Cholesterol and breast cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies

The objective of the present study was to conduct the first systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies investigating the associations between total cholesterol (TC), HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C) and LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and the risk of breast cancer. Relevant studies were identified in PubMed (up to January 2014). Inclusion criteria were original peer-reviewed publications with a prospective design. Random-effects models were used to estimate summary hazard ratios (HR) and 95 % CI. Distinction was made between studies that did or did not exclude cancer cases diagnosed during the first years of follow-up, thereby eliminating potential preclinical bias. Overall, the summary HR for the association between TC and breast cancer risk was 0·97 (95 % CI 0·94, 1·00; dose–response per 1 mmol/l increment, thirteen studies), and that between HDL-C and breast cancer risk was 0·86 (95 % CI 0·69, 1·09; dose–response per 1 mmol/l increment, six studies), with high heterogeneity (I 2= 67 and 47 %, respectively). For studies that eliminated preclinical bias, an inverse association was observed between the risk of breast cancer and TC (dose–response HR 0·94 (95 % CI 0·89, 0·99), seven studies, I 2= 78 %; highest v. lowest HR 0·82 (95 % CI 0·66, 1·02), nine studies, I 2= 81 %) and HDL-C (dose–response HR 0·81 (95 % CI 0·65, 1·02), five studies, I 2= 30 %; highest v. lowest HR 0·82 (95 % CI 0·69, 0·98), five studies, I 2= 0 %). There was no association observed between LDL-C and the risk of breast cancer (four studies). The present meta-analysis confirms the evidence of a modest but statistically significant inverse association between TC and more specifically HDL-C and the risk of breast cancer, supported by mechanistic plausibility from experimental studies. Further large prospective studies that adequately control for preclinical bias are needed to confirm the results on the role of cholesterol level and its fractions in the aetiology of breast cancer

Advice about diet and smoking for people with or at risk of age-related macular degeneration: a cross-sectional survey of eye care professionals in the UK.

BACKGROUND: In the absence of a cure, there has been considerable interest in attempts to prevent or reduce the progression of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) by targeting particular modifiable risk factors. The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional survey of the current practice of UK eye care professionals in relation to advice given on diet and other lifestyle modifications for patients with or at risk of AMD. METHODS: Optometrists and ophthalmologists on the membership databases of professional organisations for the two professions were invited to participate in an online survey. The survey was open for 12 weeks between July and September 2012. RESULTS: A total of 1,468 responses were received (96.3% from optometrists and 3.7% from ophthalmologists). The response rate of those receiving the invitation was 16.2% (1,414/8735) for optometrists and 6% (54/1460) for ophthalmologists. A majority of respondents reported that they frequently provide dietary advice to patients with established AMD (67.9%) and those at risk of AMD (53.6%). Typical advice consisted of a recommendation to eat plenty of leafy green vegetables and eat more oily fish. The decision to recommend nutritional supplements was based on the risk of progression to advanced AMD, with approximately 93% of respondents recommending supplementation in a patient with advanced AMD in one eye. However for the majority, the type of supplement recommended did not comply with current best research evidence, based on the findings of the Age-related Eye Disease Study (AREDS). Only one in three optometrists regularly assessed smoking status and advised on smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: Within a large sample of eye care professionals, consisting predominantly of optometrists, who responded to a cross-sectional survey, there was active engagement in providing nutritional advice to patients with or at risk of AMD. However, the results demonstrate a need to raise awareness of the evidence underpinning the use of nutritional supplements together with an increased involvement in targeted smoking cessation

Weight Loss and Mortality in Overweight and Obese Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review

Background Excess adiposity is a risk factor for poorer cancer survival, but there is uncertainty over whether losing weight reduces the risk. We conducted a critical review of the literature examining weight loss and mortality in overweight or obese cancer survivors. Methods We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE for articles reporting associations between weight loss and mortality (cancer-specific or all-cause) in overweight/obese patients with obesity-related cancers. Where available, data from the same studies on non-overweight patients were compared. Results Five articles describing observational studies in breast cancer survivors were included. Four studies reported a positive association between weight loss and mortality in overweight/obese survivors, and the remaining study observed no significant association. Results were similar for non-overweight survivors. Quality assessment indicated high risk of bias across studies. Conclusions There is currently a lack of observational evidence that weight loss improves survival for overweight and obese cancer survivors. However, the potential for bias in these studies is considerable and the results likely reflect the consequences of disease-related rather than intentional weight loss. There is a need for stronger study designs, incorporating measures of intentionality of weight loss, and extended to other cancers

