This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rodriguez, C. Articles by Calle, E. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rodriguez, C. Articles by Calle, E. E.

Meat Consumption among Black and White Men and Risk of Prostate Cancer in the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort

Epidemiology and Surveillance Research, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia

Requests for reprints: Carmen Rodriguez, Epidemiology and Surveillance Research, American Cancer Society, 1599 Clifton Road Northeast, Atlanta, GA 30329-4251. Phone: 404-329-7796; Fax: 404-327-6450. E-mail: crodrigu{at}cancer.org

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Previous epidemiologic studies have suggested that intake of red meat may be associated with increased risk of prostate cancer. Few studies, however, have examined these associations by race. We examined intake of red meat, processed meat, and poultry in relation to incident prostate cancer among Black and White men in the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort. Participants in the study completed a detailed questionnaire on diet, medical history, and lifestyle in 1992 to 1993. After excluding men with a history of cancer and incomplete dietary information, 692 Black and 64,856 White men were included in the cohort. During follow-up through August 31, 2001, we documented 85 and 5,028 cases of incident prostate cancer among Black and White men, respectively. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). No measure of meat consumption was associated with risk of prostate cancer among White men. Among Black men, total red meat intake (processed plus unprocessed red meat) was associated with higher risk of prostate cancer (RR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.0-4.2 for highest versus lowest quartile; P_trend = 0.05); this increase in risk was mainly due to risk associated with consumption of cooked processed meats (sausages, bacon, and hot dogs; RR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.3-5.3 for highest versus lowest quartile; P_trend = 0.008). This study suggests that high consumption of cooked processed meats may contribute to prostate cancer risk among Black men in the United States.(Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(2):211–6)

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in males in the United States and the second most common cause of cancer death (1). In the United States, incidence rates among Black men are 60% higher than among White men (1). Other than race, age, and family history, no other risk factors have been associated consistently with prostate cancer.

Consumption of meat, particularly red meat, has been proposed as a possible modifiable risk factor for prostate cancer (2, 3), although results from epidemiologic studies are mixed. Few studies have examined the association between meat consumption and prostate cancer risk among Black men. Two (4, 5) of three U.S. studies (4-6) that have presented results for both Black and White men showed increased risk with increasing meat consumption in Blacks but not Whites.

Potential biological mechanisms for an association between red meat consumption and prostate cancer incidence have been hypothesized to involve fat, nitrites/nitrates, or heterocyclic amines formed during cooking at high temperatures (2, 7).

We examined the association between unprocessed red meat, processed meats (separating lunch meats and cooked processed meats), and poultry intake among White and Black men in relation to prostate cancer incidence in the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort.

	Materials and Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Study Population
Men in this study were selected from among the 86,404 male participants in the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort (hereafter called the Nutrition Cohort), a prospective study of cancer incidence and mortality among 184,190 U.S. men and women (8). The Nutrition Cohort is a subgroup of the 1.2 million participants in the Cancer Prevention Study II, a prospective mortality study established by the American Cancer Society in 1982 (9). Members of the Cancer Prevention Study II mortality cohort who resided in 21 states with population-based state cancer registries and were 50 to 74 years of age in 1992 were invited to participate in the Nutrition Cohort by completing a mailed questionnaire. The recruitment and characteristics of Nutrition Cohort participants are described in detail elsewhere (8). All aspects of the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort study are approved by the Emory University Institutional Review Board.

At enrollment in 1992, participants completed a self-administered mailed questionnaire that included demographic, medical, behavioral, environmental, occupational, and dietary factors. Follow-up questionnaires were sent to cohort members in 1997, 1999, and in 2001, to update exposure information and to ascertain newly diagnosed cancers. The response rate among living participants for each of the follow-up questionnaires (after multiple mailings) was at least 90%. For the present study, the follow-up period ended on August 31, 2001.

We excluded from this analysis 3,489 men who were lost to follow-up (i.e., they were alive at the time of the first follow-up questionnaire in 1997 but did not return the 1997 follow-up questionnaire or any subsequent questionnaire). We also excluded men who reported any prevalent cancer (except nonmelanoma skin cancer) at baseline (n = 9,001) and those whose self-report of prostate cancer from the 1997 questionnaire could not be verified (n = 217). Men whose self-report of prostate cancer on the 1999 or 2001 questionnaire could not be confirmed (n = 426) and men with stage A₁ prostate cancer (n = 52) contributed person-time to the analysis up to the date of the last questionnaire on which they reported no history of prostate cancer or date of their prostate cancer diagnosis and were never considered to be cases. Stage A₁ prostate cancer was not included as prostate cancer because these lesions tend to be relatively innocuous and frequently detected incidentally at surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia. We excluded men with extreme values of energy intake (<600 or >4,500 kcal) and those with missing or uninterpretable data for meat or other dietary intake in 1992 (10% items blank; n = 7,230). We also excluded 877 men of races other than White or Black due to small numbers. After these exclusions, the analytic cohort consisted of 65,590 men, of whom 693 were Black and 64,897 were White.

