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

Dietary Inflammatory Index and Risk of Colorectal Cancer in the Iowa Women's Health Study

Nitin Shivappa, Anna E. Prizment, Cindy K. Blair, David R. Jacobs Jr, Susan E. Steck and James R. Hébert
Nitin Shivappa
1Cancer Prevention and Control Program, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
2Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anna E. Prizment
3Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
4Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cindy K. Blair
3Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David R. Jacobs Jr
3Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susan E. Steck
1Cancer Prevention and Control Program, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
2Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James R. Hébert
1Cancer Prevention and Control Program, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
2Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: jhebert@sc.edu
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0537 Published November 2014
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: Colorectal cancer, the third most common cancer in the United States, has a natural history that usually encompasses several decades. Dietary components have been implicated in the etiology of colorectal cancer, perhaps through their effect on inflammation.

Methods: We examined the ability of the dietary inflammatory index (DII) to predict colorectal cancer in the Iowa Women's Health Study. The DII was computed based on dietary intake assessed by a 121-item food frequency questionnaire in this cohort of 34,703 women, ages 55 to 69 years, free of any self-reported prior malignancy at enrollment in 1986. Incident colorectal cancer cases were identified through linkage with the State Health Registry of Iowa (a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program member). Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate HRs. Through the end of 2010, 1,636 incident colorectal cancers were identified, including 1,329 colon and 325 rectal cancers.

Results: Multivariable analysis, adjusting for body mass index, smoking status, pack-years of smoking, hormone replacement therapy, education, diabetes, and total energy intake, revealed positive associations between higher DII and colorectal cancer risk [HR for DIIcontinuous: 1.07 per unit increase in DII (corresponding to 0.5 SD unit increase); 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01–1.13; HR for DIIquintiles: Q5 vs. Q1 = 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01–1.43]. HRs for DII were similar for colon cancer and rectal cancer, though not statistically significant for rectal cancer.

Conclusions: These results indicate that a proinflammatory diet, as indicated by higher DII scores, was associated with higher risk of developing colorectal cancer.

Impact: Proinflammatory diets are associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 23(11); 2383–92. ©2014 AACR.

Introduction

Inflammation is a result of the body's response to tissue insult or injury, or the presence of inflammatory stimulants (1, 2). The acute inflammatory response represents an important step in the process of wound healing and tissue regeneration that, under normal circumstances, will lead to recovery within a few days (3, 4). Chronic inflammation is known to be associated with common epithelial cancers, with colorectal (5–7) being the most intensively studied. There is growing evidence that specific dietary components influence both inflammation (8–10) and colorectal cancer (11–13).

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer among men and women in the United States. Primarily because of improvements in screening that have resulted in primary prevention of many cancers and detection at an earlier stage in others, the colorectal cancer death rate has decreased in the past 20 years (14, 15). Research into the role of diet in inflammation and colorectal cancer suggests that diet represents a complicated set of exposures which often interact, and whose cumulative effect modifies both inflammatory responses and health outcomes.

Several dietary indices exist to assess diet quality, but none had focused on diet's effects on inflammation until researchers at the University of South Carolina's Cancer Prevention and Control Program developed the Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII). The DII can be used in diverse populations to assess the inflammatory potential of diet assessed by various dietary assessment tools [e.g., 24-hour dietary recalls, food frequency questionnaires (FFQs), and food records; refs. 16–18]. Thus far, the DII has been successful in predicting inflammatory markers [e.g., C-reactive protein (CRP) and IL6] in several studies, including the Seasonal Variation of Blood Cholesterol Levels Study (SEASONS) and the Buffalo Cardio-Metabolic Police Stress Study (BCOPS) in the United States (17, 19), and in a study of asthmatics in Australia (18). However, the DII has not yet been applied to a population with cancer outcomes. The purpose of this study is to examine the association between the DII and colorectal cancer in a large prospective cohort of postmenopausal women, the Iowa Women's Health Study (IWHS). Our working hypothesis is that a higher DII score (indicating a proinflammatory diet) increases risk of incident colorectal cancer, including anatomic subtypes (i.e., colon cancer and rectal cancer).

