1,293 research outputs found

    Impact of reducing alcohol consumption through price‐based policies on cancer incidence in Germany 2020–50—a simulation study

    No full text
    Background and Aims Alcohol is a major cancer risk factor and contributes considerably to the cancer burden in Germany. We aimed to provide projections of preventable cancer cases under different price-based alcohol policy scenarios. Design A macro-simulation approach was used to estimate numbers and proportions of cancer cases prevented under different price-based alcohol policy scenarios. Setting and participants Published price elasticities for main alcoholic beverages were applied to the mean daily intake of pure alcohol in the German population calculated from the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults 2008-11 (DEGS1) to obtain hypothetical exposure distributions of alcohol consumption under different scenarios of changing price for alcoholic beverages. Measurements Age, sex and cancer site-specific potential impact fractions were calculated for different scenarios of changing the price of alcohol (single price increases, repeated price increases, volumetric price increase) for each year of a 30-year study period (2020-50). Findings Over a 30-year horizon, an estimated 4.7% (men = 10.1%, women = 1.4%) of alcohol-related cancer cases could be prevented in Germany, if alcohol intake above risk thresholds were reduced to levels below risk thresholds. Accordingly, the burden of new cancers would be reduced by approximately 244 000 cases (men = 200 000, women = 44 000). Of all price-based alcohol policy scenarios, a 100% price increase on alcoholic beverages was estimated to be most effective with approximately 213 000 (4.1%; men = 167 000; women = 47 000) preventable alcohol-related cancer cases, followed by 5-yearly 25% price increases (2.8%; men = 115 000, women = 29 000) and a volumetric price increase according to the beverage-specific alcohol content (1.9%; men = 72 000, women = 24 000). Conclusions Simulations suggest that a substantial number of alcohol-related cancer cases could be avoided in Germany by applying price-based policies to reduce consumption of alcoholic beverages

    Nutrition and physical activity recommendations for cancer survivors in Scotland: feasibility of a short course to promote behaviour change.

    Get PDF
    More people are living for longer following a cancer diagnosis, however long-term survivors are more likely to experience chronic illnesses. Improving their diet and physical activity behaviours may increase survival and reduce the risk of cancer recurrence and other non-communicable diseases. The World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research recommend that cancer survivors aim to be a healthy weight and physically active; eat a diet rich in wholegrains, vegetables, fruits and beans; limit consumption of ‘fast foods’, red and processed meat, sugar sweetened drinks and alcohol; and meet nutritional needs through diet alone rather than relying on supplements. Evidence suggests that cancer survivors are receptive to receiving advice and making dietary and physical activity changes, but barriers to improving the diet and being physically active need to be explored and addressed. We collaborated with CLAN Cancer Support (an independent charity) to assess the feasibility of a two-day course designed to improve diet and physical activity in cancer survivors in Scotland. Further, it explored the barriers and facilitators that cancer survivors identify in relation to eating a healthy diet and being physically active. The course included presentations, practical activities and group discussions. Initial analysis indicates that factors specific to this population need to be designed into the delivery of the course to enhance recruitment and promote behaviour change. Research then needs to be translated into sustainable support programmes accessible by all cancer survivors. This article describes the rationale behind the study, its design and expected outcomes

    Dairy foods and the risk of cancer

    No full text
    Cancer is a complex group of diseases often with long progression periods. As a result the ability to identify associations between foods and other components of the diet with cancer events is extremely challenging. Inevitably most of the evidence is gathered from long term prospective cohort or case-control studies which are not regarded as a high level of evidence although their value is substantially improved by systematic reviews plus meta-analysis. Over the last 25 years the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) and the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) have had a joint programme to review and evaluate the published evidence on the relationship between diet, nutrition, physical activity and cancer. This chapter will primarily summarise the latest evidence they have published on the associations between dairy food consumption and cancer risk. Their latest key findings are 1) ‘Consumption of dairy products probably protects against colorectal cancer’, 2) There is ‘Limited-suggestive evidence that dairy products can decrease premenopausal breast cancer risk’, but the post-menopausal situation is less clear and ‘no conclusion was possible’ and 3) ‘For a higher consumption of dairy products, the evidence suggesting an increased risk of prostate cancer is limited’

    Genetically predicted circulating concentrations of micronutrients and risk of breast cancer: A Mendelian randomization study.

    No full text
    The epidemiological literature reports inconsistent associations between consumption or circulating concentrations of micronutrients and breast cancer risk. We investigated associations between genetically predicted concentrations of 11 micronutrients (beta-carotene, calcium, copper, folate, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, selenium, vitamin B6 , vitamin B12 and zinc) and breast cancer risk using Mendelian randomization (MR). A two-sample MR study was conducted using 122 977 women with breast cancer and 105 974 controls from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. MR analyses were conducted using the inverse variance-weighted approach, and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of potential violations of MR assumptions. A value of 1 SD (SD: 0.08 mmol/L) higher genetically predicted concentration of magnesium was associated with a 17% (odds ratio [OR]: 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10-1.25, P value = 9.1 × 10-7 ) and 20% (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.08-1.34, P value = 3.2 × 10-6 ) higher risk of overall and ER+ve breast cancer, respectively. An inverse association was observed for a SD (0.5 mg/dL) higher genetically predicted phosphorus concentration and ER-ve breast cancer (OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.72-0.98, P value = .03). There was little evidence that any other nutrient was associated with breast cancer. The results for magnesium were robust under all sensitivity analyses and survived correction for multiple comparisons. Higher circulating concentrations of magnesium and potentially phosphorus may affect breast cancer risk. Further work is required to replicate these findings and investigate underlying mechanisms