Identification of Cases of Prostate Cancer
We included a total of 85 and 5,028 incident primary prostate cancer cases, respectively, among Black and White men that occurred in the interval between enrollment in 1992 and August 31, 2001. Most incident cases of prostate cancer (n = 4,961) were initially identified through a self-report of cancer on any of the questionnaires and subsequently verified by medical records (n = 4,015) or by linkage with state cancer registries (n = 946). A previous pilot study linking cohort members to state cancer registries indicated that the ability of our respondents to accurately report a past diagnosis of cancer is high (sensitivity = 0.93; ref. 10). An additional 92 cases were ascertained as deaths due to prostate through linkage with National Death Index (11) among participants who did not report prostate cancer in any of the previous questionnaires. For these cases, the death certificate listed prostate cancer as the primary cause of death between the date of enrollment and December 31, 2000. Additional clinical information was obtained for 63 of these 92 deaths through subsequent linkage with state cancer registries. Finally, 60 men who did not self-report prostate cancer in any of the questionnaires were identified as having a primary prostate cancer during the process of verifying a different cancer through linkage with a state cancer registry. Fifty-five of them had a different cancer listed as the primary cause of death in the death certificate; the other five prostate cancer cases had self-reported a colon cancer, melanoma, or lymphoma.

We defined metastatic prostate cancer as cases verified by medical records with stage D, cases classified by the state cancer state registry as distant stage, and all prostate cancer deaths. Analysis of metastatic cases was restricted to White men (n = 225) because of the small number of metastatic prostate cancer cases among Black men (n = 13).

Meat Intake Assessment
Dietary intake in 1992 was assessed using a 68-item modified brief food-frequency questionnaire by Block et al. (12); nutrient values and consumption frequencies were estimated using the Dietary Analysis System version 3.8a (13). Cohort participants were asked to report their average intake of each food and beverage over the past year, including usual serving size (small, medium, or large) and frequency of intake. The latter ranged from never or less than once per month to 2+ times per day for foods and to 6+ times per day for beverages. The consumption of each meat item was expressed in grams per week from the food-frequency questionnaire using the Diet Analysis System version 3.8a (13). Unprocessed red meat included hamburgers, beef, beef stew, liver, and pork; poultry included fried chicken, and chicken or turkey. Processed meat was further categorized as cooked processed meat (bacon, sausage, and hot dogs) or lunch meats (ham, bologna, salami, and other lunch meats). The analyses considered intake of total red meat (processed plus unprocessed red meat), unprocessed red meat, processed meat, and poultry, computed by summing across all items that contribute to each group. For all men, categories of each type of meat were defined according to the quartile distribution of consumption among Black men; the lowest intake quartile in Black men served as the reference category for all analyses. Participants were also asked "When you eat red meat such as beef, pork, or lamb, how well done is it cooked?" with the following possible responses: well-done, medium well-done, medium rare, rare, and don't eat red meat.

The food-frequency questionnaire was validated among 441 Nutrition Cohort participants who completed four 24-hour dietary recall interviews and a repeat food-frequency questionnaire (14). The correlation coefficient in men for red meat between the food-frequency questionnaire and dietary recall interview was 0.55 and that between the food-frequency questionnaire and repeat food-frequency questionnaire was 0.81.

Statistical Analysis
We used Cox proportional hazards modeling (15) to examine the association between different measures of meat intake and incident prostate cancer separately among White and Black men while adjusting for other potential confounding factors. P values for linear trend were estimated by modeling food intake in grams per week using the median value within categories. Follow-up time since enrollment in 1992 served as the time-axis. All Cox models were stratified on single year of age at enrollment and were adjusted for total energy intake in quintiles. Confounders included in the multivariate models were as follows: education (less than high school, high school graduate, some college, college graduate, graduate school, and missing), family history of prostate cancer in a brother and/or father (yes/no), and body mass index (kg/m²; <25, 25-<30, 30, and missing). In addition, personal history of diabetes, which has been previously associated with lower risk of prostate cancer in this cohort (16), was included in all multivariate models as a time-dependent variable. History of recent prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing (yes/no/missing) was modeled as a time-dependent variable, updated with information from each follow-up questionnaire. Because history of PSA testing was first collected on the 1997 questionnaire, only follow-up after 1997 could be adjusted for history of PSA testing. Total vegetable intake, fruit intake, and dairy intake were also examined as potential confounders but we did not adjust for these factors in the final models because such adjustment had negligible effects on our results (data not shown).