Materials and Methods

Full details about the IWHS design have been published elsewhere (20). In brief, 41,836 older women, ages 55 to 69 years, were enrolled in 1986. Incident cancer cases and deaths were identified through annual linkage with the State Health Registry of Iowa (a Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program member) and the National Death Index. Emigration from Iowa was less than 1% annually, resulting in nearly complete follow-up of cancer incidence (21). Women with self-reported history of cancer before baseline, except non–melanoma skin cancer (n = 3,830), or extreme energy intake (< 600 kcal or ≥5,000 kcal per day) or incomplete dietary data (≥30 items blank) on the FFQ (n = 3,096) were excluded from the present study, yielding a sample consisting of 35,216 study participants (exclusions were not mutually exclusive). After further exclusion for missing covariates, data from 34,703 women were included in the analysis.

Dietary intake data were collected using a FFQ at baseline. This 121-item FFQ was adapted from the 126-item instrument developed by Willett and colleagues (22). Questions related to supplements were part of this FFQ. FFQ-derived dietary data were used to calculate DII scores for all participants.

The DII is based on literature published through 2010 linking diet to inflammation. Developing the DII involved screening approximately 6,000 scientific articles published from 1950 to 2010 on diet and six inflammatory markers [i.e., CRP, IL1β, IL4, IL6, IL10, and TNFα]. Of these, nearly 2,000 articles from cell culture and laboratory animal experiments, and cross-sectional, longitudinal, and intervention trials in humans were reviewed and scored. Finally, 11 datasets were obtained from around the world to which individual dietary intakes could be compared to determine the final DII score. Individual intakes of food parameters on which the DII is based are then compared with a world-standard database. A complete description of the detailing development of the DII is available elsewhere (16, 23). Briefly, to calculate DII for the participants of this study, the dietary data were first linked to the world database that provided a robust estimate of a mean and SD for each parameter (16). This was achieved by subtracting the “standard global mean” from the intake reported via the FFQ and dividing this value by the SD (both calculated from the world database) to get “z” scores. To minimize the effect of “right skewing,” these “z” scores were then converted to a centered percentile score. The centered percentile score for each food parameter for each individual was then multiplied by the respective food parameter effect score (inflammatory potential for each food parameter), which was derived from the literature review, to obtain a food parameter–specific DII score for an individual. All of the food parameter–specific DII scores were then summed to create the overall DII score for each participant in the study (16). A description of validation work, including both dietary recalls and a structured questionnaire similar to an FFQ, is also available (17).

The DII was calculated from foods and supplements and from foods only. The foods-only DII was based on 37 parameters available in the IWHS FFQ. DII attributable to supplements only was calculated by creating a new variable that presents the difference between the food + supplements DII and the food-only DII. If the difference is zero, then either the woman did not take a vitamin supplement or the associated nutrient (e.g., calcium) was either not part of the DII or it had a negligible effect on DII. If the nutrient is considered antiinflammatory, then the difference variable should be negative (as virtually all supplements in the calculated DII are antiinflammatory) and represent a supplement user. Supplements commonly used in this study were calcium (46%), multivitamin (33%), vitamin C (12% seasonally, 17% monthly), and vitamin E (15%).

Associations with DII of demographics, lifestyle factors, self-reported diabetes mellitus, and anthropometric characteristics were examined using general linear models or χ2 tests (see Table 1 for specific variables). The distribution of 30 different food groups was examined across quintiles of DII to characterize low (antiinflammatory) versus high (proinflammatory) DII in terms of food intake.