Epigenetics Offer New Horizons for Colorectal Cancer Prevention

In recent years, colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence has been increasing to become a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide from cancers, with high rates in westernized societies and increasing rates in developing countries. Epigenetic modifications including changes in DNA methylation, histone modifications, and non-coding RNAs play a critical role in carcinogenesis. Epidemiological data suggest that, in comparison to other cancers, these alterations are particularly common within the gastrointestinal tract. To explain these observations, environmental factors and especially diet were suggested to both prevent and induce CRC. Epigenetic alterations are, in contrast to genetic modifications, potentially reversible, making the use of dietary agents a promising approach in CRC for the development of chemopreventive strategies targeting epigenetic mechanisms. This review focuses on CRC-related epigenetic alterations as a rationale for various levels of prevention strategies and their potential modulation by natural dietary compounds

Dietary phytochemicals, HDAC inhibition, and DNA damage/repair defects in cancer cells

Genomic instability is a common feature of cancer etiology. This provides an avenue for therapeutic intervention, since cancer cells are more susceptible than normal cells to DNA damaging agents. However, there is growing evidence that the epigenetic mechanisms that impact DNA methylation and histone status also contribute to genomic instability. The DNA damage response, for example, is modulated by the acetylation status of histone and non-histone proteins, and by the opposing activities of histone acetyltransferase and histone deacetylase (HDAC) enzymes. Many HDACs overexpressed in cancer cells have been implicated in protecting such cells from genotoxic insults. Thus, HDAC inhibitors, in addition to unsilencing tumor suppressor genes, also can silence DNA repair pathways, inactivate non-histone proteins that are required for DNA stability, and induce reactive oxygen species and DNA double-strand breaks. This review summarizes how dietary phytochemicals that affect the epigenome also can trigger DNA damage and repair mechanisms. Where such data is available, examples are cited from studies in vitro and in vivo of polyphenols, organosulfur/organoselenium compounds, indoles, sesquiterpene lactones, and miscellaneous agents such as anacardic acid. Finally, by virtue of their genetic and epigenetic mechanisms, cancer chemopreventive agents are being redefined as chemo- or radio-sensitizers. A sustained DNA damage response coupled with insufficient repair may be a pivotal mechanism for apoptosis induction in cancer cells exposed to dietary phytochemicals. Future research, including appropriate clinical investigation, should clarify these emerging concepts in the context of both genetic and epigenetic mechanisms dysregulated in cancer, and the pros and cons of specific dietary intervention strategies

Nitrites and nitrates from food additives and cancer risk: results from the NutriNet-Sante cohort

International audienceNitrates and nitrites occur naturally in water and soil and are commonly ingested from water and dietary sources. They are also frequently used as food additives mainly in processed meats. Experimental data consistently suggest their involvement in carcinogenesis but human data is still limited. The aim was to investigate the relationship between nitrate and nitrite intakes and the risk of cancer in a large prospective cohort with detailed and up-to-date dietary assessment. Overall, 101,056 adults from the French NutriNet-Santé cohort study (2009-ongoing) were included. Consumption of nitrites and nitrates was evaluated using repeated 24h dietary records, linked to a comprehensive food composition database which includes details of commercial names/brands of industrial products. Prospective associations between nitrite and nitrate exposures and the risk of cancer were assessed by multivariable Cox hazard models. During follow-up, 3311 first incident cancer cases were diagnosed. Compared with non-consumers, higher consumers of nitrates as food additives had higher risk of breast cancer (HR = 1.24 (1.03-1.48), P = 0.02); this was more specifically observed for potassium nitrate e252, P = 0.01). Higher consumers of nitrites as food additives, and specifically for sodium nitrite (e250), had a higher risk of prostate cancer (HR = 1.58 (1.14-2.18), P = 0.008 and HR = 1.62 (1.17-2.25), P = 0.004, respectively). No significant association was observed for nitrates and nitrites from natural sources. In this large prospective cohort, nitrates as food additives were positively associated with breast cancer risk and nitrites as food additives were positively associated with prostate cancer risk. While these results need confirmation in other large-scale prospective studies, they provide new insights in a context of lively debate around the ban of nitrite additives in food products