Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Scopus||Web of Science®||Altmetric|
Full metadata record
|dc.contributor.author||Australian National Endometrial Cancer Study Group||en|
|dc.contributor.author||Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group||en|
|dc.identifier.citation||European Journal of Nutrition, 2013; 52(2):705-715||en|
|dc.description||Martin K Oehler is a member of The Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group and The Australian National Endometrial Cancer Study Group||en|
|dc.description.abstract||Purpose: The relationship between habitual consumption of foods with a high glycemic index (GI) and/or a diet with a high glycemic load (GL) and risk of endometrial cancer is uncertain, and relatively few studies have investigated these associations. The objectives of this study were to examine the association between GI/GL and risk of endometrial cancer using data from an Australian population-based case–control study and systematically review all the available evidence to quantify the magnitude of the association using meta-analysis. Methods: The case–control study included 1,290 women aged 18–79 years with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed endometrial cancer and 1,436 population controls. Controls were selected to match the expected Australian state of residence and age distribution (in 5-year bands) of cases. For the systematic review, relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed and Embase databases through to July 2011. Random-effects models were used to calculate the summary risk estimates, overall and dose–response. Results: In our case–control study, we observed a modest positive association between high dietary GI (OR 1.43, 95 % CI 1.11–1.83) and risk of endometrial cancer, but no association with high dietary GL (OR 1.15, 95 % CI 0.90–1.48). For the meta-analysis, we collated information from six cohort and two case–control studies, involving a total of 5,569 cases. The pooled OR for the highest versus the lowest intake category of GI was 1.15 (0.95–1.40); however, there was significant heterogeneity (p 0.004) by study design (RR 1.00 [95 % CI 0.87–1.14] for cohort studies and 1.56 [95 % CI 1.21–2.02] for case–control studies). There was no association in the dose–response meta-analysis of GI (RR per 5 unit/day increment of GI 1.00, 95 % CI 0.97–1.03). GL was positively associated with endometrial cancer. The pooled RR for the highest versus the lowest GL intake was 1.21 (95 % CI 1.09–1.33) and 1.06 (95 % CI 1.01–1.11) per 50 unit/day increment of GL in the dose–response meta-analysis. Conclusion: The pooled results from observational studies, including our case–control results, provide evidence of a modest positive association between high GL, but not GI, and endometrial cancer risk.||en|
|dc.description.statementofresponsibility||Christina M. Nagle, Catherine M. Olsen, Torukiri I. Ibiebele, Amanda B. Spurdle, Penelope M. Webb, The Australian National Endometrial Cancer Study Group, The Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group||en|
|dc.subject||Glycemic load; Glycemic index; Case–control; Dose–response meta-analysis; Endometrial cancer||en|
|dc.title||Glycemic index, glycemic load and endometrial cancer risk: results from the Australian National Endometrial Cancer study and an updated systematic review and meta-analysis||en|
|Appears in Collections:||Medicine publications|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.