Dietary factors and endometrial cancer risk. Results of a case-control study in Mexico

Abstract

Daily diet factors that could potentially be related to endometrial cancer (EC) in Mexico are still unknown. This study aims to evaluate the association between EC and Mexican dietary factors. A case-control study in Mexico City was conducted during 1995-1997 in a social security hospital, using 85 incident cases of EC and 629 controls. A validated questionnaire with 116 items about the frequency and type of food intake was used. The analysis of nutrients was performed using the residual method, adjusting by predictor variables through logistic regression methods. In addition, partitional models estimated total caloric intake for other sources. We found no association between EC risk and consumption of animal or vegetable proteins, saturated, monounsaturated, or polyunsaturated fat, although high intake of nutrients such as lactose (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-1.01, P for trend = 0.004), vitamin D (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.18-0.82, P= 0.003), and calcium (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17-0.89, P= 0.02) were inversely associated with EC. Our results suggest that dietary vitamin D and calcium play an important role in the development of EC, although the mechanisms postulated should be explained with additional studies with large populations.

Dietary lipids and endometrial cancer: the current epidemiologic evidence

“…This systematic literature review included 13 manuscripts from three cohort studies [26,27,36] and 9 case-control studies [23,25,28,29,[31][32][33][34][35] evaluating dietary fats. Selected characteristics of these studies and exposures of interest evaluated are listed in Table 1.…”

“…As shown in the table, these studies were conducted in several countries and varied considerably in the quality of dietary assessment, as well as in the evaluation of dietary fats and methods of dealing with the strong confounding effect of total energy intake. The case-control study by Salazar-Martinez et al [33] was not included in dose-response meta-analyses because it did not present an estimate of total energy intake and, therefore, transformation of exposure estimates into nutrient density measures was not possible.…”

“…Excluding these 15 manuscripts left a total of 13 manuscripts [23,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36], two of them representing the same study by Goodman et al [29,30]. However, the two papers contributed data to analyses as one presents odds ratios and confidence intervals with more precision [30], while the other presents more variables and analyses [29].…”

“…Meta-analysis-The two cohort studies [26,27] and seven independent case-control studies [23,25,[28][29][30][31][32][33] evaluating total fat, listed in Table 2, were considered for inclusion in metaanalyses. The analysis by Furberg et al [27] was excluded because analyses were only adjusted for age.…”

“…Four [23,25,29,31] of the five population-based case-control studies [23,25,29,31,32] suggested elevated risk associated with higher saturated fat intake, while two small hospital-based casecontrol studies [33,34] did not support such association. We found only one cohort study reporting on saturated fat intake, the Canadian National Breast Screening (CNBS) Study [26], which suggested an inverse association (RR=0.7), although the confidence interval included one (Table 3).…”