Sindhu Lakkur1, Michael Goodman2, Roberd M Bostick2, Jessica Citronberg3, William McClellan3, William Dana Flanders4, Suzanne Judd5, Victoria L Stevens6. 1. Department of Nutrition, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Department of Biostatistics, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham. Electronic address: slakkur@uab.edu. 2. Department of Nutrition, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 5. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham. 6. Epidemiology Research Program, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Oxidative stress is defined as an imbalance between pro-oxidants and antioxidants. Previous research found that a single comprehensive oxidative balance score (OBS) that includes individual pro- and anti-oxidant exposures may be associated with various conditions (including prostate cancer) in the absence of associations with the individual factors. We investigated an OBS-incident prostate cancer association among 43,325 men in the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort. METHODS: From 1999-2007, 3386 incident cases were identified. Twenty different components, used in two ways (unweighted or weighted based on literature reviews), were incorporated into the OBS, and the resulting scores were then expressed as three types of variables (continuous, quartiles, or six equal intervals). Multivariable-adjusted rate ratios were calculated using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: We hypothesized that the OBS would be inversely associated with prostate cancer risk; however, the rate ratios (95% confidence intervals) comparing the highest with the lowest OBS categories ranged from 1.17 (1.04-1.32) to 1.39 (0.90-2.15) for all cases, 1.14 (0.87-1.50) to 1.59 (0.57-4.40) for aggressive disease (American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III/IV or Gleason score 8-10), and 0.91 (0.62-1.35) to 1.02 (1.02-1.04) for nonaggressive disease. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are not consistent with the hypothesis that oxidative balance-related exposures collectively affect risk for prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: Oxidative stress is defined as an imbalance between pro-oxidants and antioxidants. Previous research found that a single comprehensive oxidative balance score (OBS) that includes individual pro- and anti-oxidant exposures may be associated with various conditions (including prostate cancer) in the absence of associations with the individual factors. We investigated an OBS-incident prostate cancer association among 43,325 men in the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort. METHODS: From 1999-2007, 3386 incident cases were identified. Twenty different components, used in two ways (unweighted or weighted based on literature reviews), were incorporated into the OBS, and the resulting scores were then expressed as three types of variables (continuous, quartiles, or six equal intervals). Multivariable-adjusted rate ratios were calculated using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: We hypothesized that the OBS would be inversely associated with prostate cancer risk; however, the rate ratios (95% confidence intervals) comparing the highest with the lowest OBS categories ranged from 1.17 (1.04-1.32) to 1.39 (0.90-2.15) for all cases, 1.14 (0.87-1.50) to 1.59 (0.57-4.40) for aggressive disease (American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III/IV or Gleason score 8-10), and 0.91 (0.62-1.35) to 1.02 (1.02-1.04) for nonaggressive disease. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are not consistent with the hypothesis that oxidative balance-related exposures collectively affect risk for prostate cancer.
Authors: Michael Goodman; Roberd M Bostick; Myron Gross; Bharat Thyagarajan; Chiranjeev Dash; W Dana Flanders Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Vincent A van Beelen; Jac M M J G Aarts; Astrid Reus; Hans Mooibroek; Lolke Sijtsma; Dirk Bosch; Ivonne M C M Rietjens; Gerrit M Alink Journal: FEBS Lett Date: 2006-07-20 Impact factor: 4.124
Authors: Carmen Rodriguez; Alpa V Patel; Alison M Mondul; Eric J Jacobs; Michael J Thun; Eugenia E Calle Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2005-01-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Lei Jiang; Ke-hu Yang; Jin-hui Tian; Quan-lin Guan; Nan Yao; Nong Cao; Deng-hai Mi; Jie Wu; Bin Ma; Sun-hu Yang Journal: Nutr Cancer Date: 2010 Impact factor: 2.900
Authors: So Yeon Kong; Michael Goodman; Suzanne Judd; Roberd M Bostick; W Dana Flanders; William McClellan Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2015-01-16 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Sindhu Lakkur; Suzanne Judd; Roberd M Bostick; William McClellan; W Dana Flanders; Victoria L Stevens; Michael Goodman Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2015-09-05 Impact factor: 5.162