Tiffany R Sanchez1, Yaa Asantewaa Kafui Klu2, Jeanine M Genkinger3,4, James V Lacey5, Nadia T Chung5, Ana Navas-Acien2. 1. Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, 10032, USA. trs2111@cumc.columbia.edu. 2. Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, 10032, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, 10032, USA. 4. Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York, NY, 10032, USA. 5. Department of Computational and Quantitative Medicine, Beckman Research Institute, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, 91010, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated the contribution of rice intake, a source of dietary arsenic, to cancer risk in a population of women with likely low arsenic exposure from drinking water and variable rice intake who participated in the California Teachers Study. METHODS: Rice consumption was categorized into quartiles (< 9.6, 9.7-15.6, 15.7-42.7, and ≥ 42.8 g/day). Multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for incident cancer were estimated comparing rice consumption categories with bladder, breast, kidney, lung, and pancreatic cancer, with progressive adjustment for age, total calories, BMI, race, smoking status, physical activity, and cancer-specific covariates. RESULTS: The number of breast, lung, pancreatic, bladder, and kidney cancer cases was 7,351; 1,100; 411; 344; and 238, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) comparing the highest versus lowest rice intake quartiles were 1.07 (1.00-1.15); 0.87 (0.72-1.04); 0.95 (0.66-1.37); 1.11 (0.81-1.52) and 1.07 (0.72-1.59) for breast, lung, pancreatic, bladder, and kidney cancers, respectively. Results were consistent when rice was modeled as a continuous variable and in analyses stratified by smoking status. CONCLUSION: Rice consumption was not associated with risk of kidney, lung or pancreatic cancer, except maybe a small excess risk for breast cancer and a small non-significant excess risk for bladder cancer, comparing the highest versus lowest quartile of rice intake. Due to lower consumption patterns in this cohort, future studies should involve populations for which rice is a staple food and use of an arsenic biomarker.
PURPOSE: We evaluated the contribution of rice intake, a source of dietary arsenic, to cancer risk in a population of women with likely low arsenic exposure from drinking water and variable rice intake who participated in the California Teachers Study. METHODS:Rice consumption was categorized into quartiles (< 9.6, 9.7-15.6, 15.7-42.7, and ≥ 42.8 g/day). Multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for incident cancer were estimated comparing rice consumption categories with bladder, breast, kidney, lung, and pancreatic cancer, with progressive adjustment for age, total calories, BMI, race, smoking status, physical activity, and cancer-specific covariates. RESULTS: The number of breast, lung, pancreatic, bladder, and kidney cancer cases was 7,351; 1,100; 411; 344; and 238, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) comparing the highest versus lowest rice intake quartiles were 1.07 (1.00-1.15); 0.87 (0.72-1.04); 0.95 (0.66-1.37); 1.11 (0.81-1.52) and 1.07 (0.72-1.59) for breast, lung, pancreatic, bladder, and kidney cancers, respectively. Results were consistent when rice was modeled as a continuous variable and in analyses stratified by smoking status. CONCLUSION:Rice consumption was not associated with risk of kidney, lung or pancreatic cancer, except maybe a small excess risk for breast cancer and a small non-significant excess risk for bladder cancer, comparing the highest versus lowest quartile of rice intake. Due to lower consumption patterns in this cohort, future studies should involve populations for which rice is a staple food and use of an arsenic biomarker.
Authors: Leslie Bernstein; Mark Allen; Hoda Anton-Culver; Dennis Deapen; Pamela L Horn-Ross; David Peel; Richard Pinder; Peggy Reynolds; Jane Sullivan-Halley; Dee West; William Wright; Al Ziogas; Ronald K Ross Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: A A Meharg; P N Williams; C M Deacon; G J Norton; M Hossain; D Louhing; E Marwa; Y Lawgalwi; M Taggart; C Cascio; P Haris Journal: Environ Pollut Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 8.071
Authors: José A García Lavandeira; Alberto Ruano-Ravina; Karl T Kelsey; María Torres-Durán; Isaura Parente-Lamelas; Virginia Leiro-Fernández; Maruxa Zapata; José Abal-Arca; Iria Vidal-García; Carmen Montero-Martínez; Margarita Amenedo; Olalla Castro-Añón; Antonio Golpe-Gómez; Rosirys Guzmán-Taveras; Cristina Martínez; Mariano Provencio; María J Mejuto-Martí; Silvia García-García; Alberto Fernández-Villar; María Piñeiro; Juan M Barros-Dios Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Prasanna Kumarathilaka; Saman Seneweera; Yong Sik Ok; Andrew Meharg; Jochen Bundschuh Journal: Environ Int Date: 2019-04-12 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Leah Jayes; Patricia L Haslam; Christina G Gratziou; Pippa Powell; John Britton; Constantine Vardavas; Carlos Jimenez-Ruiz; Jo Leonardi-Bee Journal: Chest Date: 2016-04-19 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Anala Gossai; M Scot Zens; Tracy Punshon; Brian P Jackson; Ann E Perry; Margaret R Karagas Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2017-09-07 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Wojciech Marciniak; Róża Derkacz; Magdalena Muszyńska; Piotr Baszuk; Jacek Gronwald; Tomasz Huzarski; Cezary Cybulski; Anna Jakubowska; Michał Falco; Tadeusz Dębniak; Marcin Lener; Oleg Oszurek; Katherine Pullella; Joanne Kotsopoulos; Ping Sun; Steven A Narod; Jan Lubiński Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2019-08-26 Impact factor: 7.396