Coffee consumption and colorectal cancer risk: a multicentre case-control study from Italy and Spain.

BACKGROUND: Coffee contains many bioactive substances that can play a role on colorectal cancer. Epidemiological evidence of coffee intake and colorectal cancer is, however, inconsistent. AIM: To provide further information on the risk of colorectal cancer in relation to coffee consumption. METHODS: Data derive from two companion case-control studies conducted in Italy and Spain within the European Union Project on Health Impacts of long-term exposure to disinfection by-products in Drinking Water and the Spanish Multi-Case Control study on Cancer. These included a total of 2289 incident cases with colorectal cancer and 3995 controls with information on coffee intake. Odds ratios (ORs) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived from unconditional logistic regression models, adjusted for study centre, sex, age, education, smoking, and other covariates. RESULTS: Compared with never coffee drinkers, the OR was 0.99 (95% CI 0.95-1.02) for total coffee consumption. There was no significant trend in risk with dose or duration, the ORs being 0.95 (95% CI 0.72-1.25) for an amount of five or more cups per day of coffee and 0.95 (95% CI 0.75-1.19) for a duration of consumption of 50 years or longer. The OR was 1.04 (95% CI 0.87-1.25) for two or more cups per day of decaffeinated coffee. There were no heterogeneity across strata of various covariates, as well as no apparent differences between various anatomical subsites. CONCLUSION: This large pooled analysis of two studies shows no association of coffee and decaffeinated coffee with colorectal cancer risk.

Variation in detection of ductal carcinoma in situ during screening mammography: a survey within the International Cancer Screening Network.

BACKGROUND: There is concern about detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in screening mammography. DCIS accounts for a substantial proportion of screen-detected lesions but its effect on breast cancer mortality is debated. The International Cancer Screening Network conducted a comparative analysis to determine variation in DCIS detection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected during 2004-2008 on number of screening examinations, detected breast cancers, DCIS cases and Globocan 2008 breast cancer incidence rates derived from national or regional cancer registers. We calculated screen-detection rates for breast cancers and DCIS. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 15 screening settings in 12 countries; 7,176,050 screening examinations; 29,605 breast cancers and 5324 DCIS cases. The ratio between highest and lowest breast cancer incidence was 2.88 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.76-3.00); 2.97 (95% CI 2.51-3.51) for detection of breast cancer; and 3.49 (95% CI 2.70-4.51) for detection of DCIS. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable international variation was found in DCIS detection. This variation could not be fully explained by variation in incidence nor in breast cancer detection rates. It suggests the potential for wide discrepancies in management of DCIS resulting in overtreatment of indolent DCIS or undertreatment of potentially curable disease. Comprehensive cancer registration is needed to monitor DCIS detection. Efforts to understand discrepancies and standardise management may improve care.