| Literature DB >> 27721879 |
Ali Pourzand1, Aynaz Tajaddini2, Saeed Pirouzpanah3, Mohammad Asghari-Jafarabadi4, Nasser Samadi5, Ali-Reza Ostadrahimi2, Zohreh Sanaat6.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The protective effect of Allium vegetables against carcinogenesis has been reported in experimental studies particularly focusing on the gut. Therefore, we conducted a hospital-based matched case-control study to explore the association between dietary Allium consumption and risk of breast cancer among Iranian women in northwest Iran.Entities:
Keywords: Allium; Breast neoplasms; Onions; Prebiotics
Year: 2016 PMID: 27721879 PMCID: PMC5053314 DOI: 10.4048/jbc.2016.19.3.292
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Breast Cancer ISSN: 1738-6756 Impact factor: 3.588
General characteristics and dietary status of macronutrients intakes of women participants in case and control groups
| Characteristic | Case (n = 285) | Control (n = 297) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (yr) | < 0.001 | ||
| Mean ± SD | 46.4 ± 10.2 | 41.4 ± 9.5 | < 0.001 |
| ≤ 44 | 127 (44.6) | 185 (62.3) | |
| > 44 | 158 (55.4) | 112 (37.7) | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 0.471 | ||
| Mean ± SD | 27.8 ± 5.1 | 27.9 ± 4.7 | 0.814 |
| < 25 | 83 (31.0) | 99 (34.9) | |
| 25–29.9 | 90 (33.6) | 95 (33.5) | |
| ≥ 30 | 95 (35.4) | 90 (31.7) | |
| Frequency of pregnancy | 0.008 | ||
| < 2 | 142 (54.3) | 166 (63.2) | |
| 2–3 | 68 (25.9) | 40 (15.0) | |
| >3 | 52 (19.8) | 58 (21.8) | |
| No. of lactation | 0.060 | ||
| <2 | 147 (58.6) | 122 (65.6) | |
| 2–3 | 61 (24.3) | 28 (15.0) | |
| >3 | 43 (17.1) | 36 (19.4) | |
| Menopause | < 0.001 | ||
| Premenopause | 163 (57.2) | 217 (73.6) | |
| Postmenopause | 122 (42.8) | 78 (26.4) | |
| Occupation | 0.003 | ||
| Sun exposed occupation | 1 (0.4) | 4 (4.6) | |
| House keeping | 219 (80.8) | 140 (71.8) | |
| Employee | 49 (18.1) | 46 (23.6) | |
| Student | 2 (0.7) | 0 | |
| PAL | < 0.001 | ||
| Sedentary | 7 (2.8) | 27 (13.6) | |
| Moderate | 30 (12.1) | 30 (15.1) | |
| Active | 124 (50.0) | 49 (24.6) | |
| Very active | 87 (35.1) | 93 (46.7) | |
| Total calorie (kcal/day) | < 0.001 | ||
| Mean ± SD | 1,782 ± 449 | 3,086 ± 1,614 | < 0.001 |
| ≤ 2,478 | 104 (39.1) | 177 (60.6) | |
| > 2,478 | 162 (60.9) | 115 (39.4) | |
| Dietary fiber (g/day) | < 0.001 | ||
| ≤ 17.9 | 104 (38.4) | 178 (60.8) | |
| > 17.9 | 167 (61.6) | 115 (39.2) | |
| Dietary fat (g/day) | < 0.001 | ||
| ≤ 104 | 103 (38.7) | 181 (62.0) | |
| > 104 | 163 (61.3) | 111 (38.0) |
SD=standard deviation; BMI=body mass index; PAL=physical activity level.
*Continuous numerical variable (presented in mean±SD) was compared by independent sample t-test and chi-square test was performed for categorical or nominal data.
The average daily intakes of Allium vegetables between controls and cases
| Variable* | Case (n = 285) | Control (n = 297) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total p'opulation‡ | |||
| Total onion | 48.7 ± 39.9 | 38.0 ± 39.9 | 0.043 |
| Raw onion | 7.6 ± 10.5 | 7.7 ± 11.5 | 0.528 |
| Cooked onion | 41.1 ± 37.0 | 30.4 ± 37.0 | 0.045 |
| Garlic | 0.6 ± 1.1 | 0.7 ± 1.6 | 0.298 |
| Leek | 1.8 ± 2.0 | 2.4 ± 2.3 | 0.032 |
| Premenopausal | |||
| Total onion | 45.6 ± 54.2 | 42.8 ± 59.5 | 0.699 |
| Raw onion | 7.5 ± 9.9 | 8.4 ± 12.5 | 0.417 |
| Cooked onion | 49.1 ± 52.5 | 50.4 ± 57.2 | 0.815 |
| Garlic | 0.63 ± 1.18 | 2.23 ± 16.00 | 0.183 |
| Leek | 2.14 ± 2.50 | 3.11 ± 3.39 | 0.001§ |
| Postmenopausal | |||
| Total onion | 58.4 ± 65.4 | 59.9 ± 66.0 | 0.877 |
| Raw onion | 8.1 ± 11.7 | 13.9 ± 20.7 | 0.027§ |
| Cooked onion | 50.3 ± 61.5 | 46.0 ± 59.3 | 0.627 |
| Garlic | 0.54 ± 0.93 | 7.42 ± 38.12 | 0.052 |
| Leek | 1.88 ± 2.50 | 3.65 ± 4.15 | 0.001§ |
| Consumers | |||
| Total onion | 70.5 ± 30.5 | 70.3 ± 30.5 | 0.420 |
| Raw onion | 12.5 ± 11.0 | 11.8 ± 12.4 | 0.548 |
| Cooked onion | 61.7 ± 28.1 | 61.4 ± 29.3 | 0.931 |
| Garlic | 0.9 ± 1.3 | 1.2 ± 1.9 | 0.043 |
| Leek | 2.5 ± 1.1 | 3.0 ± 2.3 | 0.010 |
Data are presented as mean±SD.
