Tengfei Lin1, Chonglei Bi2, Yun Song1,3, Huiyuan Guo1, Lishun Liu1, Ziyi Zhou1, Binyan Wang3,4, Genfu Tang5, Chengzhang Liu6, Yan Yang7,8, Wenhua Ling8,9, Jingang Yang10, Yimin Cui11, Chengguo Zhang12, Gang Li13, Jiaang Li14, Jianping Li15, Yan Zhang15, Yong Huo15, Xiaobin Wang16, Hao Zhang1, Xianhui Qin17,18, Xiping Xu1,3,4. 1. Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Food Nutrition and Human Health, College of Food Science and Nutritional Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China. 2. People's Hospital of RongCheng, RongCheng, China. 3. National Clinical Research Center for Kidney Disease, The State Key Laboratory for Organ Failure Research, Guangdong Provincial Institute of Nephrology, Renal Division, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China. 4. Institute of Biomedicine, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China. 5. Health Management College, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China. 6. Research Center, Shenzhen Evergreen Medical Institute, Shenzhen, China. 7. School of Public Health (Shenzhen), Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China. 8. Guangdong Engineering Technology Center of Nutrition Transformation, Guangzhou, China. 9. Department of Nutrition, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China. 10. State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. 11. Department of Pharmacy, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China. 12. Department of Neurology, The First People's Hospital of Foshan, Foshan, China. 13. Department of Neurology, East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 14. Gould Academy, Bethel, Maine, USA. 15. Department of Cardiology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China. 16. Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 17. National Clinical Research Center for Kidney Disease, The State Key Laboratory for Organ Failure Research, Guangdong Provincial Institute of Nephrology, Renal Division, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China, pharmaqin@126.com. 18. Institute of Biomedicine, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China, pharmaqin@126.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The association between plasma magnesium and risk of incident cancer remains inconclusive in previous studies. We aimed to investigate the prospective relationship of baseline plasma magnesium concentrations with the risk of incident cancer and to examine possible effect modifiers. METHODS: A nested case-control study with 228 incident cancer cases and 228 matched controls was conducted using data from the China Stroke Primary Prevention Trial (CSPPT), a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial, conducted from May 2008 to August 2013. Study outcomes included incident cancer and its subtypes. RESULTS: When plasma magnesium concentrations were assessed as quartiles, a significantly higher incident risk of total cancer was found in participants in quartile 1 (<0.76 mmol/L; odds ratio [OR] = 2.70; 95% CI: 1.33-5.49) and quartile 4 (≥0.89 mmol/L; OR = 2.05; 95% CI: 1.12-3.76), compared with those in quartile 3 (0.83 to <0.89 mmol/L). In cancer site-specific analyses, similar trends were found for gastrointestinal cancer, esophageal cancer, gastric cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, and other cancers. Furthermore, none of the variables, including age, sex, current smoking status, current alcohol intake, BMI, systolic blood pressure, and total cholesterol levels at baseline significantly modified the association between plasma magnesium and cancer risk. CONCLUSIONS: Both low and high plasma magnesium concentrations were significantly associated with an increased incident risk of cancer, compared with the reference concentrations of 0.83 to <0.89 mmol/L among hypertensive adults.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The association between plasma magnesium and risk of incident cancer remains inconclusive in previous studies. We aimed to investigate the prospective relationship of baseline plasma magnesium concentrations with the risk of incident cancer and to examine possible effect modifiers. METHODS: A nested case-control study with 228 incident cancer cases and 228 matched controls was conducted using data from the China Stroke Primary Prevention Trial (CSPPT), a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial, conducted from May 2008 to August 2013. Study outcomes included incident cancer and its subtypes. RESULTS: When plasma magnesium concentrations were assessed as quartiles, a significantly higher incident risk of total cancer was found in participants in quartile 1 (<0.76 mmol/L; odds ratio [OR] = 2.70; 95% CI: 1.33-5.49) and quartile 4 (≥0.89 mmol/L; OR = 2.05; 95% CI: 1.12-3.76), compared with those in quartile 3 (0.83 to <0.89 mmol/L). In cancer site-specific analyses, similar trends were found for gastrointestinal cancer, esophageal cancer, gastric cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, and other cancers. Furthermore, none of the variables, including age, sex, current smoking status, current alcohol intake, BMI, systolic blood pressure, and total cholesterol levels at baseline significantly modified the association between plasma magnesium and cancer risk. CONCLUSIONS: Both low and high plasma magnesium concentrations were significantly associated with an increased incident risk of cancer, compared with the reference concentrations of 0.83 to <0.89 mmol/L among hypertensive adults.