Joshua Petimar1,2, Stephanie A Smith-Warner1,2, Teresa T Fung1,3, Bernard Rosner4,5, Andrew T Chan5,6,7, Frank B Hu1,2,5, Edward L Giovannucci1,2,5, Fred K Tabung1,2,8. 1. Departments of Nutrition, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA. 2. Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA. 3. Department of Nutrition, Simmons College, Boston, MA. 4. Biostatistics, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA. 5. Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. 6. Clinical and Translational Epidemiology Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 7. Division of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 8. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH.
Abstract
Background: Many dietary indexes exist for chronic disease prevention, but the optimal dietary pattern for colorectal cancer prevention is unknown. Objective: We sought to determine associations between adherence to various dietary indexes and incident colorectal cancer in 2 prospective cohort studies. Design: We followed 78,012 women in the Nurses' Health Study and 46,695 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study from 1986 and 1988, respectively, until 2012. We created dietary index scores for the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, Alternative Mediterranean Diet (AMED), and Alternative Healthy Eating Index-2010 (AHEI-2010) and used Cox regression to estimate HRs and 95% CIs for risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and by anatomic subsite. We also conducted latency analyses to examine associations between diet and CRC risk during different windows of exposure. We conducted analyses in men and women separately, and subsequently pooled these results in a random-effects meta-analysis. Results: We documented 2690 colorectal cancer cases. Pooled multivariable HRs for colorectal cancer risk comparing the highest to lowest quintile of diet scores were 0.89 (95% CI: 0.74, 1.08; P-trend = 0.10) for DASH, 0.89 (95% CI: 0.73, 1.10; P-trend = 0.31) for AMED, and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.83, 1.09; P-trend = 0.56) for AHEI-2010 (P-heterogeneity ≥ 0.07 for all). In sex-specific analyses, we observed stronger associations in men for all dietary indexes (DASH: multivariable HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.66, 0.98; P-trend = 0.003; AMED: multivariable HR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.65, 0.98; P-trend = 0.02; AHEI-2010: multivariable HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.72, 1.07; P-trend = 0.04) than in women (multivariable HRs range from 0.98 to 1.01). Conclusions: Adherence to the DASH, AMED, and AHEI-2010 diets was inversely associated with colorectal cancer risk in men. These diets were not associated with colorectal cancer risk in women. This observational study was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03364582.
Background: Many dietary indexes exist for chronic disease prevention, but the optimal dietary pattern for colorectal cancer prevention is unknown. Objective: We sought to determine associations between adherence to various dietary indexes and incident colorectal cancer in 2 prospective cohort studies. Design: We followed 78,012 women in the Nurses' Health Study and 46,695 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study from 1986 and 1988, respectively, until 2012. We created dietary index scores for the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, Alternative Mediterranean Diet (AMED), and Alternative Healthy Eating Index-2010 (AHEI-2010) and used Cox regression to estimate HRs and 95% CIs for risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and by anatomic subsite. We also conducted latency analyses to examine associations between diet and CRC risk during different windows of exposure. We conducted analyses in men and women separately, and subsequently pooled these results in a random-effects meta-analysis. Results: We documented 2690 colorectal cancer cases. Pooled multivariable HRs for colorectal cancer risk comparing the highest to lowest quintile of diet scores were 0.89 (95% CI: 0.74, 1.08; P-trend = 0.10) for DASH, 0.89 (95% CI: 0.73, 1.10; P-trend = 0.31) for AMED, and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.83, 1.09; P-trend = 0.56) for AHEI-2010 (P-heterogeneity ≥ 0.07 for all). In sex-specific analyses, we observed stronger associations in men for all dietary indexes (DASH: multivariable HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.66, 0.98; P-trend = 0.003; AMED: multivariable HR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.65, 0.98; P-trend = 0.02; AHEI-2010: multivariable HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.72, 1.07; P-trend = 0.04) than in women (multivariable HRs range from 0.98 to 1.01). Conclusions: Adherence to the DASH, AMED, and AHEI-2010 diets was inversely associated with colorectal cancer risk in men. These diets were not associated with colorectal cancer risk in women. This observational study was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03364582.
Authors: Teresa T Fung; Frank B Hu; Marjorie L McCullough; P K Newby; Walter C Willett; Michelle D Holmes Journal: J Nutr Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: F B Hu; E Rimm; S A Smith-Warner; D Feskanich; M J Stampfer; A Ascherio; L Sampson; W C Willett Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Britt W Jensen; Michael Gamborg; Ismail Gögenur; Andrew G Renehan; Thorkild I A Sørensen; Jennifer L Baker Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2017-08-12 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Laura A E Hughes; Piet A van den Brandt; R Alexandra Goldbohm; Anton F P M de Goeij; Adriaan P de Bruïne; Manon van Engeland; Matty P Weijenberg Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2010-04-28 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: W C Willett; L Sampson; M J Stampfer; B Rosner; C Bain; J Witschi; C H Hennekens; F E Speizer Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1985-07 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Gunter G C Kuhnle; Giles W Story; Torsten Reda; Ali R Mani; Kevin P Moore; Joanne C Lunn; Sheila A Bingham Journal: Free Radic Biol Med Date: 2007-03-13 Impact factor: 7.376
Authors: Joshua Petimar; Stephanie A Smith-Warner; Bernard Rosner; Andrew T Chan; Edward L Giovannucci; Fred K Tabung Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-06-24 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jie Zhang; Dorthe Nyvang; Daniel B Ibsen; Anja Olsen; Anne Tjønneland; Kim Overvad; Christina C Dahm Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2021-09-30 Impact factor: 9.075
Authors: Qi Jin; Phil A Hart; Ni Shi; Joshua J Joseph; Macarius Donneyong; Darwin L Conwell; Steven K Clinton; Zobeida Cruz-Monserrate; Theodore M Brasky; Lesley F Tinker; Simin Liu; Aladdin H Shadyab; Cynthia A Thomson; Lihong Qi; Thomas Rohan; Fred K Tabung Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-04-07 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Y Yue; J Hur; Y Cao; F K Tabung; M Wang; K Wu; M Song; X Zhang; Y Liu; J A Meyerhardt; K Ng; S A Smith-Warner; W C Willett; E Giovannucci Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 51.769
Authors: Xiaobin Zheng; Jinhee Hur; Long H Nguyen; Jie Liu; Mingyang Song; Kana Wu; Stephanie A Smith-Warner; Shuji Ogino; Walter C Willett; Andrew T Chan; Edward Giovannucci; Yin Cao Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 11.816