Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Research Articles

Serum Lycopene, Other Carotenoids, and Prostate Cancer Risk: a Nested Case-Control Study in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial

Ulrike Peters, Michael F. Leitzmann, Nilanjan Chatterjee, Yinghui Wang, Demetrius Albanes, Edward P. Gelmann, Marlin D. Friesen, Elio Riboli and Richard B. Hayes
Ulrike Peters
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael F. Leitzmann
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nilanjan Chatterjee
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yinghui Wang
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Demetrius Albanes
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Edward P. Gelmann
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marlin D. Friesen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elio Riboli
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard B. Hayes
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0861 Published May 2007
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: Reports from several studies have suggested that carotenoids, and in particular lycopene, could be prostate cancer–preventive agents. This has stimulated extensive laboratory and clinical research, as well as much commercial and public enthusiasm. However, the epidemiologic evidence remains inconclusive.

Materials and Methods: We investigated the association between prediagnostic serum carotenoids (lycopene, α-carotene, β-carotene, β-cryptoxanthin, lutein, and zeaxanthin) and risk of prostate cancer in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial, a multicenter study designed to examine methods of early detection and risk factors for cancer. The study included 692 incident prostate cancer cases, diagnosed 1 to 8 years after study entry, including 270 aggressive cases, with regional or distant stage (n = 90) or Gleason score ≥7 (n = 235), and 844 randomly selected, matched controls. As study participants were selected from those who were assigned to annual standardized screening for prostate cancer, results are unlikely to be biased by differential screening, a circumstance that is difficult to attain under non–trial conditions.

Results: No association was observed between serum lycopene and total prostate cancer [odds ratios (OR), 1.14; 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), 0.82-1.58 for highest versus lowest quintile; P for trend, 0.28] or aggressive prostate cancer (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.62-1.57 for highest versus lowest quintile; P for trend, 0.433). β-Carotene was associated with an increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.03-2.72 for highest versus lowest quintile; P for trend, 0.13); in particular, regional or distant stage disease (OR, 3.16; 95% CI, 1.37-7.31 for highest versus lowest quintile; P for trend, 0.02); other carotenoids were not associated with risk.

Conclusion: In this large prospective study, high serum β-carotene concentrations were associated with increased risk for aggressive, clinically relevant prostate cancer. Lycopene and other carotenoids were unrelated to prostate cancer. Consistent with other recent publications, these results suggest that lycopene or tomato-based regimens will not be effective for prostate cancer prevention. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(5):962–8)

  • carotenoids
  • lycopene
  • prostate cancer
  • serum β-carotene
  • nested case-control study

Introduction

Carotenoids have distinct antioxidative properties, protecting against free radicals that can damage DNA and other important biomolecules (1). Because oxidative stress increases with androgen exposure and age—factors related to prostate cancer risk—carotenoids may be particularly relevant for the prevention of this disease (2-7).

Carotenoids are synthesized in plants and bacteria to support photosynthesis (8). A variety of fruits and vegetables, in particular, deep-yellow/orange and red color, and dark-green leafy vegetables are typical sources of carotenoids (9). Lycopene, α-carotene, β-carotene, β-cryptoxanthin, lutein, and zeaxanthin represent the major carotenoids in the human diet.

Lycopene, the most potent antioxidant carotenoid (10, 11), has received particular scientific attention and stirred commercial and public enthusiasm regarding prostate cancer prevention, following reports (12, 13) of reduced prostate cancer risk with increasing intake of tomatoes and tomato products, the major source of this micronutrient (∼80% of lycopene intake in the U.S. comes from tomatoes and tomato products; ref. 14). A recent meta-analysis (15) summarizing studies published up to 2003 reported a 10% to 20% reduction in prostate cancer risk with high tomato and lycopene intake, weighted strongly by findings from the large Health Professionals Follow-up Study (13, 16). More recently, we prospectively assessed the intake of >25 tomato-related food items in almost 30,000 men in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) cohort (17), and found no overall association of dietary intake of tomatoes and lycopene with prostate cancer [1,338 cases, odds ratio (OR), 5th vs. 1st quintile of lycopene intake 0.95; 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), 0.79-1.13], although inverse associations were suggested for some processed tomato products commonly cooked with fat (17). Because the bioavailability of tomato-derived lycopene, an extremely lipophilic antioxidant (18), varies profoundly with heat and fat application (19-21), some studies (22-29) have relied on blood concentrations as an integrated measure of lycopene intake and absorption. Overall, results from these blood-based studies are inconclusive; some of the larger studies suggest the preventive effects of lycopene in subgroups with aggressive disease (16, 17, 22, 28), older men (29), or men without a family history of prostate cancer (29).

Initial blood-based studies (30-32) reported only on lycopene and β-carotene, whereas more recent studies (22-29) also included other serum carotenoids commonly found in humans, specifically α-carotene, β-cryptoxanthin, lutein, and zeaxanthin. Results from these more detailed evaluations of carotenoids (22-29) have also been inconsistent, which may be due in part to their limited sample size.

