4.6 Article

Adipokines and Obesity Are Associated with Colorectal Polyps in Adult Males: A Cross-Sectional Study

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085939

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute [1R03CA142000]
  2. Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute at Michigan State University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Obesity increases the risk of colon cancer. It is also known that most colorectal cancers develop from adenomatous polyps. However, the effects of obesity and adipokines on colonic polyp formation are unknown. Methods: To determine if BMI, waist circumference or adipokines are associated with colon polyps in males, 126 asymptomatic men (48-65 yr) were recruited at time of colonoscopy, and anthropometric measures as well as blood were collected. Odds ratios were determined using polytomous logistic regression for polyp number (0 or >= 3) and polyp type (no polyp, hyperplastic polyp, tubular adenoma). Results: 41% of the men in our study were obese (BMI >= 30). The odds of an obese individual having >= 3 polyps was 6.5 (CI: 1.3-33.0) times greater than those of a lean (BMI <25) individual. Additionally, relative to lean individuals, obese individuals were 7.8 (CI: 2.0-30.8) times more likely to have a tubular adenoma than no polyp. As BMI category increased, participants were 2.9 (CI: 1.5-5.4) times more likely to have a tubular adenoma than no polyps. Serum leptin, IP-10 and TNF-alpha were significantly associated with tubular adenoma presence. Serum leptin and IP-10 were significantly associated with increased likelihood of >= 3 polyps, and TNF-alpha showed a trend (p = 0.09). Conclusions: Obese men are more likely to have at least three polyps and adenomas. This cross-sectional study provides evidence that colonoscopy should be recommended for obese, white males.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available