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

Prevalence of characteristics at baseline across quintiles of DII (with supplements), IWHS, 1986–2010

Both food + supplements DII and the food-only DII were analyzed both as continuous variables and by quintiles of exposure in relation to colorectal cancer outcome variables For analyses examining the effect of supplement use alone, the reference category represents nonsupplement users; categories 1 to 3 represent tertiles of the supplement-associated DII among supplement users. Category 1 represents women with the greatest contribution from supplements to the DII score. Outcome variables included colorectal cancer overall and both colon (ICD-O codes, 18.0–18.9) and rectum (ICD-O codes 19.9 and 20.9) subsites. Proximal and distal colon cancers defined by codes 18.0 to 18.5 and 18.6 to 18.7, respectively, also were examined.

Person-years of exposure time were accumulated from baseline until first colorectal cancer diagnosis, move from Iowa, death, or administrative censoring on December 31, 2010. HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression models, adjusting only for age in the crude model and additionally adjusting for body mass index [BMI = weight (kg)/weight (m)2], smoking status, pack-years of smoking, education, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) use, total energy intake, and history of diabetes in another. The covariates were chosen a priori, as they previously were shown to be strong risk factors for colorectal cancer in this cohort. Further adjustment for alcohol intake and physical activity did not substantially change the results; therefore, these variables were not included in the final model. A linear test for trend was conducted by including the median value for each DII quintile as a continuous term into the regression model (and for tertiles in the supplements-only analyses). The assumption of proportional hazards was tested by adding to the model an interaction term between follow-up time and DII; there was no evidence that violated.

Finally, to examine whether adjustment for aspirin and other NSAIDs use affects a DII–colorectal cancer association, we conducted a sensitivity analysis for the colorectal cancer outcome by including only those women who replied to the 1992 follow-up questionnaire about the use of aspirin and other NSAIDs (N = 26,152 still at risk and 998 colorectal cancer cases; NSAIDs use was not queried at baseline) and adjusting for ever use of these medications. For this analysis, all cancer cases diagnosed before 1992 were excluded, and the analytical cohort was followed from the time of the 1992 survey until the end of follow-up. Statistical tests were performed using SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc.); all statistical tests were two-sided, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The food + supplements DII had a mean (SD) value of −0.87 (SD = ±2.02), whereas the food-only DII mean was −0.06 (SD = ±1.94). The food + supplements DII was positively correlated with the food-only DII (r = 0.82); however, it was inversely correlated with DII from supplements only (r = −0.25).

Decreasing trends were observed for energy and dietary fiber intake across DII quintiles (Table 1). Increasing trends were observed across quintiles of DII for percent energy from fat and proportion of women with BMI ≥30 kg/m2, current smokers, and those reporting low levels of physical activity. Table 2 describes the distribution of servings of 30 food groups across DII quintiles, with percentage difference between quintiles 5 and 1. The food groups that showed the greatest reduction (≥60%) from quintile 1 to quintile 5 are vegetables other than green leafy vegetables or potatoes (65%), low-fat dairy (63%), green leafy vegetables (62%), fish/seafood (62%), nuts (61%), fruits (61%), and whole grains (60%); and the food groups that showed greatest increase (≥ 20%) were butter (56%), beer (37%), coffee (36%), fried food (29%), and liquor (24%). Food groups that differed little (≤5%) across DII quintiles include refined grains, nitrate-processed meat, high-fat dairy, and chocolate.

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

Distribution of food groups across quintiles of DII (with supplements)a, IWHS, 1986–2010