*The estimated unit of food was in gram per day (g/day); †Data were compared using t-test or Mann Whitney U-test; ‡Total population is a term referred to both consumers and nonconsumers; §p<0.05 was considered meantime the condition of equality of variances was not met.
The relative frequency and OR (95% CI) of breast cancer risk in association with Allium vegetables between controls and cases (total-population*)
| Variable | Case (n = 285) | Control (n = 297) | OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI)‡ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total onion (g/day) | < 0.001 | ||||
| < 4.0 | 68 (23.9) | 99 (33.3) | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| 4.0–53.5 | 78 (27.4) | 98 (33.0) | 1.20 (0.70–1.90) | 1.18 (0.73–1.91) | |
| > 53.5 | 139 (48.8) | 100 (33.7) | 2.02 (1.35–3.02)§ | 0.85 (0.53–1.36) | |
| | 0.875 | 0.689 | |||
| Raw onion (g/day) | 0.437 | ||||
| < 1.0 | 112 (39.3) | 104 (35.0) | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| 1.0–7.1 | 76 (26.7) | 92 (31.0) | 0.80 (0.5–1.10) | 0.67 (0.41–1.09) | |
| > 7.1 | 97 (34.0) | 101 (34.0) | 0.90 (0.6–1.30) | 0.63 (0.40–1.00) | |
| | 0.080 | 0.075 | |||
| Cooked onion (g/day) | < 0.001 | ||||
| < 1.0 | 95 (33.3) | 150 (50.5) | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| 1.0–42.8 | 43 (15.1) | 45 (15.2) | 1.50 (0.90–2.50) | 2.17 (1.25–3.77)§ | |
| > 42.8 | 147 (51.6) | 102 (34.3) | 2.20 (1.60–3.30)§ | 1.33 (0.86–2.06) | |
| | 0.078 | 1.222 | |||
| Garlic (g/day) | 0.003 | ||||
| < 0.34 | 79 (27.7) | 122 (41.0) | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| 0.34–1.0 | 101 (35.4) | 86 (29.0) | 1.80 (1.20–2.70)§ | 1.71 (1.00–2.90) | |
| > 1.0 | 105 (36.9) | 89 (30.0) | 1.80 (1.20–3.20)§ | 1.25 (0.81–1.92) | |
| | 0.087 | 1.101 | |||
| Leek (g/day) | 0.026 | ||||
| < 0.66 | 104 (36.5) | 81 (27.3) | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| 0.66–2.85 | 87 (30.5) | 90 (30.3) | 0.70 (0.50–1.10) | 0.68 (0.43–1.08) | |
| > 2.85 | 94 (33.0) | 126 (42.4) | 0.60 (0.40–0.90)§ | 0.33 (0.20–0.54)§ | |
| | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
OR=odds ratio; CI=confidence interval.
*Total population is a term referred to both consumers and nonconsumers;†Chi-square test was performed; ‡Adjusted for confounders included age (≤48, >48 yr), menopause (yes or no), total calorie (≤2,148, >2,148 kcal/day), dietary fat (≤104, >104 g/day), dietary fiber (≤17, >17 g/day), and body mass index (≤24.9, 25-29.9, and >30 kg/m2); §Statistically significant (p<0.05).
