Diet and colorectal cancer in UK Biobank: A prospective study

138Citations
Citations of this article
369Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Most of the previous studies on diet and colorectal cancer were based on diets consumed during the 1990s. Methods: We used Cox-regression models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios for colorectal cancer by dietary factors in the UK Biobank study. Men and women aged 40-69 years at recruitment (2006-10) reported their diet on a short food-frequency questionnaire (n = 475 581). Dietary intakes were re-measured in a large sub-sample (n = 175 402) who completed an online 24-hour dietary assessment during follow-up. Trends in risk across the baseline categories were calculated by assigning re-measured intakes to allow for measurement error and changes in intake over time. Results: During an average of 5.7 years of follow-up, 2609 cases of colorectal cancer occurred. Participants who reported consuming an average of 76 g/day of red and processed meat compared with 21 g/day had a 20% [95% confidence interval (CI): 4-37] higher risk of colorectal cancer. Participants in the highest fifth of intake of fibre from bread and breakfast cereals had a 14% (95% CI: 2-24) lower risk of colorectal cancer. Alcohol was associated with an 8% (95% CI: 4-12) higher risk per 10 g/day higher intake. Fish, poultry, cheese, fruit, vegetables, tea and coffee were not associated with colorectal-cancer risk. Conclusions: Consumption of red and processed meat at an average level of 76 g/d that meets the current UK government recommendation (≤90 g/day) was associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. Alcohol was also associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer, whereas fibre from bread and breakfast cereals was associated with a reduced risk.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bradbury, K. E., Murphy, N., & Key, T. J. (2020). Diet and colorectal cancer in UK Biobank: A prospective study. International Journal of Epidemiology, 49(1), 246–258. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyz064

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free