During the follow-up period (mean ± SD = 19.6 ± 7.0 years), 1,636 incident colorectal cancers were identified, including 1,329 colon and 325 rectal cancer cases. Of the 1,329 colon cancer cases, 903 were proximal colon and 388 were distal colon. When analyses were carried out using continuous DII, a 1-unit increment in DII (corresponding to a 0.5 SD increase) showed significant positive associations with risk of overall colorectal cancer after adjusting for age (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.03–1.14). After additional adjustment for BMI, smoking status, pack-years of smoking, education, HRT use, total energy intake, and history of diabetes, the HR was slightly attenuated (1.07; 95% CI, 1.01–1.13). In a sensitivity analysis restricted to responders to the 1992 follow-up questionnaire, additional adjustment for the use of aspirin or other NSAIDs did not materially alter the results (HRcontinuous = 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03–1.19; HRquintile 5 vs. 1 = 1.31; 95% CI, 1.05–1.63). In addition, the DII–colorectal cancer association was stronger among women who did not use aspirin or any other NSAIDs (30% of all women). Compared with the first quintile, the HRs were 1.39 (95% CI, 1.03–1.14), 1.37 (95% CI, 1.03–1.14), 1.62 (95% CI, 0.98–2.67), and 2.02 (95% CI, 1.21–3.39; P trend = 0.008) for the second, third, fourth, and fifth quintile, respectively.

For analysis focusing on specific anatomic subsites, a significant positive association was observed with colon cancer after age adjustment (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02–1.13), with slight attenuation observed after additional adjustment for other variables (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.99–1.12). For rectal cancer, HRs for DII were of similar magnitude as for colon cancer, but did not achieve statistical significance, consistent with the smaller number of cases (Table 3).

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

DII from food and supplements and colorectal cancer risk; IWHS, 1986–2010

Analysis with DII expressed as quintiles revealed significantly higher risk for women in the fifth quintile compared with women in the first quintile for overall colorectal cancer (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01–1.43, P trend = 0.03). Effect sizes were similar for colon and rectal cancers analyzed separately, though did not reach statistical significance (Table 3). Additional analyses were carried out with subtypes of colon cancer. The DII as a continuous variable showed a statistically significant association with proximal colon cancer (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02–1.16) in the crude model adjusted for age, but this was attenuated and no longer statistically significant with additional adjustment for other covariates (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.98–1.14). Similar to colon cancer, the risk of proximal colon cancer increased across the DII quintiles (P trend = 0.01). Similar associations between the continuous DII and distal colon cancer were observed (HRage-adjusted = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.96–1.18; HRmultivariable adjustment = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93–1.18), though there was no evidence for a linear trend across DII quintiles (P trend = 0.33).

When analyses were carried out with DII from food groups only, there was minimal change in the effect size of the association for colorectal cancer (HRcontinuous = 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01–1.15; HRquintile 5 vs. 1 = 1.16; 95% CI, 0.95–1.42) and for cancer subtypes (Table 4.). When analyses were carried out with DII from supplements only (i.e., obtained subtracting the food-only DII from the food + supplements DII), women in category 2 appeared to have lower risk of colorectal cancer (HRcategory 2 vs. 4 = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73–0.98) than women in category 3 (HRcategory 3 vs.4 = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.77–1.03), suggesting a nonlinear relationship in which an increasing benefit from the supplement is observed at moderate doses. However, there was no apparent benefit for more heavily exposed women [i.e., for in category 1 (HRcategory 1 vs. 4 = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82–1.09; Table 4].

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

DII from foods only, DII from vitamin supplements, and colorectal cancer risk; IWHS, 1986–2010.

Discussion

In this large, population-based, prospective cohort study of older women, consuming a more proinflammatory diet, as reflected in higher DII scores, was associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer. Results were suggestive of a positive association between the DII and colon (both proximal and distal) and rectal cancers separately, after adjustment for multiple covariates.

In support of the asserted proinflammatory effect of higher DII, the DII–colorectal cancer association was accentuated among women who did not use aspirin or other NSAIDs (30% of all women). This was hypothesized a priori because NSAIDs exert a stronger antiinflammatory effect than what might be expected through a moderately antiinflammatory diet (characterized by low DII). Therefore, an unbiased estimate of the true impact of antiinflammatory diet may be seen by restricting to non-NSAIDs users. Antiinflammatory diet may confer protection against colorectal cancer among nonusers of NSAIDs and therefore may be promising as a new approach for colorectal cancer prevention, especially in people who cannot tolerate NSAIDs.

