Jennifer M Mongiovi1,2, Jo L Freudenheim1, Kirsten B Moysich2, Susan E McCann2. 1. University at Buffalo, School of Public Health and Health Professions, Department of Epidemiology and Environmental Health, Buffalo, New York, USA. 2. Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Buffalo, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cause of cancer death among women in the US, yet few modifiable risk factors have been established. Diets high in glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) have been linked to several cancers, but epidemiologic studies of ovarian cancer have yielded inconsistent results. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to examine associations between GI or GL and ovarian cancer. METHODS: We used prospective data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian cohort. GI and GL were calculated from validated FFQs. Participants were women who were aged 60 to 74 y, did not have a history of cancer, and had both ovaries. Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate HRs and 95% CIs for risk of ovarian cancer associated with quartiles of GI and GL. Analyses were performed separately for those who completed the dietary questionnaire at baseline (DQX) or later in the study (DHQ). RESULTS: From the DQX sample set, 181 cases were identified among 24,633 women with median follow-up of 12.1 y; there were 211 cases among 42,410 women in the DHQ set, with median follow-up of 8.9 y. After adjusting for age at dietary questionnaire completion, year of randomization, year of questionnaire, study center, and oral contraceptive use, the risk of ovarian cancer decreased by 43% (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.37, 0.88) among those in the highest compared with those in the lowest quartile of GL (DQX). Those in the highest compared with those in the lowest quartile of GI (DHQ), had a 38% lower risk (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.42, 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: We observed lower risk of ovarian cancer associated with higher GI and GL. Results should be interpreted with caution as they may have been influenced by limitations including lack of variability in dietary intake. Additional studies are needed to better understand what is driving these associations.
BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cause of cancer death among women in the US, yet few modifiable risk factors have been established. Diets high in glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) have been linked to several cancers, but epidemiologic studies of ovarian cancer have yielded inconsistent results. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to examine associations between GI or GL and ovarian cancer. METHODS: We used prospective data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian cohort. GI and GL were calculated from validated FFQs. Participants were women who were aged 60 to 74 y, did not have a history of cancer, and had both ovaries. Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate HRs and 95% CIs for risk of ovarian cancer associated with quartiles of GI and GL. Analyses were performed separately for those who completed the dietary questionnaire at baseline (DQX) or later in the study (DHQ). RESULTS: From the DQX sample set, 181 cases were identified among 24,633 women with median follow-up of 12.1 y; there were 211 cases among 42,410 women in the DHQ set, with median follow-up of 8.9 y. After adjusting for age at dietary questionnaire completion, year of randomization, year of questionnaire, study center, and oral contraceptive use, the risk of ovarian cancer decreased by 43% (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.37, 0.88) among those in the highest compared with those in the lowest quartile of GL (DQX). Those in the highest compared with those in the lowest quartile of GI (DHQ), had a 38% lower risk (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.42, 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: We observed lower risk of ovarian cancer associated with higher GI and GL. Results should be interpreted with caution as they may have been influenced by limitations including lack of variability in dietary intake. Additional studies are needed to better understand what is driving these associations.
Authors: Cheryl L Rock; Cynthia Thomson; Ted Gansler; Susan M Gapstur; Marjorie L McCullough; Alpa V Patel; Kimberly S Andrews; Elisa V Bandera; Colleen K Spees; Kimberly Robien; Sheri Hartman; Kristen Sullivan; Barbara L Grant; Kathryn K Hamilton; Lawrence H Kushi; Bette J Caan; Debra Kibbe; Jessica Donze Black; Tracy L Wiedt; Catherine McMahon; Kirsten Sloan; Colleen Doyle Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Donald M Lamkin; Douglas R Spitz; Mian M K Shahzad; Bridget Zimmerman; Daniel J Lenihan; Koen Degeest; David M Lubaroff; Eileen H Shinn; Anil K Sood; Susan K Lutgendorf Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-03-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ian J Jacobs; Usha Menon; Andy Ryan; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Matthew Burnell; Jatinderpal K Kalsi; Nazar N Amso; Sophia Apostolidou; Elizabeth Benjamin; Derek Cruickshank; Danielle N Crump; Susan K Davies; Anne Dawnay; Stephen Dobbs; Gwendolen Fletcher; Jeremy Ford; Keith Godfrey; Richard Gunu; Mariam Habib; Rachel Hallett; Jonathan Herod; Howard Jenkins; Chloe Karpinskyj; Simon Leeson; Sara J Lewis; William R Liston; Alberto Lopes; Tim Mould; John Murdoch; David Oram; Dustin J Rabideau; Karina Reynolds; Ian Scott; Mourad W Seif; Aarti Sharma; Naveena Singh; Julie Taylor; Fiona Warburton; Martin Widschwendter; Karin Williamson; Robert Woolas; Lesley Fallowfield; Alistair J McGuire; Stuart Campbell; Mahesh Parmar; Steven J Skates Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 79.321