Cargando…
Diet quality and Gleason grade progression among localised prostate cancer patients on active surveillance
BACKGROUND: High diet quality may support a metabolic and anti-inflammatory state less conducive to tumour progression. We prospectively investigated diet quality in relation to Gleason grade progression among localised prostate cancer patients on active surveillance, a clinical management strategy...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6462004/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30679782 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-019-0380-2 |
_version_ | 1783410563060072448 |
---|---|
author | Gregg, Justin R. Zheng, Jiali Lopez, David S. Reichard, Chad Browman, Gladys Chapin, Brian Kim, Jeri Davis, John Daniel, Carrie R. |
author_facet | Gregg, Justin R. Zheng, Jiali Lopez, David S. Reichard, Chad Browman, Gladys Chapin, Brian Kim, Jeri Davis, John Daniel, Carrie R. |
author_sort | Gregg, Justin R. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: High diet quality may support a metabolic and anti-inflammatory state less conducive to tumour progression. We prospectively investigated diet quality in relation to Gleason grade progression among localised prostate cancer patients on active surveillance, a clinical management strategy of disease monitoring and delayed intervention. METHODS: Men with newly diagnosed Gleason score 6 or 7 prostate cancer enroled on a biennial monitoring regimen. Patients completed a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) at baseline (n = 411) and first 6-month follow-up (n = 263). Cox proportional hazards models were fitted to evaluate multivariable-adjusted associations of diet quality [defined via the Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2015] with Gleason grade progression. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 36 months, 76 men progressed. Following adjustment for clinicopathologic factors, we observed a suggestive inverse association between baseline diet quality and Gleason grade progression [hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the highest vs. the lowest HEI-2015 tertile: 0.59 (0.32–1.08); P(trend) = 0.06]. We observed no associations with diet quality at 6-month follow-up, nor change in diet quality from baseline. CONCLUSIONS: In localised prostate cancer patients on surveillance, higher diet quality or conformance with United States dietary guidelines at enrolment may lower risk of Gleason grade progression, though additional confirmatory research is needed. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6462004 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-64620042020-01-25 Diet quality and Gleason grade progression among localised prostate cancer patients on active surveillance Gregg, Justin R. Zheng, Jiali Lopez, David S. Reichard, Chad Browman, Gladys Chapin, Brian Kim, Jeri Davis, John Daniel, Carrie R. Br J Cancer Article BACKGROUND: High diet quality may support a metabolic and anti-inflammatory state less conducive to tumour progression. We prospectively investigated diet quality in relation to Gleason grade progression among localised prostate cancer patients on active surveillance, a clinical management strategy of disease monitoring and delayed intervention. METHODS: Men with newly diagnosed Gleason score 6 or 7 prostate cancer enroled on a biennial monitoring regimen. Patients completed a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) at baseline (n = 411) and first 6-month follow-up (n = 263). Cox proportional hazards models were fitted to evaluate multivariable-adjusted associations of diet quality [defined via the Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2015] with Gleason grade progression. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 36 months, 76 men progressed. Following adjustment for clinicopathologic factors, we observed a suggestive inverse association between baseline diet quality and Gleason grade progression [hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the highest vs. the lowest HEI-2015 tertile: 0.59 (0.32–1.08); P(trend) = 0.06]. We observed no associations with diet quality at 6-month follow-up, nor change in diet quality from baseline. CONCLUSIONS: In localised prostate cancer patients on surveillance, higher diet quality or conformance with United States dietary guidelines at enrolment may lower risk of Gleason grade progression, though additional confirmatory research is needed. Nature Publishing Group UK 2019-01-25 2019-02-19 /pmc/articles/PMC6462004/ /pubmed/30679782 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-019-0380-2 Text en © Cancer Research UK 2019 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This work is published under the standard license to publish agreement. After 12 months the work will become freely available and the license terms will switch to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). |
spellingShingle | Article Gregg, Justin R. Zheng, Jiali Lopez, David S. Reichard, Chad Browman, Gladys Chapin, Brian Kim, Jeri Davis, John Daniel, Carrie R. Diet quality and Gleason grade progression among localised prostate cancer patients on active surveillance |
title | Diet quality and Gleason grade progression among localised prostate cancer patients on active surveillance |
title_full | Diet quality and Gleason grade progression among localised prostate cancer patients on active surveillance |
title_fullStr | Diet quality and Gleason grade progression among localised prostate cancer patients on active surveillance |
title_full_unstemmed | Diet quality and Gleason grade progression among localised prostate cancer patients on active surveillance |
title_short | Diet quality and Gleason grade progression among localised prostate cancer patients on active surveillance |
title_sort | diet quality and gleason grade progression among localised prostate cancer patients on active surveillance |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6462004/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30679782 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-019-0380-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT greggjustinr dietqualityandgleasongradeprogressionamonglocalisedprostatecancerpatientsonactivesurveillance AT zhengjiali dietqualityandgleasongradeprogressionamonglocalisedprostatecancerpatientsonactivesurveillance AT lopezdavids dietqualityandgleasongradeprogressionamonglocalisedprostatecancerpatientsonactivesurveillance AT reichardchad dietqualityandgleasongradeprogressionamonglocalisedprostatecancerpatientsonactivesurveillance AT browmangladys dietqualityandgleasongradeprogressionamonglocalisedprostatecancerpatientsonactivesurveillance AT chapinbrian dietqualityandgleasongradeprogressionamonglocalisedprostatecancerpatientsonactivesurveillance AT kimjeri dietqualityandgleasongradeprogressionamonglocalisedprostatecancerpatientsonactivesurveillance AT davisjohn dietqualityandgleasongradeprogressionamonglocalisedprostatecancerpatientsonactivesurveillance AT danielcarrier dietqualityandgleasongradeprogressionamonglocalisedprostatecancerpatientsonactivesurveillance |