Article

High Dietary Intake of Magnesium May Decrease Risk of Colorectal Cancer in Japanese Men

Epidemiology and Prevention Division, Research Center for Cancer Prevention and Screening, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Journal of Nutrition (Impact Factor: 4.23). 02/2010; 140(4):779-85. DOI: 10.3945/jn.109.117747
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Magnesium maintains genomic stability and is an essential cofactor for DNA synthesis and repair. Magnesium intake has been reported to be inversely associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) risk in Western populations. This study examined the association between dietary intake of magnesium and CRC risk in Japanese men and women aged 45-74 y. Data from 40,830 men and 46,287 women, at the 5-y follow-up of the Japan Public Health Center-based Prospective Study, who responded to a 138-item FFQ were used in this analysis. A total of 689 and 440 CRC events were observed during the mean follow-up of 7.9 and 8.3 y for men and women, respectively. When adjusted for potential confounders, the hazard ratio and 95% CI in the highest quintile of magnesium intake compared with the lowest quintile in men were 0.65 (95% CI, 0.40-1.03) for CRC (P-trend = 0.04), 0.48 (95% CI, 0.26-0.89) for colon cancer (P-trend = 0.01), and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.47-2.02) for rectal cancer (P-trend = 0.93). Borderline inverse associations were also observed in men who consumed alcohol regularly (P-trend = 0.07) or had a BMI <25 kg/m(2) (P-trend = 0.06). There were similar inverse associations for invasive colon cancer and distal colon cancer. There were no significant associations between magnesium intake and cancer risk in women. Higher dietary intake of magnesium may decrease the risk of CRC in Japanese men.

0 Followers
 · 
171 Views
  • Source
    • "Despite the potential mechanisms, evidence from observational studies has been inconclusive. Among the six large prospective cohort studies published to date, one study of Swedish women showed a significant inverse association between magnesium intake and colorectal cancer incidence (relative risk (RR) ¼ 0.59) (Larsson et al, 2005); three studies (Folsom and Hong, 2006; Lin et al, 2006; van den Brandt et al, 2007) showed non-significant inverse associations (RRs ranged between 0.80 – 0.91), one study showed a non-significant positive association (RR ¼ 1.27) (Li et al, 2011), and one study conducted in Japan showed a significant inverse association for men (RR ¼ 0.48) but not for women (RR ¼ 1.09) (Ma et al, 2010). In addition, with similar chemical properties, magnesium and calcium share the same homeostatic control system and may antagonise each other physiologically (Iseri and French, 1984). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Laboratory studies suggest a possible role of magnesium intake in colorectal carcinogenesis but epidemiological evidence is inconclusive. We tested magnesium-colorectal cancer hypothesis in the Nurses' Health Study, in which 85 924 women free of cancer in 1980 were followed until June 2008. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate multivariable relative risks (MV RRs, 95% confidence intervals). In the age-adjusted model, magnesium intake was significantly inversely associated with colorectal cancer risk; the RRs from lowest to highest decile of total magnesium intake were 1.0 (ref), 0.93, 0.81, 0.72, 0.74, 0.77, 0.72, 0.75, 0.80, and 0.67 (P(trend)<0.001). However, in the MV model adjusted for known dietary and non-dietary risk factors for colorectal cancer, the association was significantly attenuated; the MV RRs were 1.0 (ref), 0.96, 0.85, 0.78, 0.82, 0.86, 0.84, 0.91, 1.02, and 0.93 (P(trend)=0.77). Similarly, magnesium intakes were significantly inversely associated with concentrations of plasma C-peptide in age-adjusted model (P(trend)=0.002) but not in multivariate-adjusted model (P(trend)=0.61). Results did not differ by subsite or modified by calcium intakes or body mass index. These prospective results do not support an independent association of magnesium intake with either colorectal cancer risk or plasma C-peptide levels in women.
    British Journal of Cancer 03/2012; 106(7):1335-41. DOI:10.1038/bjc.2012.76 · 4.82 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Various minerals have been reported which are directly linked to our health and cancer development in body. The immune system (immunoglobulin’s, cell mediated immunity, phagocytosis complement, lysosomes, interferon, metabolic function, hormones, metabolic and respiratory alkalosis) is the natural mechanism which defends against cancer. Minerals like zinc, selenium, magnesium, vanadium, and germanium augment this natural mechanism. In this review various aspects of these mineral are discussed and their relation with cancer.
    Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science 04/2012; 2(4):158-165. DOI:10.7324/JAPS.2012.2513 · 0.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The risk for colorectal cancer may be influenced by the dietary intake of various vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids. We conducted a pooled analysis of dietary data collected using food diaries in seven prospective studies in the United Kingdom Dietary Cohort Consortium. Five hundred sixty-five cases of colorectal cancer were matched with 1,951 controls on study centre, age, sex and recruitment date. Dietary intakes of retinol, vitamin A, thiamin, riboflavin, vitamin B6, folate, vitamin B12, vitamin D, calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, n - 6 fatty acids, n - 3 fatty acids and the ratio of n - 6 to n - 3 fatty acids were estimated and their associations with colorectal cancer examined using conditional logistic regression models, adjusting for exact age, height, weight, energy intake, alcohol intake, fiber intake, smoking, education, social class and physical activity. There were no statistically significant associations between colorectal cancer risk and dietary intake of any of the vitamins, minerals or essential fatty acids examined.
    International Journal of Cancer 08/2012; 131(3):E320-5. DOI:10.1002/ijc.27386 · 5.01 Impact Factor
Show more