Heterogeneity of trends for the association between the different measures of meat intake and risk of prostate cancer by race was assessed using the likelihood ratio test for heterogeneity of trends (17). Effect modification of the prostate cancer hazard ratio associated with meat consumption variables (unprocessed red meat, processed meat consumption, and poultry) by body mass index, having had a PSA test, family history of prostate cancer, and history of diabetes (yes/no) was evaluated using the likelihood ratio test comparing models with and without interaction terms.

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Meat consumption patterns varied by race; on average, Black men reported a higher median intake of processed meat than White men (129 versus 92 g/wk, respectively), lower median intake of unprocessed meat (244 versus 311 g/wk, respectively), and higher median intake of poultry (164 versus 144 g/wk). Bacon and sausage accounted for much of the difference in consumption of processed meats between Black and White men. Median intake of bacon and sausage were 14 and 29 g/wk, respectively, among Black men, and 5 and 8 g/wk among White men.

Selected characteristics of men included in the study in relation to consumption of unprocessed red meat, processed meat, and poultry in 1992 are shown in Table 1. Black and White men in the highest category of processed or unprocessed red meat intake were younger, less educated, had higher body mass index, and were more likely to report diabetes and a diet high in calories. Both White and Black men in the highest category of poultry intake were more educated and more likely to report diabetes and a diet high in total caloric intake than men in the lowest category of poultry consumption. Men in the lowest category of unprocessed red meat or processed meat intake and highest category of poultry were more likely to report ever having been tested for PSA. Overall, having received a PSA test during the study follow-up period was reported by 78% of Black and 83% of White men.

The risk of metastatic prostate cancer was associated with consumption of cooked processed meats (P_trend = 0.04) among White men in analyses adjusted only for age, but this association was attenuated by further adjustment (Table 2). No other measure of meat intake was associated with risk of metastatic prostate cancer.

No association was observed between poultry consumption and risk of total prostate cancer among Black men or with total or metastatic prostate cancer among White men. Risk estimates for all meat measurements did not change when unprocessed red meat, cooked processed meat, lunch meat, and poultry were included simultaneously in the regression model with the other confounding variables.

Reported preference for red meat doneness was not associated with risk of prostate cancer among White or Black men (data not shown). We also examined combinations of preference for meat doneness and quantity of meat consumed, although these analyses could be done only among Whites due to the small number of Black men in the cohort. Men who preferred well done meat and were in the top quintile of total red meat consumption were not at increased risk of prostate cancer compared with men who preferred rare meat and were in the lowest quintile of total red meat consumption. We also found no association in a similar analysis of combinations of preference for meat doneness and quartiles of cooked processed meat.

None of the associations between prostate cancer risk and any category of meat consumption were significantly different in men who did or did not report PSA testing, nor was effect modification observed with any of the other covariates examined.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
In this large prospective study, total consumption of red meat was associated with 2-fold increased risk of prostate cancer among Black men. This association was seen for both unprocessed red meat and cooked processed meat (bacon, hot dogs, and sausages) and there was a dose-response relationship with cooked processed meat and prostate cancer in Black men.

The increased risk of prostate cancer associated with total red meat and cooked processed meat intake observed among Black men is consistent with two (4, 5) of three U.S. studies (4-6). In the large case-control study by Hayes et al. (5), increased consumption of meat (processed and red meat combined) was associated with a significantly higher risk of prostate cancer among Black (but not White) men; the association with processed meat was not presented separately. Similarly, red meat intake was significantly associated with increased risk of total and advanced prostate cancer in Black (but not White) men in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (4).

Among White men in our cohort, no measure of meat consumption was significantly associated with total prostate cancer. However, there was a suggestion of a modest increased risk of metastatic prostate cancer with increasing intake of cooked processed meats, but this relationship was attenuated after adjustment for confounders. The literature regarding red meat consumption and prostate cancer in studies of primarily White men has been inconsistent, reporting null (5, 6, 18-21) or positive (21-27) associations for different types of red meat consumption.

