| Literature DB >> 34901122 |
Yi-Fan Wei1,2, Ying-Ying Hao3, Song Gao3, Xiu-Qin Li3, Fang-Hua Liu1,2, Zhao-Yan Wen1,2, Han-Yuan Wang1,2, Shuang Zhang1,2, Shi Yan1,2, Meng Luan1,2,3, Yu-Hong Zhao1,2, Ting-Ting Gong3, Qi-Jun Wu1,2.
Abstract
Background: The associations of the consumption of cruciferous vegetables (CVs) and their bioactive components, isothiocyanates (ITCs), with ovarian cancer (OC) mortality have been unclear, owing to limited studies and inconsistent findings. To date, no studies have evaluated these associations among Chinese patients with OC. This study aims to provide more evidence indicating the relationships of pre-diagnosis CVs and ITC intake with OC survival.Entities:
Keywords: cohort; cruciferous vegetables; isothiocyanates; ovarian cancer; prognosis; survival
Year: 2021 PMID: 34901122 PMCID: PMC8654276 DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2021.778031
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Nutr ISSN: 2296-861X
Figure 1Flow of participants through study.
General characteristics of ovarian cancer patients according to cruciferous vegetables (N = 703).
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| 234 | 234 | 235 | |
|
| 53.00 (47.00–60.00) | 53.00 (48.00–59.00) | 53.00 (48.00–61.00) | 0.37 |
|
| 29.37 (18.10–44.10) | 30.59 (21.67–44.03) | 34.27 (22.50–49.70) | <0.05 |
|
| 23.30 (20.70–25.10) | 23.30 (21.20–24.90) | 22.90 (20.60–25.10) | 0.67 |
|
| 13.55 (7.00–21.40) | 15.10 (7.30–22.90) | 12.90 (5.70–22.30) | 0.35 |
|
| ||||
| Total energy (kcal/d) | 1,210.39 ± 446.59 | 1,399.13 ± 448.19 | 1,756.46 ± 602.84 | <0.05 |
| Meat (g/day) | 32.36 ± 27.49 | 34.90 ± 26.28 | 41.85 ± 33.41 | <0.05 |
| Green leafy vegetables (g/day) | 4.17 ± 4.40 | 8.57 ± 9.12 | 15.35 ± 10.66 | <0.05 |
| Allium vegetables (g/day) | 20.50 ± 13.64 | 26.94 ± 16.47 | 42.11 ± 27.55 | <0.05 |
| Fruits (g/day) (g/day) | 132.20 ± 104.22 | 180.88 ± 141.85 | 270.50 ± 184.37 | <0.05 |
| Soy (g/day) | 54.30 ± 55.27 | 77.89 ± 60.34 | 123.45 ± 96.36 | <0.05 |
|
| 0.32 | |||
| No | 185(79.06) | 171 (73.08) | 179 (76.17) | |
| Yes | 49 (20.94) | 63(26.92) | 56 (23.83) | |
|
| 0.43 | |||
| No | 208 (88.89) | 216 (92.31) | 211 (89.79) | |
| Yes | 26 (11.11) | 18 (7.69) | 24 (10.21) | |
|
| 0.52 | |||
| No | 179 (76.50) | 189 (80.77) | 186 (79.15) | |
| Yes | 55 (23.50) | 45 (19.23) | 49 (20.85) | |
|
| <0.05 | |||
| No | 168 (71.79) | 165 (70.51) | 144 (61.28) | |
| Yes | 66 (28.21) | 69 (29.49) | 91 (38.72) | |
|
| <0.05 | |||
| No | 79 (33.76) | 63 (26.92) | 53 (22.55) | |
| Yes | 155 (66.24) | 171 (73.08) | 182 (77.45) | |
|
| 0.54 | |||
| ≤ 1 | 173 (73.93) | 169 (72.22) | 163 (69.36) | |
| ≥ 2 | 61 (26.07) | 65 (27.78) | 72 (30.64) | |
|
| 0.16 | |||
| Junior secondary or below | 124 (52.99) | 114 (48.72) | 137 (58.30) | |
| Senior high school/technical secondary school | 47 (20.09) | 60 (25.64) | 40 (17.02) | |
| Junior college/university or above | 63 (26.92) | 60 (25.64) | 58 (24.68) | |
|
| 0.61 | |||
| <5,000 | 139 (59.40) | 139 (59.40) | 143 (60.85) | |
| 5,000 to <10,000 | 64 (27.35) | 71 (30.34) | 59 (25.11) | |
| ≥10,000 | 31 (13.25) | 24 (10.26) | 33 (14.04) | |
|
| 0.87 | |||
| ≤ 50 | 89 (38.03) | 85 (36.32) | 84 (35.74) | |
| >50 | 145 (61.97) | 149 (63.68) | 151 (64.26) | |
|
| 0.74 | |||
| Serous | 155 (66.24) | 161 (68.80) | 163 (69.36) | |
| Non-serous | 79 (33.76) | 73 (31.20) | 72 (30.64) | |
|
| 0.73 | |||
| Well differentiated | 21 (8.97) | 19 (8.12) | 16 (6.81) | |
| Moderately differentiated | 19 (8.12) | 13 (5.56) | 16 (6.81) | |
| Poorly differentiated | 194 (82.91) | 202 (86.32) | 203 (86.38) | |
|
| 0.28 | |||
| I–II | 121 (51.71) | 100 (42.74) | 121 (51.49) | |
| III–IV | 105 (44.87) | 126 (53.84) | 107 (45.53) | |
| Unknown | 8 (3.42) | 8 (3.42) | 7 (2.98) | |
|
| 0.75 | |||
| No | 181 (77.35) | 189 (80.77) | 183 (77.87) | |
| <1 cm | 40 (17.09) | 30 (12.82) | 36 (15.32) | |
| ≥1 cm | 13 (5.56) | 15 (6.41) | 16 (6.81) | |
|
| 0.37 | |||
| No | 139 (59.40) | 124 (52.99) | 130 (55.32) | |
| Yes | 95 (40.60) | 110 (47.01) | 105 (44.68) | |
IQR, interquartile range; MET, metabolic equivalent task; SD, standard deviation; T, tertile.
