095 | 0.098 | 0.11 |
Statistical significance is evaluated by the Mann–Whitney U–test.
indicates significance.
Mean serum vitamin status in cervical cancer cases and controls
| Parameters | ||
|---|---|---|
| Vitamin C (mg/dl) | Vitamin E (mg/dl) | |
| Case ( | Case ( | |
| Mean ± SD | 0.10 ± 0.07, 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.59 ± 0.11, 0.76 ± 0.08 |
| Normal range | 0.2–1.9 | 0.3–1.2 |