Here, we describe the results of a large nested case-control study of serum lycopene and other carotenoids and the incidence of prostate cancer in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial, a randomized trial to evaluate the effectiveness of cancer screening and to investigate etiologic factors and early markers of cancer (33, 34). This study follows up on our previous findings for intake of tomato products evaluated by questionnaire (17) and, given the large sample size, further explores potential subgroup findings for serum lycopene, as suggested in previous studies.

Materials and Methods

Study Setting

Men in this nested case-control study were recruited as part of the PLCO Trial, between September 1993 and June 2001, at 10 centers in the U.S. (Birmingham, AL; Denver, CO; Detroit, MI; Honolulu, HI; Marshfield, WI; Minneapolis, MN; Pittsburgh, PA; Salt Lake City, UT; St. Louis, MO; and Washington, DC). At enrollment, men were between 55 and 74 years of age.

The nested case-control study was limited to men randomized to the screening arm of the trial. These men were offered prostate cancer screening by serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at entry and annually for 5 years and digital rectal examination (DRE) at entry and annually for 3 years. Men with a positive screening result (PSA test ≥4 ng/mL or DRE suspicious for prostate cancer) were referred to their medical-care providers for prostate cancer diagnostic evaluation. Furthermore, follow-up for recent diagnosis of cancer was conducted by annually mailed questionnaires. We acquired all medical and pathologic records related to prostate cancer diagnosis for all men suspect for prostate cancer by screening examination or annual questionnaire. Periodic search of the National Death Index was conducted and death certificates were obtained. Data were abstracted by trained medical record specialists. All participants were followed for the incidence of cancer and all causes of mortality for at least 13 years from their randomization date. Screening arm participants were asked to provide a blood sample at each screening visit. The institutional review boards of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and the 10 study centers approved the trial and participants provided written informed consent.

Study Population

Of the 38,350 men randomized to the screening arm of the trial, we excluded men reporting a history of prostate cancer, men without a valid prostate cancer screening (PSA test or DRE), men whose first valid prostate cancer screen was after October 1, 2001 (the censor date for this analysis), men who received a prostate cancer screening but for whom there was no subsequent contact (unless information from the National Death Index was available), men who did not complete a baseline risk factor questionnaire, men with an ethnic/racial background other than non–Hispanic White or non–Hispanic Black, men without a signed informed consent for etiologic studies on cancer, and men without any blood collections for etiologic studies at any of the screening visits. After exclusions, the analytic cohort included 28,243 men. All men were followed from their initial valid prostate cancer screen (PSA and/or DRE), to first occurrence of prostate cancer, loss-to-follow-up, death, or censor date (October 1, 2001), whichever came first. Cases are men diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Staging procedures corresponded to the tumor-node-metastasis stage of disease classification (35). Cases were defined as aggressive prostate cancer if they were stages III or IV (regionally invasive or distant metastatic disease) or Gleason score ≥7 based on the pathologic report of the patient's medical-care provider.

Among the 28,243 men, 1,320 prostate cancer cases were identified. For the present study, we further excluded non–Hispanic Black cases and cases diagnosed in the first year after blood draw, which leaves 803 cases in the study. For comparison, we selected controls (n = 949) by incidence-density sampling (36) with a case-control ratio of 1:1.2, frequency-matched by age at entry (5-year intervals), time since initial screening (1-year time windows), year of blood draw, and race/ethnicity.

Laboratory Analysis

Nonfasting blood specimens collected at the clinical centers were processed and frozen within 2 h of blood draw and stored at −70C°. Serum concentrations of carotenoids (lycopene, α-carotene, β-carotene, β-cryptoxanthin, lutein, and zeaxanthin) were determined using reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography, with UV detection (for details see ref. 37). Serum collected at study entry was available for 692 (86.2%) cases and 844 (88.9%) controls. Cases and their matched controls were analyzed in the same batch to minimize interassay variability. Blinded quality control samples were randomly inserted in each batch and monitored throughout the analysis. The coefficient of variation, estimated from 171 blinded duplicates, was 8.1% for lycopene, 5.8% for α-carotene, 9.5% for β-carotene, 13.9% for β-cryptoxanthin, 6.1% for lutein, and 9.2% for zeaxanthin. To investigate the reproducibility of serum carotenoid concentrations over time, for 46 control subjects we included a second serum sample drawn 1 year after study entry. Each of these 46 samples collected at year one was included in the same batch as the subject-paired serum sample collected at study entry.