It is unclear why total red meat intake, and specifically cooked processed meat, is associated with increased risk of prostate cancer in Black but not White men in our cohort. First, we cannot rule out the possibility of a chance finding. Alternatively, if the risk we observed in Black men is real, possible explanations could include higher intakes of carcinogens such as N-nitroso compounds (7, 28) and heterocyclic amines (29-31) due to a preference for more well-cooked meat (32, 33), differences by race in metabolic activation of these carcinogens (34-37), or a combination of both factors.

Nitrosamines and heterocyclic amines are present in higher amounts in fried or grilled meats. The amount of nitrosamines and heterocyclic amines formed during cooking increases with increasing temperature and frying time (7) and varies by type of meat (38, 39). Preference for well-done red meat in our cohort was much higher among Black (50%) than White (21%) men. Similar racial differences have been reported in a U.S. cooking-method preference survey conducted by Food and Drug Administration/U.S. Department of Agriculture Consumer Food Safety Survey (33) as well as in a study on U.S. dietary exposures to heterocyclic amines by race (32); in the later study, estimated intake of heterocyclic amines in Black men was 50% to 100% greater compared with White men. In a study conducted in Los Angeles County (39, 40), levels of heterocyclic amine metabolites in urine were higher in Black men than White men. Because no correlation between meat intake and heterocyclic amine metabolites in urine were observed in that study, the authors concluded that higher urinary excretion levels of heterocyclic amine in Blacks could be due to a dietary preference for meats prepared at high temperatures (40).

Nitrosamines and heterocyclic amines require metabolic activation to bind to DNA and exert their carcinogenic effect. The first step in the metabolic activation pathway involves N-oxidation by P450 enzymes in the liver followed by additional metabolism by N-acetyltransferase-2 and sulfotransferases (SULT). The N-acetyltransferase-2 enzyme is coded by a single gene displaying two phenotypes, slow and rapid acetylators (41). Similarly, a functional polymorphism in the gene coding for the SULT1A1 enzyme (within the SULTs family) generates a protein with decreased enzyme activity (42). The proportion of people with rapid acetylator phenotype is higher among Black than White men (36) as it is with high SULT1A1 enzyme activity phenotype (34, 37). Both rapid acetylator genotype (43) and SULT1A1 genotype and phenotype (34) have been associated with increased risk of prostate cancer.

In our cohort, although our questionnaire was not designed to adequately capture different cooking methods, when we examined associations between meat intake and prostate cancer only in those White men who reported preferring eating red meat "well-done," we still saw no associations with amount consumed (data not shown). This would suggest that our finding of a higher risk of prostate cancer in Black men that consume more meat may involve differences in metabolic activation of these carcinogens as well as racial differences in cooking practices.

Our study has several limitations. We had no information on meat cooking methods (e.g., baking or broiling) with which to estimate exposure to heterocyclic amines or other carcinogens produced from cooking meat (44, 45). In addition, we had fewer Black than White men in our study, increasing the possibility that the association may reflect chance.

Strengths of our study include the prospective design, the ability to assess the association between different types of meat intake and prostate cancer among Black and White men separately, and our ability to control for known confounders.

In summary, our study supports the hypothesis that greater intake of meat may contribute to the higher prostate cancer risk seen among Black men in United States. The association between cooked processed meats and risk of prostate cancer among Black men should be examined carefully in future analyses.

	Footnotes

 
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Received 8/10/05; revised 11/11/05; accepted 12/22/05.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 

1. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures 2005. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2005.
2. Kolonel LN. Fat, meat, and prostate cancer. Epidemiol Rev 2001;23:72–81.[Free Full Text]
3. Food, nutrition and the prevention of cancer: a global perspective. Vol. 1. 1st ed. Washington (District of Columbia): American Institute for Cancer Research; 1997.
4. Cross AJ, Peters U, Andriole GL, Reding D, Hayes RB. Red meat intake and prostate cancer risk in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial. B86. Frontiers in cancer prevention. Seattle (Washington): AACR; 2004.
5. Hayes RB, Ziegler RG, Gridley G, et al. Dietary factors and risks for prostate cancer among blacks and Whites in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999;8:25–34.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Whittemore AS, Kolonel LN, Wu AH, et al. Prostate cancer in relation to diet, physical activity, and body size in Blacks, Whites, and Asians in the United States and Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:652–61.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Walker R. Nitrates, nitrites and N-nitrosocompounds: a review of the occurrence in food and diet and the toxicological implications. Food Addit Contam 1990;7:717–68.[Medline]
8. Calle EE. The American Cancer Society Nutrition Survey—rationale, study design, and baseline characteristics. Cancer 2002;94:500–11.[CrossRef][Medline]
9. Garfinkel L. Selection, follow-up, and analysis in the American Cancer Society prospective studies. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1985;67:49–52.
10. Bergman M, Calle E, Mervis C, Miracle-McMahill H, Thun M, Heath C. Validity of self-reported cancers in a prospective cohort study in comparison with data from state cancer registries. Am J Epidemiol 1998;147:556–62.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Calle EE, Terrell DD. Utility of the National Death Index for ascertainment of mortality among cancer prevention study II participants. Am J Epidemiol 1993;137:235–41.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Block G, Coyl L, Smucker R, Harlan LC. Health habits and history questionnaire: diet history and other risk factors. Personal computer system documentation. Bethesda (Maryland): National Cancer Institute Division of Cancer Prevention and Control. NIH; 1989.
13. Block G, Hartman AM, Naughton DA. A reduced dietary questionnaire: development and validation. Epidemiology 1990;1:58–64.[Medline]
14. Flagg EW, Coates RJ, Calle EE, Potischman N, Thun MJ. Validation of the American Cancer Society Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Survey Cohort food frequency questionnaire. Epidemiology 2000;11:462–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
15. Cox DR. Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc [B] 1972;34:187–220.
16. Rodriguez C, Patel AV, Mondul AM, Jacobs EJ, Thun MJ, Calle EE. Diabetes and risk of prostate cancer in a prospective cohort of US men. Am J Epidemiol 2005;161:147–52.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
17. Kleinbaum GC, Kupper LL, Mogernstern H. Epidemiologic research. Principles and quantitative methods. Belmont (CA): Lifetime Learning Publications; 1982.
18. Gronberg H, Damber L, Damber J-E. Total food consumption and body mass index in relation to prostate cancer risk: a case-control study in Sweden with prospectively collected exposure data. J Urol 1996;155:969–74.[CrossRef][Medline]
19. Bosetti C, Micelotta S, Dal Maso L, et al. Food groups and risk of prostate cancer in Italy. Int J Cancer 2004;110:424–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
20. Hsing AW, McLaughlin JK, Schuman LM, et al. Diet, tobacco use, and fatal prostate cancer: results from the Lutheran Brotherhood Cohort Study. Cancer Res 1990;50:6836–40.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
21. Veierod MB, Laake P, Thelle DS. Dietary fat intake and risk of prostate cancer: a prospective study of 25,708 Norwegian men. Int J Cancer 1997;73:634–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
22. Deneo-Pellegrini H, De Stefani E, Ronco A, Mendilaharsu M. Foods, nutrients, and prostate cancer: a case-control study in Uruguay. Br J Cancer 1999;80:591–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
23. Villeneuve PJ, Johnson KC, Kreiger N, Mao Y; Group TCCRER. Risk factors for prostate cancer: results from the Canadian national Enhanced Cancer Surveillance System. Cancer Causes Control 1999;10:355–67.[CrossRef][Medline]
24. Rohrmann S, Platz EA, Thuita L, Hoffman S, Helzlsouer KJ. Processed meat consumption and the risk of prostate cancer in a USA cohort study. Vol. 45. Orlando (Florida): AACR; 2004.
25. Gann PH, Hennekens CH, Sacks FM, Grodstein F, Giovannucci EL, Stampfer MJ. Prospective study of plasma fatty acids and risk of prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:281–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
26. Schuurman AG, van den Brandt PA, Dorant E, AGoldbohm RA. Animal Products, calcium and protein and prostate cancer risk in the Netherlands Cohort Study. Br J Cancer 1999;80:1107–13.[CrossRef][Medline]
27. Michaud DS, Augustsson K, Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC, Giovannucci E. A prospective study on intake of animal products and risk of prostate cancer. Cancer Causes Control 2001;12:557–67.[CrossRef][Medline]
