Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

Utilization of Prostate Cancer Screening According to Dietary Patterns and Other Demographic Variables. The Adventist Health Study-2

Read this article at

Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Abstract

      Background: Prostate-specific antigen test and digital rectal examination are considered important screening methods for early detection of prostate cancer. However, the utilization of prostate cancer screening varies widely and there is limited knowledge of the predictors of utilization.Methods: Self-reported prostate cancer screening utilization within the last 2 years was investigated among 11,162 black and non-black North American Seventh-day Adventist men, aged 50-75 years, with different dietary patterns and lifestyle characteristics.Results: Blacks were more likely to screen for prostate cancer than non-blacks (Odds Ratio (OR)=1.38 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.20-1.57).Those with a vegetarian diet, especially vegans, were less likely to follow screening guidelines, particularly among non-Blacks: vegans (OR=0.47, 0.39-0.58), lacto-ovo-vegetarians (OR=0.75, 0.66-0.86), and pesco-vegetarians (OR=0.74, 0.60-0.91) compared to non-vegetarians after adjusting for age, BMI, marital status, education, income, and family history of cancer. Trends for dietary patterns remained unchanged after stratification on age, family history of cancer, education, personal income, marital status, and BMI.Among black men, diet patterns showed no significant associations with utilization of prostate cancer screening, although vegans tended to underutilize screening compared to non-vegetarians (OR=0.70, 0.44-1.10).Conclusions: Vegetarians, especially non-black vegans, are less likely to follow recommended prostate cancer screening guidelines. The effect of diet was attenuated, and not statistically significant, among black men.Impact: Since only about 60% of US men follow prostate cancer screening guidelines, it is important to study reasons for non-compliance in order to increase utilization of preventive measures against prostate cancer.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 63

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

       V Moyer,  Jarrett Moyer,   (2012)
      Update of the 2008 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on screening for prostate cancer. The USPSTF reviewed new evidence on the benefits and harms of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer, as well as the benefits and harms of treatment of localized prostate cancer. The USPSTF recommends against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer (grade D recommendation).This recommendation applies to men in the general U.S. population, regardless of age. This recommendation does not include the use of the PSA test for surveillance after diagnosis or treatment of prostate cancer; the use of the PSA test for this indication is outside the scope of the USPSTF.
        Bookmark
        • Record: found
        • Abstract: found
        • Article: not found

        Prostate cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up.

        The prostate component of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial was undertaken to determine whether there is a reduction in prostate cancer mortality from screening using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and digital rectal examination (DRE). Mortality after 7-10 years of follow-up has been reported previously. We report extended follow-up to 13 years after the trial. A total of 76 685 men, aged 55-74 years, were enrolled at 10 screening centers between November 1993 and July 2001 and randomly assigned to the intervention (organized screening of annual PSA testing for 6 years and annual DRE for 4 years; 38 340 men) and control (usual care, which sometimes included opportunistic screening; 38 345 men) arms. Screening was completed in October 2006. All incident prostate cancers and deaths from prostate cancer through 13 years of follow-up or through December 31, 2009, were ascertained. Relative risks (RRs) were estimated as the ratio of observed rates in the intervention and control arms, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated assuming a Poisson distribution for the number of events. Poisson regression modeling was used to examine the interactions with respect to prostate cancer mortality between trial arm and age, comorbidity status, and pretrial PSA testing. All statistical tests were two-sided. Approximately 92% of the study participants were followed to 10 years and 57% to 13 years. At 13 years, 4250 participants had been diagnosed with prostate cancer in the intervention arm compared with 3815 in the control arm. Cumulative incidence rates for prostate cancer in the intervention and control arms were 108.4 and 97.1 per 10 000 person-years, respectively, resulting in a relative increase of 12% in the intervention arm (RR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.07 to 1.17). After 13 years of follow-up, the cumulative mortality rates from prostate cancer in the intervention and control arms were 3.7 and 3.4 deaths per 10 000 person-years, respectively, resulting in a non-statistically significant difference between the two arms (RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.36). No statistically significant interactions with respect to prostate cancer mortality were observed between trial arm and age (P(interaction) = .81), pretrial PSA testing (P(interaction) = .52), and comorbidity (P(interaction) = .68). After 13 years of follow-up, there was no evidence of a mortality benefit for organized annual screening in the PLCO trial compared with opportunistic screening, which forms part of usual care, and there was no apparent interaction with age, baseline comorbidity, or pretrial PSA testing.
          Bookmark
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Type of Vegetarian Diet, Body Weight, and Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes

          OBJECTIVE We assessed the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in people following different types of vegetarian diets compared with that in nonvegetarians. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS The study population comprised 22,434 men and 38,469 women who participated in the Adventist Health Study-2 conducted in 2002–2006. We collected self-reported demographic, anthropometric, medical history, and lifestyle data from Seventh-Day Adventist church members across North America. The type of vegetarian diet was categorized based on a food-frequency questionnaire. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs using multivariate-adjusted logistic regression. RESULTS Mean BMI was lowest in vegans (23.6 kg/m2) and incrementally higher in lacto-ovo vegetarians (25.7 kg/m2), pesco-vegetarians (26.3 kg/m2), semi-vegetarians (27.3 kg/m2), and nonvegetarians (28.8 kg/m2). Prevalence of type 2 diabetes increased from 2.9% in vegans to 7.6% in nonvegetarians; the prevalence was intermediate in participants consuming lacto-ovo (3.2%), pesco (4.8%), or semi-vegetarian (6.1%) diets. After adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, television watching, sleep habits, alcohol use, and BMI, vegans (OR 0.51 [95% CI 0.40–0.66]), lacto-ovo vegetarians (0.54 [0.49–0.60]), pesco-vegetarians (0.70 [0.61–0.80]), and semi-vegetarians (0.76 [0.65–0.90]) had a lower risk of type 2 diabetes than nonvegetarians. CONCLUSIONS The 5-unit BMI difference between vegans and nonvegetarians indicates a substantial potential of vegetarianism to protect against obesity. Increased conformity to vegetarian diets protected against risk of type 2 diabetes after lifestyle characteristics and BMI were taken into account. Pesco- and semi-vegetarian diets afforded intermediate protection.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Affiliations
            Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Population Medicine, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 92350, USA.
            Author notes
            ✉ Corresponding author: Synnove Knutsen, MD, PhD, Professor and Chair, Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Population Medicine, School of Public Health and Professor of Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine; 24951 North Circle Drive, Nichol Hall 2003B, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 92350, USA. Tel: 909-558-4300 ext. 44590; Fax: +1 909 558 0326; E-mail: sknutsen@ 123456llu.edu .

            Competing Interests: Authors had no relevant financial interests.

            Journal
            J Cancer
            J Cancer
            jca
            Journal of Cancer
            Ivyspring International Publisher (Sydney )
            1837-9664
            2013
            28 June 2013
            : 4
            : 5
            : 416-426
            23833686
            3701811
            10.7150/jca.6442
            jcav04p0416
            © Ivyspring International Publisher. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Reproduction is permitted for personal, noncommercial use, provided that the article is in whole, unmodified, and properly cited.
            Categories
            Research Paper

            Comments

            Comment on this article