Assessment of Questionnaire-Based Covariates

At enrollment, all participants were asked to complete a questionnaire including age, ethnicity, education, current and past smoking behavior, history of cancer and other diseases, use of selected drugs, recent history of screening exams, and prostate-related health factors. Usual dietary intake over the 12 months before enrollment was assessed with a 137-item food frequency questionnaire including 14 additional questions about intake of vitamin and mineral supplements and 10 additional questions on meat cooking practices (38). Dietary nutrient intake was calculated by multiplying the daily frequency of each consumed food item by the nutrient value of the sex-specific portion size (39), using the nutrient database from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (40). Total vitamin and mineral intake was calculated by using the sum of dietary and supplemental intake.

Statistical Analysis

Adjusted means (least squares means) were calculated by linear regression. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test for differences between carotenoid concentrations between cases and controls. We used conditional logistic regression to estimate ORs and 95% CIs of prostate cancer, with serum carotenoids concentrations categorized as quintiles, based on the distribution among the controls. Tests for linear trend were based on quintile-specific median values expressed as a continuous variable, in conditional logistic regression analysis. The analyses were conditioned on the matching factors (age, time since initial screening, and year of blood draw), and adjusted for study center. We evaluated confounding by potential risk factors for prostate cancer, including family history of prostate cancer, educational attainment, physical activity, body mass index, aspirin and ibuprofen use, history of diabetes, smoking, intakes of alcohol, energy, fat, red meat, heterocyclic amines from meat (2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine, PhIP), fruits, vegetables, cruciferous vegetables, vitamin E, and calcium, and serum selenium. None of the factors changed the β-coefficient of the risk estimates of any carotenoids by >10% and, therefore, none of these factors were included in the analyses. We considered serum cholesterol and month of blood draw as potential confounders and investigated confounding by PSA and DRE screening (total number of screens and average number of screens/year); inclusion of these variables did not change the risk estimates by >10% and were also not retained in the final models. To assess effect modification by age (at study entry and age at diagnosis/censor date), smoking, and family history of prostate cancer, we did stratified analyses and evaluated the statistical significance of multiplicative interactions by comparison of the −2 log-likelihood statistic of the main effects model with that of the model that included the cross-product term. We calculated Spearman correlation coefficients to measure the correlation between serum carotenoid concentrations obtained at two different time points in 46 controls and between serum concentrations and dietary intake of carotenoids in all controls. Correlation coefficients were adjusted for the following factors that potentially affect carotenoid concentrations: month of blood draw, serum cholesterol concentration, smoking, body mass index, age, and energy intake.

Results

Among the 692 incident prostate cancer cases included in this analysis, 210 men were diagnosed in the second year of follow-up, 344 in year 3 and 4, and 138 men were diagnosed in years 5 to 8 (men diagnosed during the first year of follow-up were excluded from the study). The corresponding number for the 270 aggressive cases (i.e., stage III or IV prostate cancer or Gleason score of 7 or higher) and 90 stage III and IV cases included in the analysis were 75 and 26 cases in the second year, 135 and 44 cases in the third and fourth year, and 60 and 20 cases in years 5 to 8, respectively.

Compliance with the PLCO screening protocol was very high and did not vary by lycopene or β-carotene concentrations, as shown by the average annual number of prostate cancer screens (PSA and DRE; Table 1 ). The average age of controls was 65 years and younger men tended to have higher lycopene and lower β-carotene concentrations than older men. Increasing lycopene concentrations were associated with a lower probability of family history of prostate cancer, lower personal history of diabetes, and lower intake of vitamin D, but higher nonfasting serum cholesterol concentrations and higher intakes of red meat and vegetables. Men with high β-carotene concentrations tended to smoke less, be less obese, be more active, be less likely to have a personal history of diabetes, and have higher serum cholesterol concentrations. Those men also had a lower intake of fat, red meat, and PhIP, and higher intake of fruits and vegetables, calcium, vitamin D, and supplemental vitamin E.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Description of baseline characteristics overall and according to quintiles of serum lycopene and β-carotene

Serum carotenoid concentrations, measured in 46 men at study entry and 1 year later were significantly correlated with correlation coefficients ranging between 0.49 and 0.77 (lycopene r = 0.56, α-carotene r = 0.60, β-carotene r = 0.68, β-cryptoxanthin r = 0.77, lutein r = 0.58, zeaxanthin r = 0.49; all P < 0.05), indicating relative stability in the rank order of these nutrients in the study population over time. Dietary intake and serum concentrations of the same carotenoid were modestly correlated, among controls (correlation coefficients: lycopene r = 0.30, α-carotene r = 0.37, β-carotene r = 0.30, β-cryptoxanthin r = 0.46, lutein + zeaxanthin r = 0.32; all P < 0.0001).

