Systematic review and meta-analysis of diet quality and colorectal cancer risk: is the evidence of sufficient quality to develop recommendations?

The quality of existing evidence about the impact of diet quality on colorectal cancer (CRC) risk has only rarely been assessed. In the current review, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and the resulting references (up to January 2020) for studies that evaluated the role of high diet quality by extreme dietary index categorization and the risk of CRC. Two researchers independently performed the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment. We then applied a random-effects meta-analysis to estimate the pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for CRC at the extremes of each dietary index, and we assessed the quality of the pooled results using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A high diet quality was significantly associated with reduced CRC risk when patients had a low Diet Inflammatory Index score (OR, 0.66; 95%CI, 0.56-0.78), a high Mediterranean Diet Score (OR, 0.84; 95%CI, 0.78-0.90), high Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension adherence (OR, 0.83; 95%CI, 0.78-0.89), and a high Healthy Eating Index score (OR, 0.72; 95%CI, 0.64-0.80). The pooled results for all dietary indices were rated as being of low quality due to concerns over inconsistency or imprecision. We conclude that, despite a high diet quality appearing to have a preventive role in CRC, the evidence is currently of insufficient quality to develop dietary recommendations.

Characteristics of new solid nodules detected in incidence screening rounds of low-dose CT lung cancer screening: the NELSON study.

PURPOSE: New nodules after baseline are regularly found in low-dose CT lung cancer screening and have a high lung cancer probability. It is unknown whether morphological and location characteristics can improve new nodule risk stratification by size. METHODS: Solid non-calcified nodules detected during incidence screening rounds of the randomised controlled Dutch-Belgian lung cancer screening (NELSON) trial and registered as new or previously below detection limit (15 mm3) were included. A multivariate logistic regression analysis with lung cancer as outcome was performed, including previously established volume cut-offs (<30 mm3, 30-<200 mm3 and ≥200 mm3) and nodule characteristics (location, distribution, shape, margin and visibility <15 mm3 in retrospect). RESULTS: Overall, 1280 new nodules were included with 73 (6%) being lung cancer. Of nodules ≥30 mm3 at detection and visible <15 mm3 in retrospect, 22% (6/27) were lung cancer. Discrimination based on volume cut-offs (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC): 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.84) and continuous volume (AUC: 0.82, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.87) was similar. After adjustment for volume cut-offs, only location in the right upper lobe (OR 2.0, P=0.012), central distribution (OR 2.4, P=0.001) and visibility <15 mm3 in retrospect (OR 4.7, P=0.003) remained significant predictors for lung cancer. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test (P=0.75) and assessment of bootstrap calibration curves indicated adequate model fit. Discrimination based on the continuous model probability (AUC: 0.85, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.89) was superior to volume cut-offs alone, but when stratified into three risk groups (AUC: 0.82, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.86), discrimination was similar. CONCLUSION: Contrary to morphological nodule characteristics, growth-independent characteristics may further improve volume-based new nodule lung cancer prediction, but in a three-category stratification approach, this is limited. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN63545820; pre-results.

Relationship between nodule count and lung cancer probability in baseline CT lung cancer screening: The NELSON study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the relationship between nodule count and lung cancer probability in baseline low-dose CT lung cancer screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Included were participants from the NELSON trial with at least one baseline nodule (3392 participants [45% of screen-group], 7258 nodules). We determined nodule count per participant. Malignancy was confirmed by histology. Nodules not diagnosed as screen-detected or interval cancer until the end of the fourth screening round were regarded as benign. We compared lung cancer probability per nodule count category. RESULTS: 1746 (51.5%) participants had one nodule, 800 (23.6%) had two nodules, 354 (10.4%) had three nodules, 191 (5.6%) had four nodules, and 301 (8.9%) had>4 nodules. Lung cancer in a baseline nodule was diagnosed in 134 participants (139 cancers; 4.0%). Median nodule count in participants with only benign nodules was 1 (Inter-quartile range [IQR]: 1-2), and 2 (IQR 1-3) in participants with lung cancer (p=NS). At baseline, malignancy was detected mostly in the largest nodule (64/66 cancers). Lung cancer probability was 62/1746 (3.6%) in case a participant had one nodule, 33/800 (4.1%) for two nodules, 17/354 (4.8%) for three nodules, 12/191 (6.3%) for four nodules and 10/301 (3.3%) for>4 nodules (p=NS). CONCLUSION: In baseline lung cancer CT screening, half of participants with lung nodules have more than one nodule. Lung cancer probability does not significantly change with the number of nodules. Baseline nodule count will not help to differentiate between benign and malignant nodules. Each nodule found in lung cancer screening should be assessed separately independent of the presence of other nodules.

Ovarian cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: The impact of mutation position and family history on the cancer risk.

OBJECTIVES: Assessing the combined impact of mutation position, regarding the ovarian cancer cluster region (OCCR), and type of cancer family history (FH) on age-related penetrance of ovarian cancer (OC) in women from BRCA1/2 families from the northern Netherlands. STUDY DESIGN: A consecutive series of 1763 mutation carriers and their first-degree relatives from 355 proven BRCA1/2 families with a history of breast and/or ovarian cancer with in total 248 OC cases was included. Mutations were stratified for gene (BRCA1 or BRCA2) and location (within or outside the OCCR). FH was stratified for type of cancer occurring in first and second-degree relatives (OC only, breast cancer (BC) only or both OC and BC). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cox-proportional hazard models were applied to estimate the OCCR effect, including and excluding a FH of cancer. RESULTS: Among BRCA1 families, OC risks were higher in women with OCCR mutations versus those with non-OCCR mutations (HR=1.59, 95%CI=1.19-2.12). This effect remained significant after adjustment for the type of FH (HR=1.50, 95%CI=1.11-2.01). In BRCA2 families, mutation position did not significantly affect the OC risk (HR=1.50, 95%CI=0.74-3.04). However, in the BRCA2 group, a FH including only OC presented by itself a strong impact on OC risk (HR=4.63, 95%CI=2.38-9.02), which remained stable after adjustment for mutation position (HR=4.48, 95%CI=2.28-8.81). CONCLUSION: OCCR mutations significantly increased the OC risk in BRCA1 families regardless of the type of FH, but in BRCA2 families, type of FH seems to have a higher impact than mutation position on OC risk.