Combined Mineral Intakes and Risk of Colorectal Cancer in Postmenopausal Women

Abstract

Background: Despite considerable biological plausibility, other than for calcium, there are few reported epidemiologic studies on mineral intake-colorectal cancer associations, none of which investigated multiple minerals in aggregate.Methods: Accordingly, we incorporated 11 minerals into a mineral score and investigated its association with incident colorectal cancer in the Iowa Women's Health Study, a prospective cohort study of 55-to 69-year-old women who completed a food frequency questionnaire in 1986. In the analytic cohort (n ¼ 35, 221), 1,731 incident colorectal cancer cases were identified via the State Health Registry of Iowa. Participants' calcium, magnesium, manganese, zinc, selenium, potassium, and iodine intakes were ranked 1 to 5, with higher ranks indicating higher, potentially anticarcinogenic, intakes, whereas for iron, copper, phosphorus, and sodium intakes, the rankings were reversed to account for their possible procarci-nogenic properties. The rankings were summed to create each woman's mineral score. The mineral score-incident colorectal cancer association was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression.Results: There was decreasing risk with an increasing score (P trend ¼ 0.001). The hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for those in mineral score quintiles 2 to 5 relative to those in the lowest were 0.91 (CI, 0.88-1.08), 0.85 (CI, 0.75-0.95), 0.86 (CI, 0.75-0.97), and 0.75 (CI, 0.71-0.95), respectively.Conclusions: Our findings suggest that a predominance of putative anti-relative to pro-colorectal carcinogenic mineral intakes may be inversely associated with colorectal cancer risk.Impact: These results support further investigation of colorectal cancer etiology using composite mineral intake scores.

A CALCIUM-RICH MULTI-MINERAL INTERVENTION TO MODULATE COLONIC MICROBIAL COMMUNITIES AND METABOLOMIC PROFILES IN HUMANS: Results from a 90-day trial

“…Finally, the observation that Aquamin had a more pronounced effect on gut microbial populations and bile acid levels than calcium alone supports the view that the beneficial activity of Aquamin (calcium in conjunction with additional trace elements) cannot be attributed to calcium alone. This conclusion supports findings from a recent epidemiological study suggesting that calcium in combination of additional minerals may be linked with the lower risk of colorectal cancer(50).…”

Ulcerative Colitis-Derived Colonoid Culture: A Multi-Mineral-Approach to Improve Barrier Protein Expression

“…While there are no intake recommendations for many of the other potentially important trace elements in Aquamin R , deficiencies likely exist for those elements that are nutritionally associated with calcium or magnesium. While roles for calcium and magnesium in the prevention of chronic disease are at least partially understood, what role micronutrient deficienciesincluding those involving minerals -play in chronic or longlatency diseases is only beginning to get attention (Lennie et al, 2018;Swaminath et al, 2019). To the extent that multi-mineral deficiencies are common, the findings presented here allow us to hypothesize that such deficiencies might contribute to the weakening of the colonic barrier in many individuals, including those with UC.…”

Gene–Diet Interactions in Colorectal Cancer: Survey Design, Instruments, Participants and Descriptive Data of a Case–Control Study in the Basque Country

“…Additionally, in this survey, we calculated a mineral score, which is a modified version of the score proposed by Swaminath et al [60] who have associated this score with CRC risk. In the present study, this mineral score included six minerals with possible colon anti-carcinogenic effects (calcium, magnesium, zinc, selenium, potassium and iodine) and four with pro-carcinogenic properties (iron, copper, phosphorus and sodium).…”

“…We applied a similar score methodology to that developed by Swaminath et al [60]. That is, for each mineral hypothesized to reduce CRC risk, each participant was assigned a value equal to their tertile rank (i.e., a value of 1-3, with lower ranks indicating lower mineral intakes and higher ranks indicating higher mineral intakes).…”