Dietary N-nitroso compounds, endogenous nitrosation, and the risk of esophageal and gastric cancer subtypes in the Netherlands Cohort Study.
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Dietary N-nitroso compounds and endogenous nitrosation are important carcinogenic factors, but human evidence of their role is scarce for esophageal cancer and inconsistent for gastric cancer. OBJECTIVE: We studied the relation between risks of esophageal and gastric cancer subtypes and dietary intake of N-nitrosodimethylamine, heme iron, nitrite, and nitrate in the Netherlands Cohort Study. DESIGN: A total of 120,852 men and women aged 55-69 y were recruited in 1986, and diet, based on a 150-item food-frequency questionnaire, and other risk factors were assessed. The cohort was followed for 16.3 y, and 110 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), 151 esophageal adenocarcinoma, 166 gastric cardia adenocarcinoma, and 497 gastric noncardia adenocarcinoma (GNCA) cases were analyzed along with 4032 subcohort members in a case-cohort analysis. RESULTS: Positive associations were observed between N-nitrosodimethylamine intake and ESCC risk (HR for 0.1-μg/d increase in intake: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.25; P-trend = 0.01 based on tertiles of intake) and GNCA risk (1.06; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.10; P-trend = 0.09) in men. ESCC risk was associated with nitrite intake (HR for 0.1-mg/d increase: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.36; P-trend = 0.06) and heme-iron intake (HR for 1-mg/d increase: 1.83; 95% CI: 0.98, 3.39; P-trend = 0.03). Among women, exposure levels were lower, and we found no convincing positive associations. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that N-nitroso compounds may influence the risk of ESCC in men, but there are no clear associations for other esophageal and gastric subtypes.
- SourceAvailable from: Núria Sala[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A multifactorial and multistep model of gastric cancer (GC) is currently accepted, according to which different environmental and genetic factors are involved at different stages in the cancer process. The aim of this article is to review the most relevant information published on the relative contribution of genetic and environmental factors. Large meta-analyses confirmed the association between IL8, IL10, TNF-b, TP53 and PSCA, while genetic variation at different genes such as XPG, PLCE1, HFE, ERCC5, EZH2, DOC2, CYP19A1, ALDH2, and CDH1 have been reported to be associated with GC risk. Several microRNAs have also been associated with GC and their prognosis. Cohort studies have shown the association between GC and fruit, flavonoid, total antioxidant capacity, and green tea intake. Obesity was associated with cardia GC, heme iron intake from meat with GC risk. Several large meta-analyses have confirmed the positive association of GC with salt intake and pickled foods and the negative association with aspirin use.Helicobacter 09/2013; 18(s1). · 2.99 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The presence of nitrite in the human diet was thought to be a hazard as that could result in the formation of secondary nitrosamines, known to cause gastric cancers in animal models. Nitrite is added to food as an antibacterial agent and can also be formed by the action of reductase enzymes, present in the mouth, on nitrate. However, the epidemiological evidence linking gastric cancers in humans with nitrite and nitrate in the diet is lacking. In addition, recent work has shown that nitrate in the diet has potential benefit as it can cause a fall in blood pressure. The early use of nitrate in traditional Chinese medicine for the treatment of angina is described.Journal of Ethnopharmacology 10/2014; · 2.94 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Humans depend on our commensal bacteria for nutritive, immune-modulating, and metabolic contributions to maintenance of health. However, this commensal community exists in careful balance that, if disrupted, enters dysbiosis; this has been shown to contribute to the pathogenesis of colon, gastric, esophageal, pancreatic, laryngeal, breast, and gallbladder carcinomas. This development is closely tied to host inflammation, which causes and is aggravated by microbial dysbiosis and increases vulnerability to pathogens. Advances in sequencing technology have increased our ability to catalog microbial species associated with various cancer types across the body. However, defining microbial biomarkers as cancer predictors presents multiple challenges, and existing studies identifying cancer-associated bacteria have reported inconsistent outcomes. Combining metabolites and microbiome analyses can help elucidate interactions between gut microbiota, metabolism, and the host. Ultimately, understanding how gut dysbiosis impacts host response and inflammation will be critical to creating an accurate picture of the role of the microbiome in cancer.Current Oncology Reports 10/2014; 16(10):406. · 2.87 Impact Factor