Socioeconomic position and the risk of gastric and oesophageal cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-EURGAST).

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association of socioeconomic position with adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and stomach. METHODS: The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort comprises about 520 000 participants mostly aged 35-70 years. Information on diet and lifestyle was collected at recruitment. After an average follow-up of 6.5 years, 268 cases with adenocarcinoma of the stomach and 56 of the oesophagus were confirmed. We examined the effect of socioeconomic position on cancer risk by means of educational data and a computed Relative Index of Inequality (RII). In a nested case-control study, adjustment for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection was performed. RESULTS: Higher education was significantly associated with a reduced risk of gastric cancer [vs lowest level of education, hazard ratio (HR): 0.64, 95% Confidence intervals (CI): 0.43-0.98]. This effect was more pronounced for cancer of the cardia (HR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20-0.89) as compared to non-cardia gastric cancer (HR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.36-1.22). Additionally, the inverse association of educational level and gastric cancer was stronger for cases with intestinal (extreme categories, HR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.04-0.44) rather than diffuse histological subtype (extreme categories, HR: 0.71 95% CI: 0.37-1.40). In the nested case-control study, inverse but statistically non-significant associations were found after additional adjustment for H. pylori infection [highest vs lowest level of education: Odds ratio (OR) 0.53, 95% CI: 0.24-1.18]. Educational level was non-significantly, inversely associated with carcinoma of the oesophagus. CONCLUSION: A higher socioeconomic position was associated with a reduced risk of gastric adenocarcinoma, which was strongest for cardia cancer or intestinal histological subtype, suggesting different risk profiles according to educational level. These effects appear to be explained only partially by established risk factors.

Ethanol intake and risk of lung cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC).

Within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), the authors examined the association of ethanol intake at recruitment (1,119 cases) and mean lifelong ethanol intake (887 cases) with lung cancer. Information on baseline and past alcohol consumption, lifetime tobacco smoking, diet, and the anthropometric characteristics of 478,590 participants was collected between 1992 and 2000. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to calculate multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Overall, neither ethanol intake at recruitment nor mean lifelong ethanol intake was significantly associated with lung cancer. However, moderate intake (5-14.9 g/day) at recruitment (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63, 0.90) and moderate mean lifelong intake (HR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.66, 0.97) were associated with a lower lung cancer risk in comparison with low consumption (0.1-4.9 g/day). Compared with low intake, a high (> or =60 g/day) mean lifelong ethanol intake tended to be related to a higher risk of lung cancer (HR = 1.29, 95% CI: 0.93, 1.74), but high intake at recruitment was not. Although there was no overall association between ethanol intake and risk of lung cancer, the authors cannot rule out a lower risk for moderate consumption and a possibly increased risk for high lifelong consumption.

Will the truth come out? the effect of deception, age, status, coaching, and social skills on CBCA scores.

The impact of Veracity, Age, Status (witness or suspect), Coaching (informed or uninformed regarding CBCA), and Social Skills (social anxiety, social adroitness, and self-monitoring) on Criteria-Based Content Analysis scores was examined. Participants (aged 5-6, 10-11, 14-15, and undergraduates) participated in a "rubbing the blackboard" event. In a subsequent interview they told the truth or lied about the event. They were accused of having rubbed the blackboard themselves (suspect condition) or were thought to have witnessed the event (witness condition), and were or were not taught some CBCA criteria prior to the interview. CBCA scores discriminated between liars and truth tellers in children, adults, witnesses, and suspects. However, truth tellers obtained higher CBCA scores than liars only when the liars were uninformed about CBCA. CBCA scores were correlated with social skills. It is argued that thesefindings should caution those who believe that the validity of CBCA has been conclusively demonstrated.