The range of carotenoid concentrations was wide, with 3-fold to 6-fold differences for specific carotenoids, at the medians of the first and fifth quintile in controls (Table 2 ). Serum concentrations of lycopene did not vary significantly between cases and controls; of the other carotenoids, only β-carotene concentrations were significantly greater in cases than controls (P = 0.04). In multivariate-adjusted analysis based on quintiles, lycopene was also not associated with prostate cancer incidence; men in the highest quintile had a nonsignificant 14% increase in prostate cancer risk, compared with men in the lowest quintile, with no indication of a linear trend (Ptrend 0.28; Table 3 ). The other carotenoids were also not associated, overall, with risk of prostate cancer, except for higher β-carotene concentrations, which tended to be associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer, but results were not statistically significant.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Median and range of serum carotenoid concentrations (μg/dL) in prostate cancer cases and controls

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

ORs of prostate cancer according to quintile of serum carotenoids

Risks for aggressive prostate cancer were not related to serum carotenoid concentrations, except that high concentrations of β-carotene were associated with increased risk of aggressive disease (stages III or IV or Gleason score ≥ 7: OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.03-2.72 for highest versus lowest quintile; Ptrend = 0.13; Table 4 ), with the strongest associations for stage III or IV prostate cancer (OR, 3.16; 95% CI, 1.37-7.31 for highest versus lowest quintile of β-carotene; Ptrend = 0.02). This positive association with stage III and IV cancer was similar when restricted to cases diagnosed at least 4 years after blood collection.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

ORs of prostate cancer according to quintile of serum carotenoids

Similar associations between serum carotenoids and prostate cancer were observed for subgroups characterized by age (<65 years and ≥65 years), smoking (ever versus never), family history of prostate cancer (yes versus no), or (for other carotenoids) serum β-carotene concentration (first versus second to fifth quintile; data not shown). Furthermore, ORs did not vary when the second year of follow-up or the last years without active screening (year 6+) were excluded (data not shown).

Simultaneous adjustment for all serum carotenoids resulted in very similar risk estimates, except for α- and β-carotene, which were less strongly positively associated with stage III and IV cancers. This finding may be explained by the high correlation between both carotenoids (r = 0.71).

Discussion

In this prospective analysis of serum carotenoids, including almost 700 cases, we observed no association between carotenoids and prostate cancer, except for β-carotene, which was associated with increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer, particularly regionally invasive or distant metastatic disease. None of the carotenoid-prostate cancer associations were modified by age, smoking, or family history of prostate cancer.

The Health Professionals Follow-up Study, a cohort study of dietary lycopene with almost 2,500 cases (16), observed an inverse association, whereas no association was found in two other cohorts (17, 41), including our study of >1,300 cases in the PLCO (17, 42-46). Among serum-based studies of circulating lycopene (22-26, 29, 47), the Physicians' Health Study reported that high lycopene concentrations were associated with lower risk of aggressive prostate cancer in the subgroup of men randomized to the placebo arm only (22). In the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, lycopene was inversely associated with prostate cancer in two subgroups: older men (≥65 years) and men without a family history of prostate cancer (29). Earlier findings of a nonsignificant inverse lycopene-prostate cancer association from the CLUE I study (23) were not confirmed on follow-up in CLUE I and CLUE II combined (24). Other prospectively designed nested case-control studies (25, 26, 47) also reported no association, whereas two retrospective case-control studies found inverse associations (27, 28). In some studies, low absolute or narrow range of intake or blood concentrations could have obscured associations (25, 41), however, two studies with low lycopene concentrations showed inverse associations (27, 28), and others (17, 24, 26, 27), including ours, with high intake (17) or blood concentrations, observed no association. Although if the potential cancer-preventive effect of lycopene is defined by a certain threshold, studies with a relatively high intake or blood concentrations could have missed such an effect. Overall, results on serum or plasma lycopene and prostate cancer are unpersuasive.

Supplementation in three randomized trials (48-50) with β-carotene showed inconsistent results for prostate cancer. For men in the Physicians' Health Study with low baseline serum β-carotene concentrations (lowest quartile), β-carotene supplementation (50 mg every other day for an average of 12 years) reduced prostate cancer risk (48), whereas in the Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial, daily supplementation with 30 mg of β-carotene and 25,000 IU vitamin A for up to 5 years was not related to risk (49), and supplementation in the Alpha-Tocopherol Beta-Carotene trial (20 mg β-carotene/d for 5-8 years) resulted in nonsignificant increases in prostate cancer incidence and mortality (50). Because the Alpha-Tocopherol Beta-Carotene trial was conducted in smokers, and animal studies showed that the combined exposure to tobacco smoke and high-dose β-carotene raises oxidative metabolites, induces P450 enzymes, diminishes retinol signaling, and enhances cell proliferation (51, 52), we explored β-carotene and smoking as codeterminants of prostate cancer, but found no evidence for such an interaction.

