4.7 Article

Vegetable and fruit intakes and risk of Barrett's esophagus in men and women

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
Volume 89, Issue 3, Pages 890-896

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL NUTRITION
DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2008.26497

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute [R01 CA72866, 2R25 CA092408-06, K05 CA124911]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma. Modifiable risk factors for BE are largely unknown. Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine whether vegetable and fruit intakes are associated with BE risk. Design: In a case-control study based in western Washington State, we compared the vegetable and fruit intakes of 170 patients with newly diagnosed BE with those of 182 controls from the general population. Relations between vegetable and fruit intakes and BE were examined by using unconditional logistic regression to compute odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% CIs. Results: Participants in the second (adjusted OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.23, 0.71) and third (adjusted OR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.17, 0.63) tertiles of vegetable intake appeared to have a lower risk of BE (P for trend = 0.048) than did participants in the first tertiles of vegetable intake. Similarly, participants in the second (adjusted OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.28, 0.86) and third (adjusted OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.21, 0.75) tertiles of combined vegetable and fruit intakes had a lower risk of BE (P for trend = 0.047) than did participants in the first tertile of vegetable and fruit intakes. Similar results were obtained in subanalyses limited to patients with visible and with long-segment BE. Conclusions: The results support previous findings that increased intakes of vegetables and of vegetables and fruit are associated with a lower risk of BE in men and women. Prospective data that examine relations between diet and BE are needed. Am J Clin Nutr 2009; 89:890-6.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available