The DII, which is based on evidence available in the biomedical literature, is different from other dietary indices, virtually all of which fall into three main categories: 1, those derived from specific dietary prescriptions based on some external standard [e.g., Healthy Eating Index (HEI), which was derived from the adherence to the United States Dietary guidelines (24)]; 2, those derived empirically from findings within particular study populations [e.g., computing a pattern using principal component analysis (PCA; ref. 13)]; or 3, those that link to particular cultural patterns of dietary intake [e.g., the Mediterranean diet score (25)]. Previously, studies have been conducted to examine various dietary patterns and indices in relation to colorectal cancer in women (13, 26). In a study conducted in the National Institutes of Health-American Association of Retired Persons (NIH–AARP) cohort, significant associations were observed between colorectal cancer incidence and the HEI-2005, but not the alternate HEI or Mediterranean diet scores after adjustment for multiple confounders (26). A case–control study conducted by Miller and colleagues (13) compared HEI-2005 and PCA-derived patterns of dietary intake and their association with colorectal cancer. The results showed significant associations between low HEI-2005 scores and a dietary pattern high in meat, potatoes, and refined grains and colorectal cancer risk among women (12). There are areas of substantial overlap in the diets that characterize these different dietary patterns; however, there also are differences among dietary pattern scores. Which food groups contribute to prediction of colorectal cancer in one score but not in another is a topic for further investigation.

Previous studies also have examined the effect of specific food items, such as red meat (12, 27), and nutrients, such as folate (28) and zinc (29), and their association with colorectal cancer. A limitation of this approach is that these whole foods or nutrients are usually consumed with other food items and nutrients; thus, dietary intercorrelations may attenuate or accentuate the actual effects of the whole food or nutrient under study. Very high correlations among nutrients and foods can result in instability in risk estimation due to multicollinearity and possible loss of statistical power. In formulating the DII (16, 23), an entirely different approach was taken by focusing on the functional effects of foods and nutrients. As such, it relies on careful review and scoring of the medical literature in specific relation to inflammation. Also, in contrast to more culture-bound indices, it standardizes individuals' dietary intakes of pro- and antiinflammatory food constituents to world referent values for easy comparison across populations.

One of the possible mechanisms for the positive association of the DII with colorectal cancer in IWHS might be through the effect of proinflammatory diet on insulin resistance through increasing systemic inflammation (30, 31). Consumption of food items such as meat and butter has been shown to increase systemic inflammation by increasing levels of high-sensitivity CRP, E-selectin, and soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (30), which then are responsible for increasing insulin resistance (31). Increasing insulin resistance is associated with colorectal cancer by increasing circulating levels of insulin, triglycerides, and nonesterified fatty acids (32, 33), which promote excessive proliferation of colonic epithelial cells and expose them to reactive oxygen species, thereby increasing risk of colorectal cancer. Another theory suggests the role of diet on local inflammation and oxidation in the colon; local inflammation and oxidative stress as a result of activation of the COX-2 enzyme in colonic epithelial cells result in focal proliferation and mutagenesis (33). As mentioned previously, there are various dietary factors which have different effects on inflammation; for example, red meat consumption increases inflammation and green leafy vegetables reduce inflammation (32, 33). Supporting our findings, previous work in the IWHS examining diet and colorectal cancer has shown significant inverse associations between antiinflammatory food parameters such as vitamin D (34), magnesium (35), and vitamin E (36) intake and colon cancer and between catechins and rectal cancer (37). A significant positive association was observed between sugar, meat, and fat intake and colon cancer (38).

We observed reduced levels of mean fiber and energy intake in quintile 5 compared with quintile1. This could be because people with lower DII scores consume higher amounts of food in general; this overall higher intake would encompass many antiinflammatory dietary components that also would contribute to higher overall energy intake. We found that the addition of micronutrients from supplements to the DII scoring had an impact on the mean DII, though did not materially change effect estimates of the DII with colorectal cancer. We also observed inconsistent associations with colorectal cancer when the supplements-associated DII was considered (i.e., the difference between the food + supplements DII and the food-only DII shown in Table 4).