Observational studies also provide inconsistent findings for β-carotene. Some questionnaire-based case-control studies (42, 43, 45, 53-56) reported lower prostate cancer risks with high intake of β-carotene, however, other studies, including five cohort studies (13, 41, 46, 53, 57-65), did not. In blood-based observational studies, some showed no relation between β-carotene concentrations and prostate cancer (23, 24, 26, 32), whereas similar to ours, three studies (24, 25, 28) found increased risks, of which one was significant in blacks (28). Only two small case-control studies (65 and 118 cases) reported an inverse association between serum β-carotene and prostate cancer (27, 47), whereas in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study inverse associations were limited to younger men (<65 years; ref. 29). These inconsistent findings are unlikely explained by the different blood concentrations between studies as most observational studies (25, 26, 28, 29, 32), including ours, had similar β-carotene concentrations, which were 8- to 20-fold lower (66) than observed after β-carotene supplementation in the three clinical trials, which also provided mixed results. Animal and in vitro studies further add to the complexity of β-carotene's effect on cancer: whereas antioxidative properties of β-carotene potentially reduce cancer risk, β-carotene also induces phase I carcinogen-activating enzymes associated with the generation of oxidative stress (52, 67). The inconsistent results for β-carotene in prostate cancer prevention and the potentially harmful effects of high-dose supplementation on lung cancer, heart disease, and death from all causes in smokers (68-71) should lead to caution in using β-carotene supplementation, at least at high doses.

Consistent with our study, blood-based studies (22, 24-26, 28, 29, 47), mostly nested within cohorts (22, 24-26, 29), observed no association between α-carotene, β-cryptoxanthin, lutein, or zeaxanthin and prostate cancer, except for two small case-control studies which showed an inverse relation (27, 47). Dietary studies summarized elsewhere (29) provide little evidence for a beneficial effect of these carotenoids with respect to prostate cancer prevention.

Serum concentrations of the individual carotenoids were similar to those of previous studies (22-28, 72) except for lycopene, which tend to be higher—possibly explained by age differences in the study populations—younger men may have a higher lycopene intake. Given the relatively wide range of carotenoid concentrations (3- to 6-fold difference between the median of the first and fifth quintile) it is unlikely that our null findings are explained by a limited variation in exposure concentrations.

The strengths of our study are standardized procedures for prostate cancer screening, prediagnostically collected serum samples, a large sample size, and detailed diagnostic data, which allowed us to stratify analyses by stage and grade and the fact that adjusting for many potential confounders did not affect the results. Because the study was conducted within the screening arm of the PLCO trial, all men were screened with a standardized protocol, which enabled us to control for the number of prostate cancer screens during the follow-up period, in a time-dependent manner. This might be difficult to achieve in a non–trial setting, as even with a comprehensive ascertainment of screening behavior, it can be difficult to distinguish between screening tests and exams carried out as part of diagnostic follow-up (73). Screen-detected early-stage prostate cancers might differ from clinically detected aggressive disease in their tumor characteristics and in underlying etiologic risk factors (74). However, all men in our study were annually screened and we stratified by aggressive/nonaggressive disease status.

A limitation of our study is measurement of only a single serum sample. Carotenoid measures at multiple time points would have resulted in more precise estimates of long-term exposure. For example, Kristal et al. (75) determined that using the mean of three measures of lycopene concentrations collected over 7 years yielded a reliability correlation of 0.82, providing a more robust measure of long-term intake. We observed moderate correlations between carotenoid concentrations measured a year apart (0.49-0.77), consistent with previous studies of repeated measures over time (72, 76). Accordingly, nondifferential measurement error, particularly for carotenoids with weaker correlations, such as zeaxanthin (0.49) or lycopene (0.56) may have weakened carotenoid-prostate cancer associations. A further limitation of this study is the relative short follow-up of up to 8 years. We cannot rule out that residual confounding could have affected our results despite our efforts to adjust for many potential confounders; however, this might be less likely for lycopene as high lycopene concentrations were generally associated with a less healthy lifestyle.

In summary, our results do not support the use of lycopene, β-carotene, or other carotenoids in prostate cancer prevention. Indeed, β-carotene may be related to increased risks for prostate cancer and is known to increase the risks of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease in smokers. Simple and inexpensive approaches to prostate cancer prevention would be of great public health significance, and it is unfortunate that the initial results on lycopene and tomato products from well-conducted studies could not be consistently replicated.

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Alan R. Kristal, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, for his help in interpreting the results in the context of existing studies; the participants of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Screening Trial for making this study possible; and Drs. Christine Berg and Philip Prorok, and the investigators and staff at the screening centers, for their dedication to this trial.

Footnotes

  • Grant support: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute/NIH grant (PLCO Cancer Screening Trial) and Intramural Research Program.

  • 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.

    • Accepted February 21, 2007.
    • Received October 9, 2006.
    • Revision received January 29, 2007.