28. Bartsch H, Montesano R. Relevance of nitrosamines in human cancer. Carcinogenesis 1984;5:1381–93.[Free Full Text]
29. Shirai T, Sano M, Tamano S, et al. The prostate: a target for carcinogenicity of 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazol[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP) derived from cooked foods. Cancer Res 1997;57:195–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
30. Shirai T, Kato K, Futakuchi M, et al. Organ differences in the enhancing potential of 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine or carcinogenicity in the prostate, colon and pancreas. Mutat Res 2002;506:129–36.
31. Archer CL, Morse P, Jones RF, Shirai T, Hass GP, Wang CY. Carcinogencity of the N-hydroxy derivative of 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine, 2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline and 3,2'-dimethyl-4-aminobiphenyl in the rat. Cancer Lett 2000;155:55–60.[CrossRef][Medline]
32. Bogen KT, Keating GA. U.S. dietary exposures to heterocyclic amines. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 2001;11:155–68.[CrossRef][Medline]
33. Ralston K, Starke Y, Brent P, Riggins T. Awareness of risks changing how hamburgers are cooked. Food Rev 2000;23:44–50.
34. Nowell S, Ratnasinghe L, Ambrosome CB, et al. Association of SULT1A1 phenotype and genotype with prostate cancer risk in African-Americans and Caucasians. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004;13:270–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
35. Carlini EJ, Raftogianis RB, Wood TC, Zheng W, Rebbeck TR, Weinshilboum RM. Sulfatation pharmacogenetics: SULT1A1 and SULT1A2 allele frequencies in Caucasian, Chinese and African-American subjects. Pharmacogenetics 2001;11:57–68.[CrossRef][Medline]
36. Yu MC, Skipper PL, Taghizadeh K, et al. Acetylator phenotype, aminobiphenyl-hemoglobin adduct levels, and bladder cancer risk in White, Black, and Asian men in Los Angeles, California. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:712–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
37. Anderson RJ, Jackson BL, Liebentritt DK. Human platelet thermostable phenol sulfotransferase from Blacks and Whites: biochemical properties and variations in thermal stability. J Lab Clin Med 1988;112:773–83.[Medline]
38. Felton JS, Knize MG. New mutagens from cooked food. New York: Wiley-Liss; 1990.
39. Sinha R, Knize MG, Salmon CP, et al. Heterocyclic amine content of port products cooked by different methods and to varying degrees of doneness. Food Chem Toxicol 1998;36:289–97.[CrossRef][Medline]
40. La Creis R, Kidd LR, Stillwell WG, et al. Urinary excretion of 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhOP) in White, African-American, and Asian-American men in Los Angeles County. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999;8:439–45.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
41. Kilbane AJ, Silbart LK, Manis M, Beitins IZ, Weber WW. Human, N-acetylation genotype determination with urinary caffeine metabolites. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1990;47:470–7.[Medline]
42. Raftogianis RB, Wood TC, Otterness DM, Van Loon JA, Weinshilboum RM. Phenol sulfotransferase pharmacogenetics in humans: association of common SULT1A1 alleles with TS PST phenotype. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1997;239:298–304.[CrossRef][Medline]
43. Costa S, Pinto D, Morais A, et al. Acetylation genotype and the genetic susceptibility to prostate cancer in a southern European population. Prostate 2005;64:246–52.[Medline]
44. Sinha R, Rothman N, Brown ED, et al. High concentrations of the carcinogen 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo-[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP) occur in chicken but are dependent on the cooking method. Cancer Res 1995;55:4516–5619.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
45. Sinha R, Rothman N. Exposure assessment of heterocyclic amines (HCAs) in epidemiologic studies. Mutat Res 1997;376:195–202.[Medline]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. L. Neuhouser, M. J. Barnett, A. R. Kristal, C. B. Ambrosone, I. King, M. Thornquist, and G. Goodman (n-6) PUFA Increase and Dairy Foods Decrease Prostate Cancer Risk in Heavy Smokers J. Nutr., July 1, 2007; 137(7): 1821 - 1827. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Tang, J. J. Liu, A. Rundle, C. Neslund-Dudas, A. T. Savera, C. H. Bock, N. L. Nock, J. J. Yang, and B. A. Rybicki Grilled Meat Consumption and PhIP-DNA Adducts in Prostate Carcinogenesis Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2007; 16(4): 803 - 808. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. H. Kushi, T. Byers, C. Doyle, E. V. Bandera, M. McCullough, T. Gansler, K. S. Andrews, M. J. Thun, and The American Cancer Society 2006 Nutrition and Phy American Cancer Society Guidelines on Nutrition and Physical Activity for Cancer Prevention: Reducing the Risk of Cancer With Healthy Food Choices and Physical Activity CA Cancer J Clin, September 1, 2006; 56(5): 254 - 281. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rodriguez, C. Articles by Calle, E. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rodriguez, C. Articles by Calle, E. E.