| Literature DB >> 21697276 |
Krasimira Aleksandrova1, Heiner Boeing, Mazda Jenab, H Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita, Eugene Jansen, Fränzel J B van Duijnhoven, Veronika Fedirko, Sabina Rinaldi, Isabelle Romieu, Elio Riboli, Dora Romaguera, Kim Overvad, Jane Nautrup Østergaard, Anja Olsen, Anne Tjønneland, Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault, Françoise Clavel-Chapelon, Sophie Morois, Giovanna Masala, Claudia Agnoli, Salvatore Panico, Rosario Tumino, Paolo Vineis, Rudolf Kaaks, Annekatrin Lukanova, Antonia Trichopoulou, Androniki Naska, Christina Bamia, Petra H Peeters, Laudina Rodríguez, Genevieve Buckland, María-José Sánchez, Miren Dorronsoro, Jose-María Huerta, Aurelio Barricarte, Göran Hallmans, Richard Palmqvist, Kay-Tee Khaw, Nicholas Wareham, Naomi E Allen, Konstantinos K Tsilidis, Tobias Pischon.
Abstract
Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is purportedly related to risk of developing colorectal cancer; however, the association of MetS, as defined according to recent international criteria, and colorectal cancer has not been yet evaluated. In particular, it remains unclear to what extent the MetS components individually account for such an association. We addressed these issues in a nested case-control study that included 1,093 incident cases matched (1:1) to controls by using incidence density sampling. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate relative risks (RR) and 95% CIs. MetS was defined according to the criteria of the National Cholesterol Education Program/Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP/ATPIII), the International Diabetes Federation (IDF), and the 2009 harmonized definition. Among individual components, abdominal obesity (RR = 1.51; 95% CI: 1.16-1.96) was associated with colon cancer, whereas abnormal glucose metabolism was associated with both colon (RR = 2.05; 95% CI: 1.57-2.68) and rectal cancer (RR = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.45-2.96). MetS, as defined by each of the definitions, was similarly associated with colon cancer (e.g., RR = 1.91; 95% CI: 1.47-2.42 for MetS by NCEP/ATPIII), whereas MetS by NCEP/ATPIII, but not IDF or harmonized definition, was associated with rectal cancer (RR = 1.45; 95% CI: 1.02-2.06). Overall, these associations were stronger in women than in men. However, the association between MetS and colorectal cancer was accounted for by abdominal obesity and abnormal glucose metabolism such that MetS did not provide risk information beyond these components (likelihood ratio test P = 0.10 for MetS by NCEP/ATPIII). These data suggest that simple assessment of abnormal glucose metabolism and/or abdominal obesity to identify individuals at colorectal cancer risk may have higher clinical utility than applying more complex MetS definitions.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21697276 DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-11-0218
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) ISSN: 1940-6215