References

  1. ↵
    Krinsky NI. The antioxidant and biological properties of the carotenoids. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1998;854:443–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Clinton SK. The dietary antioxidant network and prostate carcinoma. Cancer 1999;86:1629–31.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. Ripple MO, Henry WF, Rago RP, Wilding G. Prooxidant-antioxidant shift induced by androgen treatment of human prostate carcinoma cells. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:40–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. Iynem AH, Alademir AZ, Obek C, et al. The effect of prostate cancer and antiandrogenic therapy on lipid peroxidation and antioxidant systems. Int Urol Nephrol 2004;36:57–62.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. Tam NN, Gao Y, Leung YK, Ho SM. Androgenic regulation of oxidative stress in the rat prostate: involvement of NAD(P)H oxidases and antioxidant defense machinery during prostatic involution and regrowth. Am J Pathol 2003;163:2513–22.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. Tapiero H, Townsend DM, Tew KD. The antioxidant role of selenium and seleno-compounds. Biomed Pharmacother 2003;57:134–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    Loft S, Poulsen HE. Cancer risk and oxidative DNA damage in man. J Mol Med 1996;74:297–312.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    Mayne ST. β-Carotene, carotenoids, and disease prevention in humans. FASEB J 1996;10:690–701.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  9. ↵
    Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion USDA. The nutrient content of US food supply (interactive version) 2003.
  10. ↵
    Britton G. Structure and properties of carotenoids in relation to function. FASEB J 1995;9:1551–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  11. ↵
    Di Mascio P, Kaiser S, Sies H. Lycopene as the most efficient biological carotenoid singlet oxygen quencher. Arch Biochem Biophys 1989;274:532–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    Mills PK, Beeson WL, Phillips RL, Fraser GE. Cohort study of diet, lifestyle, and prostate cancer in Adventist men. Cancer 1989;64:598–604.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    Giovannucci E, Ascherio A, Rimm EB, et al. Intake of carotenoids and retinol in relation to risk of prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:1767–76.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    Chug-Ahuja JK, Holden JM, Forman MR, et al. The development and application of a carotenoid database for fruits, vegetables, and selected multicomponent foods. J Am Diet Assoc 1993;93:318–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    Etminan M, Takkouche B, Caamano-Isorna F. The role of tomato products and lycopene in the prevention of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004;13:340–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    Giovannucci E, Rimm EB, Liu Y, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC. A prospective study of tomato products, lycopene, and prostate cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:391–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    Kirsh VA, Mayne ST, Peters U, et al. A prospective study of lycopene and tomato product intake and risk of prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:92–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    Cooper DA, Webb DR, Peters JC. Evaluation of the potential for olestra to affect the availability of dietary phytochemicals. J Nutr 1997;127:1699–709S.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    Gartner C, Stahl W, Sies H. Lycopene is more bioavailable from tomato paste than from fresh tomatoes. Am J Clin Nutr 1997;66:116–22.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. Stahl W, Sies H. Uptake of lycopene and its geometrical isomers is greater from heat-processed than from unprocessed tomato juice in humans. J Nutr 1992;122:2161–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    Boileau AC, Merchen NR, Wasson K, Atkinson CA, Erdman JW, Jr. Cis-lycopene is more bioavailable than trans-lycopene in vitro and in vivo in lymph-cannulated ferrets. J Nutr 1999;129:1176–81.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    Gann PH, Ma J, Giovannucci E, et al. Lower prostate cancer risk in men with elevated plasma lycopene levels: results of a prospective analysis. Cancer Res 1999;59:1225–30.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    Hsing AW, Comstock GW, Abbey H, Polk BF. Serologic precursors of cancer. Retinol, carotenoids, and tocopherol and risk of prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1990;82:941–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    Huang HY, Alberg AJ, Norkus EP, et al. Prospective study of antioxidant micronutrients in the blood and the risk of developing prostate cancer. Am J Epidemiol 2003;157:335–44.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    Nomura AM, Stemmermann GN, Lee J, Craft NE. Serum micronutrients and prostate cancer in Japanese Americans in Hawaii. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1997;6:487–91.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  26. ↵