    A systematic review and meta-analysis of the 2007 WCRF/AICR score in relation to cancer-related health outcomes

    Get PDF
    Background: We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of observational studies investigating adherence to the 2007 World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR) lifestyle recommendations for cancer prevention and health outcomes. Patients and methods: We searched PubMed and the in-house database of the WCRF Continuous Update Project for publications up to June 2019. Cross-sectional studies were only narratively reviewed given their heterogeneity while findings of cohort/case-control studies were synthesized in umbrella reviews and meta-analyses. Summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using a random-effects model when at least two studies reported results on a specific outcome. Results: Thirty-eight articles (17 prospective, 8 case-control, and 13 cross-sectional studies) were included. The summary RR per each point increment in the 2007 WCRF/AICR score was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87e0.93, n 1⁄4 11) for breast cancer, regardless of hormone receptor and menopausal status, 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82e0.89, n 1⁄4 10) for colorectal cancer, and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.89e0.96, n 1⁄4 2) for lung cancer risk. No statistically significant associations were reported for prostate (n 1⁄4 6) and pancreatic cancers (n 1⁄4 2). Adherence to the recommendations was associated with lower overall mortality (RR 1⁄4 0.90, 95% CI 0.84e0.96, n 1⁄4 3) and cancer-specific mortality (RR 1⁄4 0.91, 95% CI 0.89e0.92; n 1⁄4 3) in healthy populations, as well as with higher survival in cancer patients (n 1⁄4 2). In cross-sectional studies, a healthier plasma marker profile and lower cancer risk factors in the general population and a better health status and quality of life in cancer patients/survivors were reported. Conclusions: Adhering to the 2007 WCRF/AICR recommendations is associated with lower risks of cancer incidence, namely breast and colorectal cancers, and mortality. Primary prevention of cancer should emphasize modification of multiple lifestyle factors. Upcoming studies examining the recently updated 2018 guidelines will further clarify such associations

    A scoping review of the characteristics and benefits of online prostate cancer communities

    No full text
    Objective Online prostate cancer communities (OPCaCs) have emerged as a new source of support, not bounded by geographic barriers, for men living with prostate cancer. This scoping review mapped the existing literature to explore the characteristics and benefits of OPCaCs, identify knowledge gaps, and direct future research. Methods A six‐step methodological framework for scoping reviews was followed. Four electronic databases were searched for relevant studies. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and full texts, against predefined criteria: empirical research, post 1990, in English‐language peer‐reviewed journals; participants included prostate cancer survivors; and research explored online peer support. Data were extracted from the studies and quality assessed. Results The search yielded 905 studies, with 21 selected for synthesis. Despite significant increases in online forum membership, in the last decade, nearly half of the research was conducted over a decade ago. Three studies were rated high quality, the rest moderate. All but one of the studies were observational and cross‐sectional. Men reported that sharing information helped them deal with their diagnosis and treatment side effects. They also gained a sense of camaraderie with men who shared similar experiences. Due to divergent methodologies and reporting standards, assessment regarding OPCaC efficacy is not possible. Conclusion OPCaCs may be a cost‐effective and accessible resource for delivering peer support to men living with prostate cancer. While self‐reported evidence as to the benefits of OPCaCs exists, more longitudinal comparative studies, utilising consistent measurement approaches, are needed to support the claims

    Testing the nutritional relevance of food- based dietary guidelines with mathematical optimisation of individual diets

    No full text
    Mathematical optimisation of diets is generally used to translate nutrient-based recommendations into healthy food choices but can also be used to assess the possible impact of food-based dietary guidelines (FBDG) on nutrient intakes. Optimisation of individual diets, which allows individual variability of food consumption to be taken into account, generates more robust results and more realistic diets than population diet optimisation. It was used to simulate the impact on nutrient intakes of complying with the new French FBDGs. For each observed diet of adults in the French INCA2 survey, a new isoenergetic diet was designed to meet all food consumption frequencies recommended by the new French FBDGs, as interpreted by the constraints included in a model called DP2. Because the dairy food group is the only one whose guideline has been reduced (from 3 to 2 portions/day) compared to the previous FBDGs, an alternative model, called DP3, imposing 3 daily portions of dairy products instead of 2 was also tested. Diets optimised with the DP2 model had lower energy density and higher nutrient density than the observed diets, and inadequate intakes decreased for most vitamins and minerals. With the alternative DP3 model, the decrease in saturates was less pronounced than with 2 portions/day of dairy products (13.8%, 11.9% and 12.8% energy in observed diets and in DP2 and DP3, respectively), but calcium adequacy was improved instead of being worsened (51%, 58% and 16% of inadequacy in observed diets and in diets modelled with 2 portions/day and 3 portions/day of dairy products, respectively). Individual diet optimisation is a powerful tool for assessing the nutritional relevance of existing FBDGs and to test possible alternatives

