| Literature DB >> 35884536 |
Macarena Lozano-Lorca1,2, Margarita Rodríguez-González3, Inmaculada Salcedo-Bellido2,3,4, Fernando Vázquez-Alonso5, Miguel Arrabal6, Benita Martín-Castaño7, María-José Sánchez2,3,4,8, José-Juan Jiménez-Moleón2,3,4, Rocío Olmedo-Requena2,3,4.
Abstract
The etiology of prostate cancer (PCa) remains uncertain, and the role of diet is unclear. We aimed to evaluate the role of diet, through dietary patterns, on PCa, considering tumor aggressiveness and extension. The CAPLIFE study is a population-based case-control study including a total of 428 incident PCa cases and 393 controls aged 40-80 years. Dietary information was collected through a validated food frequency questionnaire. Three dietary patterns were identified through principal component analysis: "Mediterranean," "Western," and "Unhealthy," which were categorized into tertiles according to the control group cutoff points. Tumor aggressiveness and extension was determined. Logistic regression models were used to assess the association between dietary patterns and PCa. High adherence to an unhealthy dietary pattern was associated with higher odds of PCa, ORT3vsT1 = 1.52 (95% CI 1.02-2.27), especially for cases with ISUP 1-2 and localized PCa tumors. This association was not observed with a Western or Mediterranean pattern. In conclusion, adherence to an unhealthy diet appears to be associated with higher odds of PCa, especially for cases with ISUP 1-2 and localized PCa tumors.Entities:
Keywords: CAPLIFE study; case-control study; dietary patterns; principal component analysis; prostate cancer
Year: 2022 PMID: 35884536 PMCID: PMC9316982 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14143475
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.575
Figure 1Flowchart CAPLIFE study.
Characteristics of PCa cases and controls in the CAPLIFE study.
| Controls | PCa Cases | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years), median (IQR) | 66.5 (61.3–72.3) | 68.5 (62.8–73.9) | 0.005 |
| Education, | 0.377 | ||
| Primary | 109 (27.8) | 124 (28.9) | |
| Secondary | 199 (50.6) | 228 (53.3) | |
| University | 85 (21.6) | 76 (17.8) | |
| Employment status, | 0.602 | ||
| Retired | 264 (67.1) | 298 (69.7) | |
| Currently working | 103 (26.2) | 99 (23.1) | |
| Unemployed | 26 (6.6) | 30 (7.0) | |
| Missing | - | 1 (0.2) | |
| Marital status, | 0.760 | ||
| Married | 330 (83.9) | 356 (83.2) | |
| Not married | 63 (16.1) | 72 (16.8) | |
| Comorbidities, | 0.740 | ||
| 0–2 | 364 (92.9) | 399 (93.4) | |
| ≥3 | 28 (7.1) | 28 (6.6) | |
| Missing | 1 | 1 | |
| Smoking status, | 0.853 | ||
| Never smoker | 104 (26.4) | 112 (26.2) | |
| Former smoker | 217 (55.2) | 231 (53.9) | |
| Current smoker | 72 (18.4) | 85 (19.9) | |
| BMI, | 0.758 | ||
| Normal weight | 72 (18.4) | 87 (20.3) | |
| Overweight | 207 (52.6) | 219 (51.2) | |
| Obesity | 114 (29.0) | 121 (28.3) | |
| Missing | - | 1 (0.2) | |
| Physical activity, | 0.158 | ||
| High | 133 (33.8) | 166 (38.7) | |
| Moderate | 201 (51.2) | 214 (50.0) | |
| Low | 59 (15.0) | 48 (11.3) | |
| Sedentary behavior (h/day), median (IQR) | 7.0 (5.0–9.0) | 7.0 (5.0–10.0) | 0.268 |
| Energy intake (Kcal/day), median (IQR) | 2290.3 (1943.1–2809.4) | 2428.9 (2057.5–2918.9) | 0.021 |
| Alcohol consumption (g/day), median (IQR) | 7.3 (1.4–15.9) | 8.0 (1.5–18.5) | 0.349 |
| First-degree family history of PCa, | <0.001 | ||
| No | 350 (89.1) | 333 (77.8) | |
| Yes | 43 (10.9) | 94 (22.0) | |
| Missing | - | 1 (0.2) | |
| ISUP grade *, | - | ||
| 1–2 | - | 321 (75.2) | |
| 3–5 | - | 106 (24.8) | |
| Staging of PCa, | |||
| Localized | - | 369 (86.2) | |
| Locally advanced | - | 35 (8.2) | |
| Metastatic | - | 24 (5.6) |
BMI, body mass index; IQR, interquartile range (percentile 25-percentile 75). * One subject could not be categorized using ISUP classification as it was a neuroendocrine carcinoma. Note: missing data are not included for comparing cases and controls.
