4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Cruciferous vegetable intake and the risk of human cancer: epidemiological evidence

期刊

PROCEEDINGS OF THE NUTRITION SOCIETY
卷 68, 期 1, 页码 103-110

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0029665108008884

关键词

Cruciferous vegetables; Cancer; Epidemiology; 3,3 '-Diindolylmethane

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over several decades a number of epidemiological studies have identified the inverse associations between cruciferous vegetables and the risk of several cancers, including gastric, breast, colo-rectal, lung, prostate, bladder and endometrial cancers, via plausible physiological mechanisms. Although retrospective case-control studies have consistently reported inverse associations between the risk of these cancers and the intake of cruciferous vegetables and isothiocyanate-containing plants, current prospective cohort studies have found these associations to be weaker and less consistent. Genetic variations affecting the metabolism of glucosinolate hydrolysis products may modulate the effects of cruciferous vegetable consumption on cancer risk, which may be one of the reasons for the discrepancies between retrospective and prospective studies. In addition, methodological issues such as measurement errors of dietary exposure, misclassification, recall bias, publication bias, confounding and study design should be carefully considered in interpreting the results of case-control and cohort studies and in drawing conclusions in relation to the potential effects of cruciferous vegetables on cancers. Although recent comprehensive reviews of numerous studies have purported to show the specific protective role of cruciferous vegetables, and particularly Brassicas, against cancer risk, the current epidemiological evidence suggests that cruciferous vegetable consumption may reduce the fisk only of gastric and lung cancers. However, there is at present no conclusive evidence that the consumption of cruciferous vegetables attenuates the risk of all other cancers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据