    Goodman GE, Schaffer S, Omenn GS, Chen C, King I. The association between lung and prostate cancer risk, and serum micronutrients: results and lessons learned from β-carotene and retinol efficacy trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12:518–26.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    Lu QY, Hung JC, Heber D, et al. Inverse associations between plasma lycopene and other carotenoids and prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2001;10:749–56.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    Vogt TM, Mayne ST, Graubard BI, et al. Serum lycopene, other serum carotenoids, and risk of prostate cancer in US Blacks and Whites. Am J Epidemiol 2002;155:1023–32.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    Wu K, Erdman JW, Jr., Schwartz SJ, et al. Plasma and dietary carotenoids, and the risk of prostate cancer: a nested case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004;13:260–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    Hsing AW, McLaughlin JK, Chow WH, et al. Risk factors for colorectal cancer in a prospective study among U.S. white men. Int J Cancer 1998;77:549–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. Eichholzer M, Stahelin HB, Ludin E, Bernasconi F. Smoking, plasma vitamins C, E, retinol, and carotene, and fatal prostate cancer: seventeen-year follow-up of the prospective Basel study. Prostate 1999;38:189–98.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    Hayes RB, Bogdanovicz JFAT, Schroeder FH, et al. Serum retinol and prostate cancer. Cancer 1988;62:2021–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    Gohagan JK, Prorok PC, Hayes RB, Kramer BS. The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial of the National Cancer Institute: history, organization, and status. Control Clin Trials 2000;21:251–72S.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. ↵
    Hayes RB, Reding D, Kopp W, et al. Etiologic and early marker studies in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial. Control Clin Trials 2000;21:349–55S.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. ↵
    Prostate. In: Fleming ID, Cooper JS, Henson ED, et al., editors. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 5th ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-Raven; 1997. p. 219–24.
  36. ↵
    Rothman KJ, Greeenland S. Modern epidemiology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott Raven; 1998.
  37. ↵
    Steghens JP, van Kappel AL, Riboli E, Collombel C. Simultaneous measurement of seven carotenoids, retinol and α-tocopherol in serum by high-performance liquid chromatography. J Chromatogr B Biomed Sci Appl 1997;694:71–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (2007). Available at http://www.cancer.gov/prevention/plcoDQX.pdf.April2007.
  39. ↵
    Subar AF, Midthune D, Kulldorff M, et al. Evaluation of alternative approaches to assign nutrient values to food groups in food frequency questionnaires. Am J Epidemiol 2000;152:279–86.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    Tippett KS, Cypel YS. Design and operation: the continuing survey of food intakes by individuals and the diet and health knowledge survey, 1994–96. Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals 1994–96, Nationwide Food Surveys Rep. No. 96–1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service; 1997.
  41. ↵
    Schuurman AG, Goldbohm RA, Brants HA, Van den Brandt PA. A prospective cohort study on intake of retinol, vitamins C and E, and carotenoids and prostate cancer risk (Netherlands). Cancer Causes Control 2002;13:573–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    Jian L, Du CJ, Lee AH, Binns CW. Do dietary lycopene and other carotenoids protect against prostate cancer? Int J Cancer 2005;113:1010–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    McCann SE, Ambrosone CB, Moysich KB, et al. Intakes of selected nutrients, foods, and phytochemicals and prostate cancer risk in western New York. Nutr Cancer 2005;53:33–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. Sanderson M, Coker AL, Logan P, Zheng W, Fadden MK. Lifestyle and prostate cancer among older African-American and Caucasian men in South Carolina. Cancer Causes Control 2004;15:647–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    Bosetti C, Talamini R, Montella M, et al. Retinol, carotenoids and the risk of prostate cancer: a case-control study from Italy. Int J Cancer 2004;112:689–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    Hodge AM, English DR, McCredie MR, et al. Foods, nutrients and prostate cancer. Cancer Causes Control 2004;15:11–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    Chang S, Erdman JW, Jr., Clinton SK, et al. Relationship between plasma carotenoids and prostate cancer. Nutr Cancer 2005;53:127–34.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  48. ↵
    Cook NR, Le IM, Manson JE, Buring JE, Hennekens CH. Effects of β-carotene supplementation on cancer incidence by baseline characteristics in the Physicians' Health Study (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2000;11:617–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    Omenn GS, Goodman GE, Thornquist MD, et al. Risk factors for lung cancer and for intervention effects in CARET, the Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:1550–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. ↵
    Heinonen OP, Albanes D, Virtamo J, et al. Prostate cancer and supplementation with α-tocopherol and β-carotene: incidence and mortality in a controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:440–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. ↵
    Russell RM. The enigma of β-carotene in carcinogenesis: what can be learned from animal studies. J Nutr 2004;134:262–8S.
    OpenUrl
  52. ↵
    Paolini M, bdel-Rahman SZ, Sapone A, et al. β-Carotene: a cancer chemopreventive agent or a co-carcinogen? Mutat Res 2003;543:195–200.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    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.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. Mettlin C, Selenskas S, Natarajan N, Huben R. β-Carotene and animal fats and their relationship to prostate cancer risk. A case-control study. Cancer 1989;64:605–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. Ohno Y, Yoshida O, Oishi K, et al. Dietary β-carotene and cancer of the prostate: a case-control study in Kyoto, Japan. Cancer Nurs 1988;48:1331–6.
    OpenUrl
  56. ↵
    Oishi K, Okada K, Yoshida O, et al. A case-control study of prostatic cancer with reference to dietary habits. Prostate 1988;12:179–90.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  57. ↵