Rotated factor loadings and explained variances for 3 main dietary patterns identified by principal component analysis.
| Food and Beverage Groups | Mediterranean Pattern | Western Pattern | Unhealthy |
|---|---|---|---|
| High-fat dairy | - | 0.37 | - |
| Eggs | 0.38 | - | - |
| Red meat | - | 0.71 | - |
| Processed meat | - | 0.72 | |
| White fish | 0.30 | - | - |
| Oily fish | 0.27 | - | - |
| Leafy vegetables | 0.75 | - | - |
| Fruiting vegetables | 0.79 | - | - |
| Root vegetables | 0.74 | - | - |
| Other vegetables | 0.68 | −0.27 | - |
| Legumes | 0.21 | - | - |
| Potatoes | 0.30 | −0.38 | - |
| Fruits | 0.35 | - | - |
| Nuts | 0.21 | - | - |
| Refined cereals | - | 0.22 | - |
| Other edible fats | - | - | 0.69 |
| Sweets | - | - | 0.62 |
| Sugary | - | - | 0.65 |
| Convenience food and sauces | - | 0.40 | 0.42 |
| Alcohol | - | 0.36 | - |
| Proportion of variance explained (%) | 10.4 | 6.4 | 5.7 |
| Cumulative variance explained (%) | 10.4 | 16.9 | 22.6 |
Food and beverage groups with loadings <|0.2| are not shown.
Association between dietary patterns and PCa in the CAPLIFE study.
| Dietary Pattern | Controls/PCa Cases | aOR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| Mediterranean pattern | ||
| Tertile 1 | 131/136 | Ref. |
| Tertile 2 | 131/140 | 0.92 (0.65–1.31) |
| Tertile 3 | 131/152 | 0.90 (0.63–1.29) |
| p-trend | 0.578 | |
| Western pattern | ||
| Tertile 1 | 131/124 | Ref. |
| Tertile 2 | 131/157 | 1.33 (0.93–1.90) |
| Tertile 3 | 131/147 | 1.25 (0.83–1.87) |
| p-trend | 0.289 | |
| Unhealthy pattern | ||
| Tertile 1 | 131/116 | Ref. |
| Tertile 2 | 131/133 | 1.11 (0.77–1.60) |
| Tertile 3 | 131/179 | 1.52 (1.02–2.27) |
| p-trend | 0.035 |
aOR: Odds ratio adjusted for age, educational level, first-degree family history of PCa, BMI, and energy intake.
Association between dietary patterns and PCa according to tumor aggressiveness (ISUP) and extension in the CAPLIFE study.
| Dietary Pattern | PCa Cases ( | aOR (95% CI) | PCa Cases ( | aOR (95% CI) | PCa Cases ( | aOR (95% CI) | PCa Cases ( | aOR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ISUP 1–2 | ISUP 3–5 | Localized PCa | Locally | |||||
| Mediterranean pattern | ||||||||
| Tertile 1 | 102 | Ref. | 33 | Ref. | 115 | Ref. | 21 | Ref. |
| Tertile 2 | 105 | 0.94 (0.64–1.37) | 35 | 0.92 (0.53–1.62) | 122 | 0.96 (0.67–1.38) | 18 | 0.70 (0.35–1.40) |
| Tertile 3 | 114 | 0.94 (0.63–1.39) | 38 | 0.86 (0.49–1.51) | 132 | 0.94 (0.65–1.37) | 20 | 0.69 (0.34–1.38) |
| p-trend | 0.746 | 0.605 | 0.754 | 0.293 | ||||
| Western pattern | ||||||||
| Tertile 1 | 97 | Ref. | 27 | Ref. | 104 | Ref. | 29 | Ref. |
| Tertile 2 | 113 | 1.23 (0.84–1.82) | 45 | 1.54 (0.86–2.75) | 135 | 1.37 (0.94–1.99) | 42 | 1.10 (0.55–2.20) |
| Tertile 3 | 113 | 1.26 (0.81–1.94) | 34 | 1.19 (0.60–2.34) | 130 | 1.30 (0.86–1.98) | 33 | 0.93 (0.40–2.15) |
| p-trend | 0.302 | 0.642 | 0.223 | 0.881 | ||||
| Unhealthy pattern | ||||||||
| Tertile 1 | 82 | Ref. | 34 | Ref. | 98 | Ref. | 18 | Ref. |
| Tertile 2 | 103 | 1.22 (0.82–1.81) | 29 | 0.81 (0.45–1.46) | 115 | 1.11 (0.76–1.63) | 18 | 1.01 (0.49–2.09) |
| Tertile 3 | 136 | 1.67 (1.09–2.57) | 43 | 1.16 (0.63–2.13) | 156 | 1.56 (1.03–2.36) | 23 | 1.31 (0.61–2.84) |
| p-trend | 0.018 | 0.638 | 0.032 | 0.488 | ||||
aOR: Odds ratio adjusted for age, educational level, first-degree family history of PCa, BMI, and energy intake.