4.7 Article

Role of dietary polyamines in a phase III clinical trial of difluoromethylornithine (DFMO) and sulindac for prevention of sporadic colorectal adenomas

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 108, 期 3, 页码 512-518

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2013.15

关键词

adenomas; diet; DFMO; eflornithine; polyamines; sulindac

类别

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [NO1-CN75019, CA59024, CA62230, CA88078, CA47396, CA72008, CA95060]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The polyamine-inhibitory regimen difluoromethylornithine (DFMO) + sulindac has marked efficacy in preventing metachronous colorectal adenomas. Polyamines are synthesised endogenously and obtained from dietary sources. Here we investigate dietary polyamine intake and outcomes in the DFMO + sulindac colorectal adenoma prevention trial. Methods: Dietary polyamine data were available for 188 of 267 patients completing the study. Total dietary polyamine content was derived by the sum of dietary putrescine, spermine and spermidine values and categorised into two groups: highest (>75-100%) vs the lower three quartiles (0-25, 25-50 and 50-75%). Baseline tissue polyamine concentration and ODC1 genotype were determined. Logistic regression models were used for risk estimation. Results: A significant interaction was detected between dietary polyamine group and treatment with regard to adenoma recurrence (P = 0.012). Significant metachronous adenoma risk reduction was observed after DFMO + sulindac treatment in dietary polyamine quartiles 1-3 (risk ratio (RR) 0.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08-0.42; P < 0.0001) but not in quartile 4 (RR 1.51; 95% CI 0.53-4.29; P = 0.44). However, a lower number of events in the placebo group within dietary quartile 4 confound the aforementioned risk estimates. Conclusion: These preliminary findings reveal complex relationships between diet and therapeutic prevention, and they support further clinical trial-based investigations where the dietary intervention itself is controlled.

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

4.7
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