| Literature DB >> 31554383 |
Payam Hosseinzadeh1, Mohammad Javanbakht2, Mahdi Alemrajabi3, Ali Gholami4,5, Bahare Amirkalali1, Masoudreza Sohrabi1, Farhad Zamani1.
Abstract
Background: Vitamin D and Calcium have a possible protective impact versus rectal neoplasm. Vitamin D, an important nutrient, is vital to regulate the absorption of calcium and bone mineralization; nevertheless, in a case-control study in Iran, we investigated the relationship among the dietary intake of vitamin D and calcium with the hazard of rectal neoplasm.Entities:
Keywords: Calcium; Rectal; Vitamin D; cancer
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31554383 PMCID: PMC6976838 DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2019.20.9.2825
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian Pac J Cancer Prev ISSN: 1513-7368
Characteristics of Study Population (n=363)
| Study Group | Case | Control (n=201) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | n | % | n | % |
| Age | ||||
| 40-49 years old | 68 | 42 | 87 | 43.2 |
| 50-59 years old | 43 | 26.5 | 58 | 28.9 |
| 60-69 years old | 41 | 25.3 | 45 | 22.4 |
| 70 years old | 10 | 6.2 | 11 | 5.5 |
| Sex | ||||
| Female | 68 | 42 | 93 | 46.3 |
| Male | 94 | 58 | 108 | 53.7 |
| Job | ||||
| Active | 114 | 71 | 167 | 83 |
| Passive | 48 | 29 | 34 | 17 |
| Marital Status | ||||
| Single/Widow/Divorced | 45 | 27 | 53 | 26 |
| Married | 117 | 73 | 148 | 74 |
| Education | ||||
| < 12 years | 89 | 57 | 137 | 70 |
| ≥12 years | 73 | 43 | 64 | 30 |
| Family Size | ||||
| ≤ 3 persons | 29 | 19 | 55 | 27 |
| ˃ 3 persons | 33 | 81 | 146 | 73 |
| Income | ||||
| < 500$ per month | 65 | 41 | 101 | 51 |
| $ per month | 97 | 59 | 100 | 49 |
| Physical Activity | ||||
| Light | 134 | 82 | 96 | 48 |
| Moderate and more | 28 | 18 | 105 | 52 |
| BMI* | ||||
| <25 | 56 | 34 | 56 | 28 |
| ≥25 | 106 | 66 | 145 | 72 |
*, Body Mass Index
Odds Ratio (OR) Estimates of Rectal Cancer Based on the Univariate Logistic Regression
| Study Group | Case (n=162) | Control (n=201) | OR | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | ||||
| Job | ||||
| Active | 114 | 167 | 2.1 (1.3-3.4) | 0.004 |
| Passive | 48 | 34 | ||
| Marital Status | ||||
| Single/Widow/ | 45 | 53 | 0.9 (0.6-1.5) | 0.764 |
| Married | 117 | 148 | ||
| Educational years | ||||
| < 12 years | 89 | 137 | 1.8 (1.1-2.7) | 0.01 |
| ≥12 years | 73 | 64 | ||
| Family Size | ||||
| ≤ 3 persons | 29 | 55 | 1.7 (1.1-2.9) | 0.034 |
| ˃ 3 persons | 33 | 146 | ||
| Household Income | ||||
| < 500$ | 65 | 101 | 1.5 (0.9-2.3) | 0.054 |
| ≥500$ | 97 | 100 | ||
| Physical Activity | ||||
| Light | 134 | 96 | 0.2 (0.1-0.3) | <0.001 |
| Moderate and | 28 | 105 | ||
| BMI* | ||||
| <25 | 56 | 56 | 0.7 (0.5-1.1) | 0.169 |
| ≥25 | 106 | 145 | ||
| Calcium | ||||
| Low intake† | 110 | 122 | 1.3 (0.8-2.1) | 0.155 |
| Adequate intake‡ | 52 | 79 | ||
| Vitamin D | ||||
| Low intake† | 58 | 39 | 0.4 (0.2-0.6) | <0.001 |
| Adequate intake‡ | 104 | 162 | ||
*, Body Mass Index; †, Daily intake of Calcium/Vitamin D less than Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs), Data from Krause’s Food & Nutrition Therapy (Edition14); ‡, Adequate daily intake of Calcium/Vitamin D based on Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs), Data from Krause’s Food & Nutrition Therapy (Edition14); P-value≤0.05 is statistically significant.
Adjusted Analysis of Calcium/Vitamin D Family Based on Backward Multiple Linear Regression model
| Variable | Beta | OR (CI) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Calcium | 0.34 | 1.4 (0.8-2.2) | 0.17 |
| Vitamin D* | -1.25 | 0.2 (0.1-0.5) | <0.001 |
*P-value≤0.05 is statistically significant