Miller, Anthony B.

Background The association among gallbladder disease, cholecystectomy, and pancreatic cancer is unclear. Moreover, time interval between gallbladder disease or cholecystectomy and pancreatic cancer diagnosis is not considered in most previous studies. Aim To quantify the association among gallbladder disease, cholecystectomy, and pancreatic cancer, considering time since first diagnosis of gallbladder disease or cholecystectomy. Methods We used data from nine case-control studies within the Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium, including 5760 cases of adenocarcinoma of the exocrine pancreas and 8437 controls. We estimated pooled odds ratios and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals by estimating study-specific odds ratios through multivariable unconditional logistic regression models, and then pooling the obtained estimates using fixed-effects models. Results Compared with patients with no history of gallbladder disease, the pooled odds ratio of pancreatic cancer was 1.69 (95% confidence interval, 1.51–1.88) for patients reporting a history of gallbladder disease. The odds ratio was 4.90 (95% confidence interval, 3.45–6.97) for gallbladder disease diagnosed <2 years before pancreatic cancer diagnosis and 1.11 (95% confidence interval, 0.96–1.29) when ≥2 years elapsed. The pooled odds ratio was 1.64 (95% confidence interval, 1.43–1.89) for patients who underwent cholecystectomy, as compared to those without cholecystectomy. The odds ratio was 7.00 (95% confidence interval, 4.13–11.86) for a surgery <2 years before pancreatic cancer diagnosis and 1.28 (95% confidence interval, 1.08–1.53) for a surgery ≥2 years before. Conclusions There appears to be no long-term effect of gallbladder disease on pancreatic cancer risk, and at most a modest one for cholecystectomy. The strong short-term association can be explained by diagnostic bias and reverse causation.

Background Often in randomized controlled trials of cancer screening, cause of death is determined by a mortality review committee. However, little is known regarding how findings from mortality review compare to those from death certificates alone. Purpose To examine the results of four different U. S. trials of cancer screening when death certificate data only were used, as compared to results using all available mortality review information. Methods Trials included were the Health Insurance Plan of New York breast screening trial (HIP), the Minnesota trial of fecal occult blood testing, and the Johns Hopkins and Mayo Lung Projects, which each examined chest x-ray and sputum cytology. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and Cohen’s kappa for death certificates were calculated for all arms of all trials. Separate intention-to-screen analyses were conducted for each trial using cause of death information from either death certificates alone or full mortality review data. Results Generally there was excellent agreement between the death certificates and the mortality review committee as to the underlying cause of death (kappa >0.85 in all cases); death certificate agreement was similar between arms in all trials. Modest changes in the screening effectiveness estimates were observed when mortality review information was utilized, ranging from a 9% decrease to a 2% increase in the calculated mortality rate ratios. However, in one instance (HIP) a statistically significant benefit of screening was observed when mortality review committee data were used (rate ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62— 0.95) but not when death certificate data were used (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65—1.03). Limitations Although considered to be the gold standard, even carefully conducted mortality review may result in errors in cause of death assignment. Conclusions For each trial, results were similar regardless of the source of cause of death information. Clinical Trials 2010; 7: 69—77. http://ctj.sagepub.com

Abstract Intervention trials with supplemental β-carotene have observed either no effect or a harmful effect on lung cancer risk. Because food composition databases for specific carotenoids have only become available recently, epidemiological evidence relating usual dietary levels of these carotenoids with lung cancer risk is limited. We analyzed the association between lung cancer risk and intakes of specific carotenoids using the primary data from seven cohort studies in North America and Europe. Carotenoid intakes were estimated from dietary questionnaires administered at baseline in each study. We calculated study-specific multivariate relative risks (RRs) and combined these using a random-effects model. The multivariate models included smoking history and other potential risk factors. During follow-up of up to 7–16 years across studies, 3,155 incident lung cancer cases were diagnosed among 399,765 participants. β-Carotene intake was not associated with lung cancer risk (pooled multivariate RR = 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.87–1.11; highest versus lowest quintile). The RRs for α-carotene, lutein/zeaxanthin, and lycopene were also close to unity. β-Cryptoxanthin intake was inversely associated with lung cancer risk (RR = 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.67–0.86; highest versus lowest quintile). These results did not change after adjustment for intakes of vitamin C (with or without supplements), folate (with or without supplements), and other carotenoids and multivitamin use. The associations generally were similar among never, past, or current smokers and by histological type. Although smoking is the strongest risk factor for lung cancer, greater intake of foods high in β-cryptoxanthin, such as citrus fruit, may modestly lower the risk.

AbstractBecause fruits and vegetables are rich in bioactive compounds with potential cancer-preventive actions, increased consumption may reduce the risk of ovarian cancer. Evidence on the association between fruit and vegetable intake and ovarian cancer risk has not been consistent. We analyzed and pooled the primary data from 12 prospective studies in North America and Europe. Fruit and vegetable intake was measured at baseline in each study using a validated food-frequency questionnaire. To summarize the association between fruit and vegetable intake and ovarian cancer, study-specific relative risks (RR) were estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model, and then combined using a random-effects model. Among 560,441 women, 2,130 cases of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer occurred during a maximum follow-up of 7 to 22 years across studies. Total fruit intake was not associated with ovarian cancer risk—the pooled multivariate RR for the highest versus the lowest quartile of intake was 1.06 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.92-1.21; P value, test for trend = 0.73; P value, test for between-studies heterogeneity = 0.74]. Similarly, results for total vegetable intake indicated no significant association (pooled multivariate RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.78-1.04, for the highest versus the lowest quartile; P value, test for trend = 0.06; P value, test for between-studies heterogeneity = 0.31). Intakes of botanically defined fruit and vegetable groups and individual fruits and vegetables were also not associated with ovarian cancer risk. Associations for total fruits and vegetables were similar for different histologic types. These results suggest that fruit and vegetable consumption in adulthood has no important association with the risk of ovarian cancer.