P-values were determined with one-way ANOVA or the Kruskal–Wallis test for continuous variables, and the chi-square test for categorical variables.
Selected clinical characteristics and associations with all-cause mortality among women diagnosed with ovarian cancer (N = 703).
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| ≤ 50 | 45/258 (17.44) | 1.00 (ref) | 1.00 (ref) |
| >50 | 85/445 (19.10) | 1.18 (0.82–1.70) | 1.24 (0.85–1.79) |
|
| |||
| Serous | 92/479 (19.21) | 1.00 (ref) | 1.00 (ref) |
| Non-serous | 38/224 (16.96) | 0.87 (0.59–1.27) | 1.71 (1.11–2.66) |
|
| |||
| Well differentiated | 5/56 (8.93) | 1.00 (ref) | 1.00 (ref) |
| Moderately differentiated | 7/48 (14.58) | 1.44 (0.46–4.57) | 1.12 (0.35–3.57) |
| Poorly differentiated | 118/599 (19.70) | 2.32 (0.95–5.67) | 1.76 (0.70–4.43) |
|
| |||
| I–II | 41/342 (11.99) | 1.00 (ref) | 1.00 (ref) |
| III–IV | 89/338 (26.33) | 2.75 (1.89–4.00) | 2.54 (1.65–3.91) |
|
| |||
| No | 82/553 (14.83) | 1.00 (ref) | 1.00 (ref) |
| <1 cm | 31/106 (29.25) | 2.22 (1.47–3.36) | 1.73 (1.11–2.68) |
| ≥1 cm | 17/44 (38.64) | 3.18 (1.89–5.37) | 2.41 (1.39–4.16) |
|
| |||
| No | 74/393 (18.83) | 1.00 (ref) | 1.00 (ref) |
| Yes | 56/310 (18.06) | 0.82 (0.58–1.16) | 0.97 (0.68–1.38) |
Mutually adjusted for all other variables listed in the table.
CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; ref, reference.
Hazard ratio (95% CI) for overall survival among ovarian cancer patients according to cruciferous vegetables and relative nutrient intake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Rang of intake | <33.08 | 33.08–70.20 | ≥70.20 | |
| Deaths, | 52 (40) | 44 (33.85) | 34 (26.15) | |
| Model 1 | 1.00 (ref) | 0.82 (0.55–1.22) | 0.59 (0.38–0.91) | <0.05 |
| Model 2 | 1.00 (ref) | 0.77 (0.51–1.16) | 0.50 (0.31–0.81) | <0.05 |
| Model 3 | 1.00 (ref) | 0.81 (0.53–1.24) | 0.57 (0.33–0.98) | <0.05 |
|
| ||||
| Rang of intake | <3.90 | 3.90-9.44 | ≥9.44 | |
| Deaths, | 57 (43.85) | 36 (27.69) | 37 (28.46) | |
| Model 1 | 1.00 (ref) | 0.59 (0.39–0.90) | 0.57 (0.38–0.86) | <0.05 |
| Model 2 | 1.00 (ref) | 0.56 (0.37–0.86) | 0.49 (0.30–0.77) | <0.05 |
| Model 3 | 1.00 (ref) | 0.66 (0.43–1.02) | 0.59 (0.36–0.99) | 0.06 |
CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; ref, reference; T, tertile.
Model 1 unadjusted.
Model 2 adjusted for age at diagnosis and total energy.
Model 3 same as Model 2 and further adjusted for body mass index, comorbidities, diet change, education, FIGO stage, histological type, histopathologic grade, menopausal status, parity, physical activity, residual lesions, smoke status, meat, fruit, green leafy vegetables, and allium vegetables.
P-value for linear trend calculated from category median values.
Figure 2Kaplan–Meier survival curves for total cruciferous vegetables intake.
Figure 3Multivariable hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for overall survival among ovarian cancer patients across strata of various factors. The analyses used three categories of cruciferous vegetables intake (T1 < 33.08, T2 14.76–90.00, and T3 ≥ 90.00 g/d). The forest plot represents the HRs of the comparison of the highest vs. the lowest of cruciferous vegetables intake. Cox model stratified by menopausal status, residual lesions, histological type, and body mass index, with additional adjustments for age at diagnosis, body mass index, comorbidities, diet change, education, FIGO stage, histological type, histopathologic grade, menopausal status, parity, physical activity, residual lesions, smoke status, meat, fruit, green leafy vegetables, allium vegetables, and total energy. *indicates P for trend across levels of cruciferous vegetables intake. **indicates P for interaction between strata and cruciferous vegetables intake. P-values are two-sided.