    Daviglus ML, Dyer AR, Persky V, et al. Dietary β-carotene, vitamin C, and risk of prostate cancer: results from the Western Electric Study. Epidemiology 1996;7:472–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  58. Andersson SO, Wolk A, Bergstrom R, et al. Energy, nutrient intake and prostate cancer risk: a population-based case-control study in Sweden. Int J Cancer 1996;68:716–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. Jain MG, Hislop GT, Howe GR, Ghadirian P. Plant foods, antioxidants, and prostate cancer risk: findings from case-control studies in Canada. Nutr Cancer 1999;34:173–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. Le Marchand L, Yoshizawa CN, Kolonel LN, Hankin JH, Goodman MT. Vegetable consumption and lung cancer risk: a population-based case-control study in Hawaii. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989;81:1158–64.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. Norrish AE, Jackson RT, Sharpe SJ, Skeaff CM. Prostate cancer and dietary carotenoids. Am J Epidemiol 2000;151:119–23.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  62. Rohan TE, Howe GR, Burch JD, Jain M. Dietary factors and risk of prostate cancer: a case-control study in Ontario, Canada. Cancer Causes Control 1995;6:145–54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. Talamini R, Franceschi S, La VC, et al. Diet and prostatic cancer: a case-control study in northern Italy. Nutr Cancer 1992;18:277–86.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  64. Vlajinac HD, Marinkovic JM, Ilic MD, Kocev NI. Diet and prostate cancer: a case-control study. Eur J Cancer 1997;33:101–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    Shibata A, Paganini-Hill A, Ross RK, Henderson BE. Intake of vegetables, fruits, β-carotene, vitamin C and vitamin supplements and cancer incidence among the elderly: a prospective study. Br J Cancer 1992;66:673–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  66. ↵
    Duffield-Lillico AJ, Begg CB. Reflections on the landmark studies of β-carotene supplementation. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:1729–31.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  67. ↵
    Paolini M, Antelli A, Pozzetti L, et al. Induction of cytochrome P450 enzymes and over-generation of oxygen radicals in β-carotene supplemented rats. Carcinogenesis 2001;22:1483–95.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  68. ↵
    Tornwall ME, Virtamo J, Korhonen PA, et al. Effect of α-tocopherol and β-carotene supplementation on coronary heart disease during the 6-year post-trial follow-up in the ATBC study. Eur Heart J 2004;25:1171–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  69. Albanes D, Heinonen OP, Taylor PR, et al. α-Tocopherol and β-carotene supplements and lung cancer incidence in the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study: effects of base-line characteristics and study compliance. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:1560–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  70. Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group. The effect of vitamin E and β carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers in male smokers. N Engl J Med 1994;330:1029–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    Omenn GS, Goodman GE, Thornquist MD, et al. Effects of a combination of β carotene and vitamin A on lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1150–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. ↵
    Wu K, Schwartz SJ, Platz EA, et al. Variations in plasma lycopene and specific isomers over time in a cohort of U.S. men. J Nutr 2003;133:1930–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  73. ↵
    Weiss NS. Adjusting for screening history in epidemiologic studies of cancer: why, when, and how to do it. Am J Epidemiol 2003;157:957–61.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. ↵
    Platz EA, De Marzo AM, Giovannucci E. Prostate cancer association studies: pitfalls and solutions to cancer misclassification in the PSA era. J Cell Biochem 2004;91:553–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. ↵
    Kristal AR, Schenk JM. Directions for future epidemiological research in lycopene and prostate cancer risk. J Nutr 2005;135:2037–9S.
    OpenUrl
  76. ↵
    Comstock GW, Burke AE, Hoffman SC, et al. The repeatability of serum carotenoid, retinoid, and tocopherol concentrations in specimens of blood collected 15 years apart. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2001;10:65–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention: 16 (5)
May 2007
Volume 16, Issue 5
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Serum Lycopene, Other Carotenoids, and Prostate Cancer Risk: a Nested Case-Control Study in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Serum Lycopene, Other Carotenoids, and Prostate Cancer Risk: a Nested Case-Control Study in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial
Ulrike Peters, Michael F. Leitzmann, Nilanjan Chatterjee, Yinghui Wang, Demetrius Albanes, Edward P. Gelmann, Marlin D. Friesen, Elio Riboli and Richard B. Hayes
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev May 1 2007 (16) (5) 962-968; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0861

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Serum Lycopene, Other Carotenoids, and Prostate Cancer Risk: a Nested Case-Control Study in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial
Ulrike Peters, Michael F. Leitzmann, Nilanjan Chatterjee, Yinghui Wang, Demetrius Albanes, Edward P. Gelmann, Marlin D. Friesen, Elio Riboli and Richard B. Hayes
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev May 1 2007 (16) (5) 962-968; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0861
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Urinary Melatonin in Relation to Breast Cancer Risk
  • Endometrial Cancer and Ovarian Cancer Cross-Cancer GWAS
  • Risk Factors of Subsequent CNS Tumor after Pediatric Cancer
Show more Research Articles
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
eISSN: 1538-7755
ISSN: 1055-9965

Advertisement