The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
1990
DOI: 10.1016/s0013-9351(05)80148-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Lung cancer risk and mutagenicity of tea

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
31
0

Year Published

1992
1992
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 66 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…51 -59 - 60 The few previous studies of green tea and gastric cancer have yielded inconclusive results. Protective associations were reported from case-control studies in Japan and China. '…”
Section: ~58mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…51 -59 - 60 The few previous studies of green tea and gastric cancer have yielded inconclusive results. Protective associations were reported from case-control studies in Japan and China. '…”
Section: ~58mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although animal studies have reported compelling results on the chemopreventive effects of green tea in lung cancer, human population-based studies have produced inconsistent findings. Some have found that green tea consumption is either associated with an increased 7 or reduced risk [8][9][10] of lung cancer, whereas others have found no effect. [11][12][13] In our previous studies, we have shown that GTE induces actin remodeling in transformed urothelial MC-T11 cells, antagonizes cigarette carcinogen 4-aminobiphenyl induced actin depolymerization in untransformed HUC-PC cells, and inhibits 4-aminobiphenyl induced motility in transformed MTC-11 cells using a unique in vitro bladder cancer carcinogenesis model.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, other case -control studies found either no association (Le Marchand et al, 2000;Bonner et al, 2005) or a positive association (Tewes et al, 1990). The wide range and crude categorisation of tea consumption, different study populations, choice of controls, inadequate control for confounding, and inevitable recall bias might have obscured HR ¼ hazard ratio; CI ¼ confidence interval.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%