BACKGROUND: Supplement use among cancer patients is high, and folic acid intake in particular may adversely affect the progression of colorectal cancer. Few studies have evaluated the use of folic acid-containing supplements (FAS) and its predictors in colorectal cancer patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of FAS, change in use, and its predictors after colorectal cancer diagnosis. DESIGN: We used logistic regression models to investigate predictors of FAS use and its initiation after colorectal cancer diagnosis in 1,092 patients recruited through the Colon Cancer Family Registry. RESULTS: The prevalence of FAS use was 35.4% before and 55.1% after colorectal cancer diagnosis (P = 0.004). Women were more likely than men to use FAS after diagnosis [odds ratio (OR), 1.47; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.14-1.89], as were those consuming more fruit (P(trend) < 0.0001) or vegetables (P(trend) = 0.001), and U.S. residents (P < 0.0001). Less likely to use FAS after diagnosis were nonwhite patients (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.45-0.97), current smokers (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.46-0.96), and those with higher meat intake (P(trend) = 0.03). Predictors of FAS initiation after diagnosis were generally similar to those of FAS use after diagnosis, although associations with race and vegetable intake were weaker and those with exercise stronger. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis showed substantial increases in the use of FAS after diagnosis with colorectal cancer, with use or initiation more likely among women, Caucasians, U.S. residents, and those with a health-promoting life-style. IMPACT: Studies of cancer prognosis that rely on prediagnostic exposure information may result in substantial misclassification. (c)2010 AACR.
BACKGROUND: Supplement use among cancerpatients is high, and folic acid intake in particular may adversely affect the progression of colorectal cancer. Few studies have evaluated the use of folic acid-containing supplements (FAS) and its predictors in colorectal cancerpatients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of FAS, change in use, and its predictors after colorectal cancer diagnosis. DESIGN: We used logistic regression models to investigate predictors of FAS use and its initiation after colorectal cancer diagnosis in 1,092 patients recruited through the Colon Cancer Family Registry. RESULTS: The prevalence of FAS use was 35.4% before and 55.1% after colorectal cancer diagnosis (P = 0.004). Women were more likely than men to use FAS after diagnosis [odds ratio (OR), 1.47; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.14-1.89], as were those consuming more fruit (P(trend) < 0.0001) or vegetables (P(trend) = 0.001), and U.S. residents (P < 0.0001). Less likely to use FAS after diagnosis were nonwhite patients (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.45-0.97), current smokers (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.46-0.96), and those with higher meat intake (P(trend) = 0.03). Predictors of FAS initiation after diagnosis were generally similar to those of FAS use after diagnosis, although associations with race and vegetable intake were weaker and those with exercise stronger. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis showed substantial increases in the use of FAS after diagnosis with colorectal cancer, with use or initiation more likely among women, Caucasians, U.S. residents, and those with a health-promoting life-style. IMPACT: Studies of cancer prognosis that rely on prediagnostic exposure information may result in substantial misclassification. (c)2010 AACR.
Authors: Polly A Newcomb; John Baron; Michelle Cotterchio; Steve Gallinger; John Grove; Robert Haile; David Hall; John L Hopper; Jeremy Jass; Loïc Le Marchand; Paul Limburg; Noralane Lindor; John D Potter; Allyson S Templeton; Steve Thibodeau; Daniela Seminara Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2007-11-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Richard F A Logan; Matthew J Grainge; Vic C Shepherd; Nicholas C Armitage; Kenneth R Muir Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2007-10-10 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Bernard F Cole; John A Baron; Robert S Sandler; Robert W Haile; Dennis J Ahnen; Robert S Bresalier; Gail McKeown-Eyssen; Robert W Summers; Richard I Rothstein; Carol A Burke; Dale C Snover; Timothy R Church; John I Allen; Douglas J Robertson; Gerald J Beck; John H Bond; Tim Byers; Jack S Mandel; Leila A Mott; Loretta H Pearson; Elizabeth L Barry; Judy R Rees; Norman Marcon; Fred Saibil; Per Magne Ueland; E Robert Greenberg Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-06-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jiali Zheng; Fred K Tabung; Jiajia Zhang; E Angela Murphy; Nitin Shivappa; Judith K Ockene; Bette Caan; Candyce H Kroenke; James R Hébert; Susan E Steck Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2019-04-06 Impact factor: 5.614
Authors: Rowena Chau; Seyedeh Ghazaleh Dashti; Driss Ait Ouakrim; Daniel D Buchanan; Mark Clendenning; Christophe Rosty; Ingrid M Winship; Joanne P Young; Graham G Giles; Finlay A Macrae; Alex Boussioutas; Susan Parry; Jane C Figueiredo; A Joan Levine; Dennis J Ahnen; Graham Casey; Robert W Haile; Steven Gallinger; Loïc Le Marchand; Stephen N Thibodeau; Noralane M Lindor; Polly A Newcomb; John D Potter; John A Baron; John L Hopper; Mark A Jenkins; Aung Ko Win Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2016-04-10 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Joanne W Elena; Lois B Travis; Naoko I Simonds; Christine B Ambrosone; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Smita Bhatia; James R Cerhan; Patricia Hartge; Rebecca S Heist; Lawrence H Kushi; Timothy L Lash; Lindsay M Morton; Kenan Onel; John P Pierce; Leslie L Robison; Julia H Rowland; Deborah Schrag; Thomas A Sellers; Daniela Seminara; Xiao Ou Shu; Nancy E Thomas; Cornelia M Ulrich; Andrew N Freedman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2012-11-28 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Amit A Negandhi; Angela Hyde; Elizabeth Dicks; William Pollett; Banfield H Younghusband; Patrick Parfrey; Roger C Green; Sevtap Savas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-04-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Pernilla Lagergren; Anna Schandl; Neil K Aaronson; Hans-Olov Adami; Francesco de Lorenzo; Louis Denis; Sara Faithfull; Lifang Liu; Franḉoise Meunier; Cornelia Ulrich Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2019-01-08 Impact factor: 6.603
Authors: Shaidah Deghan Manshadi; Lisa Ishiguro; Kyoung-Jin Sohn; Alan Medline; Richard Renlund; Ruth Croxford; Young-In Kim Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 3.240