The relative frequency and OR (95% CI) of breast cancer risk in association with Allium vegetables between cases and controls
| Variable | Case (n = 285) | Control (n = 297) | OR (95% CI)† | Adjusted OR (95% CI)‡ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total onion (g/day) | 0.043 | ||||
| Nonconsumers | 51 (17.9) | 73 (24.6) | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Consumers | 234 (82.1) | 224 (75.4) | 1.50 (1.00–2.20) | 1.05 (0.61–1.81) | |
| Raw onion (g/day) | 0.285 | ||||
| Nonconsumers | 112 (39.3) | 104 (35.0) | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Consumers | 173 (60.7) | 193 (65.0) | 0.80 (0.6–1.20) | 0.73 (0.48–2.70) | |
| Cooked onion (g/day) | < 0.001 | ||||
| Nonconsumers | 95 (33.3) | 150 (50.5) | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Consumers | 190 (66.7) | 147 (49.5) | 2.04 (1.45–2.85)§ | 1.54 (1.02–2.32)§ | |
| Garlic (g/day) | 0.001 | ||||
| Nonconsumers | 79 (27.7) | 122 (41.1) | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Consumers | 206 (72.3) | 175 (58.9) | 1.80 (1.30–2.60)§ | 1.39 (0.81–2.37) | |
| Leek (g/day) | 0.053 | ||||
| Nonconsumers | 77 (27.0) | 60 (20.2) | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Consumers | 208 (73.0) | 237 (79.8) | 0.68 (0.46–1.00) | 0.32 (0.18–0.56)§ |
OR=odds ratio; CI=confidence interval.
*Chi-square test was done; †Unconditional logistic regression analysis was also performed to assess the risk breast development through exposure to either independent variables, i.e., the condition of prebiotic food usage (dichotomous variable) or tertile of usage; ‡Unconditional multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for confounders included age (≤48, >48 yr), menopause (yes or no), total calorie intake (≤2,148, >2,148 kcal/day), dietary fat (≤104, >104 g/day), dietary fiber (≤17, >17 g/day), and body mass index (≤24.9, 25–29.9, and >30 kg/m2); §Statistically significant (p<0.05).
The relative frequency and OR (95% CI) of breast cancer risk in association with Allium vegetables between cases and controls only among consumers
| Variable | Case (n = 208) | Control (n = 237) | OR (95% CI)* | Adjusted OR (95% CI)† | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total onion (g/day) | 0.072 | ||||
| < 26.7 | 60 (25.6) | 74 (33) | 1 | 1 | |
| 26.7–75.0 | 76 (32.5) | 78 (34.8) | 1.20 (0.70–1.90) | 1.32 (0.78–2.22) | |
| > 75.0 | 98 (41.9) | 72 (32.2) | 1.67 (1.06–2.65)‡ | 0.72 (0.44–1.19) | |
| | 0.998 | 0.904 | |||
| Raw onion (g/day) | 0.529 | ||||
| < 4.4 | 48 (27.8) | 64 (33.2) | 1 | 1 | |
| 4.4–10.7 | 35 (20.2) | 37 (19.2) | 1.30 (0.70–2.30) | 1.43 (0.67–3.04) | |
| > 10.7 | 90 (52.0) | 92 (47.6) | 1.30 (0.81–2.09) | 0.89 (0.53–1.50) | |
| | 0.485 | 0.383 | |||
| Cooked onion (g/day) | 0.025 | ||||
| < 42.8 | 43 (22.6) | 45 (30.6) | 1 | 1 | |
| 42.8–75.0 | 128 (67.4) | 78 (53.1) | 1.71 (1.03–2.84)‡ | 1.03 (0.16–6.35) | |
| > 75.0 | 19 (10.0) | 24 (16.3) | 0.8 (0.40–1.70) | 0.60 (0.35–1.03) | |
| | 0.306 | 0.252 | |||
| Garlic (g/day) | 0.404 | ||||
| < 0.2 | 65 (31.5) | 54 (30.9) | 1 | 1 | |
| 0.2–0.9 | 85 (41.3) | 63 (36.0) | 1.10 (0.70–1.80) | 1.01 (0.57–1.76) | |
| > 0.9 | 56 (27.2) | 58 (33.1) | 0.80 (0.50–1.30) | 0.41 (0.20–0.83)‡ | |
| | 0.333 | 0.715 | |||
| Leek (g/day) | 0.232 | ||||
| < 1.4 | 60 (28.8) | 56 (23.6) | 1 | 1 | |
| 1.4–3.6 | 88 (42.4) | 96 (40.5) | 0.80 (0.50–1.40) | 0.64 (0.40–1.04) | |
| > 3.6 | 60 (28.8) | 85 (35.9) | 0.65 (0.40–1.07) | 0.28 (0.15–0.51)‡ | |
| | < 0.001 | 0.519 |
OR=odds ratio; CI=confidence interval.
*Unconditional logistic regression analysis was also performed to assess the risk breast development through exposure to either independent variables, i.e., the condition of prebiotic food usage (dichotomous variable) or tertile of usage; †Unconditional multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for confounders included age (≤48, >48 yr), menopause (yes or no), total calorie intake (≤2,148, >2,148 kcal/day), dietary fat (≤104, >104 g/day), dietary fiber (≤17, >17 g/day), and body mass index (≤24.9, 25-29.9, and >30 kg/m2); ‡Statistically significant (p<0.05).