    The case for action on socioeconomic differences in overweight and obesity among Australian adults: modelling the disease burden and healthcare costs

    Get PDF
    Objective: We aimed to quantify the extent to which socioeconomic differences in body mass index (BMI) drive avoidable deaths, incident disease cases and healthcare costs. Methods: We used population attributable fractions to quantify the annual burden of disease attributable to socioeconomic differences in BMI for Australian adults aged 20 to <85 years in 2016, stratified by quintiles of an area-level indicator of socioeconomic disadvantage (SocioEconomic Index For Areas Indicator of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage; SEIFA) and BMI (normal weight, overweight, obese). We estimated direct healthcare costs using annual estimates per person per BMI category. Results: We attributed $AU1.06 billion in direct healthcare costs to socioeconomic differences in BMI in 2016. The greatest number (proportion) of cases and deaths attributable to socioeconomic differences in BMI was observed for type 2 diabetes among women (8,602 total cases [16%], with 3,471 cases [22%] in the most disadvantaged quintile [SEIFA 1]) and all-cause mortality among men (2027 total deaths [4%], with 815 deaths [6%] in SEIFA 1). Conclusions: Socioeconomic differences in BMI substantially contribute to avoidable deaths, disease cases and direct healthcare costs in Australia. Implications for public health: Population-level policies to reduce socioeconomic differences in overweight and obesity must be identified and implemented

    Effects of total fat intake on body fatness in adults

    Get PDF
    Background: The ideal proportion of energy from fat in our food and its relation to body weight is not clear. In order to prevent overweight and obesity in the general population, we need to understand the relationship between the proportion of energy from fat and resulting weight and body fatness in the general population. Objectives: To assess the effects of proportion of energy intake from fat on measures of body fatness (including body weight, waist circumference, percentage body fat and body mass index) in people not aiming to lose weight, using all appropriate randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least six months duration. Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to October 2019. We did not limit the search by language. Selection criteria: Trials fulfilled the following criteria: 1) randomised intervention trial, 2) included adults aged at least 18 years, 3) randomised to a lower fat versus higher fat diet, without the intention to reduce weight in any participants, 4) not multifactorial and 5) assessed a measure of weight or body fatness after at least six months. We duplicated inclusion decisions and resolved disagreement by discussion or referral to a third party. Data collection and analysis: We extracted data on the population, intervention, control and outcome measures in duplicate. We extracted measures of body fatness (body weight, BMI, percentage body fat and waist circumference) independently in duplicate at all available time points. We performed random-effects meta-analyses, meta-regression, subgrouping, sensitivity, funnel plot analyses and GRADE assessment. Main results: We included 37 RCTs (57,079 participants). There is consistent high-quality evidence from RCTs that reducing total fat intake results in small reductions in body fatness; this was seen in almost all included studies and was highly resistant to sensitivity analyses (GRADE high-consistency evidence, not downgraded). The effect of eating less fat (compared with higher fat intake) is a mean body weight reduction of 1.4 kg (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.7 to -1.1 kg, in 53,875 participants from 26 RCTs, I2 = 75%). The heterogeneity was explained in subgrouping and meta-regression. These suggested that greater weight loss results from greater fat reductions in people with lower fat intake at baseline, and people with higher body mass index (BMI) at baseline. The size of the effect on weight does not alter over time and is mirrored by reductions in BMI (MD -0.5 kg/m2, 95% CI -0.6 to -0.3, 46,539 participants in 14 trials, I2 = 21%), waist circumference (MD -0.5 cm, 95% CI -0.7 to -0.2, 16,620 participants in 3 trials; I2 = 21%), and percentage body fat (MD -0.3% body fat, 95% CI -0.6 to 0.00, P = 0.05, in 2350 participants in 2 trials; I2 = 0%). There was no suggestion of harms associated with low fat diets that might mitigate any benefits on body fatness. The reduction in body weight was reflected in small reductions in LDL (-0.13 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.05), and total cholesterol (-0.23 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.14), with little or no effect on HDL cholesterol (-0.02 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.00), triglycerides (0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.07), systolic (-0.75 mmHg, 95% CI -1.42 to -0.07) or diastolic blood pressure(-0.52 mmHg, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.09), all GRADE high-consistency evidence or quality of life (0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.07, on a scale of 0 to 10, GRADE low-consistency evidence). Authors' conclusions: Trials where participants were randomised to a lower fat intake versus a higher fat intake, but with no intention to reduce weight, showed a consistent, stable but small effect of low fat intake on body fatness: slightly lower weight, BMI, waist circumference and percentage body fat compared with higher fat arms. Greater fat reduction, lower baseline fat intake and higher baseline BMI were all associated with greater reductions in weight. There was no evidence of harm to serum lipids, blood pressure or quality of life, but rather of small benefits or no effect