Previous published results with DII include the SEASONS study, where we tested DII with two dietary assessment tools, the 24HR recall and 7-Day Dietary Record (7DDR). For the 24HR recall, we had information on 44 of the 45 food parameters, and for 7DDR, we had information on 28 of the 45 food parameters. We observed a significant association between DII and CRP (>3 mg/L) for both tools; 1-point increase in score was associated with an increased odds of elevated hs-CRP using either dietary assessment method (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01–1.16 for 24HR and OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02–1.19 for 7DDR; ref. 17). In an Australian study, we calculated DII from FFQ and we had information on 25 food parameters, where we observed for every unit increase in DII score the odds of being asthmatic increased by 70% (OR, 1.70; CI, 1.03–2.14, P = 0.020). Also in that study, logIL6 was significantly positively associated with DII (β = 0.13, 95% CI, 0.05–0.21; P = 0.002; ref. 18).

Strengths of the present study include large sample size, prospective data collection with extended follow-up, near-complete case ascertainment, ability to adjust for multiple potential confounding factors, and consideration of colorectal cancer risks overall and by anatomic subsite. One recognized limitation is that dietary data were collected by a single FFQ at baseline. However, adult dietary patterns appear to remain relatively stable over time (39–44), and there was no specific dietary intervention applied to participants during the course of the study. Also, evidence from other studies suggests that modest changes in diet over adulthood may have a minimal effect on estimated colorectal cancer risk (11).

In conclusion, older women who consumed a more proinflammatory diet were at increased risk of colorectal cancer compared with women who consumed a more antiinflammatory diet. Our results provide further evidence for the benefits of a diet high in vegetables and fruits, nuts, low-fat dairy, fish, and whole grains and low in fried foods, processed meats, refined grains, and alcohol. The logical next steps would be to use DII to predict incidence of other inflammation-related cancers and cardiovascular diseases and to examine effects on mortality among women. The results from the current study are restricted to women, so using DII in studies with men would help to discern the generalizability of DII across the sexes. It also would be interesting to compare the results of DII with other indices with colorectal cancer and other cancers as outcomes.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

D.R. Jacobs Jr is a consultant/advisory board member for California Walnut Commission. J.R. Hébert has an ownership interest in Connecting Health Innovations LLC. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

Disclaimer

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: N. Shivappa, D.R. Jacobs Jr, J.R. Hébert

Development of methodology: N. Shivappa, A.E. Prizment, D.R. Jacobs Jr, S.E. Steck, J.R. Hébert

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): N. Shivappa, D.R. Jacobs Jr

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): N. Shivappa, A.E. Prizment, C.K. Blair, D.R. Jacobs Jr, S.E. Steck, J.R. Hébert

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: N. Shivappa, A.E. Prizment, C.K. Blair, D.R. Jacobs Jr, S.E. Steck, J.R. Hébert

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): D.R. Jacobs Jr

Study supervision: D.R. Jacobs Jr, J.R. Hébert

Grant Support

The IWHS was supported by the NCI grant R01 CA39742 (to D.R. Jacobs Jr and C.K. Blair). J.R. Hébert was supported by an Established Investigator Award in Cancer Prevention and Control from the Cancer Training Branch of the NCI (K05 CA136975). A.E. Prizment was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health Award Number UL1TR000114.

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.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the IWHS staff for assistance in data preparation.

Footnotes

  • J.R. Hébert and D.R. Jacobs Jr share senior authorship of this article.

  • Received May 16, 2014.
  • Revision received August 4, 2014.
  • Accepted August 11, 2014.
  • ©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Keibel A,
    2. Singh V,
    3. Sharma MC
    . Inflammation, microenvironment, and the immune system in cancer progression. Curr Pharm Des 2009;15:1949–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Pan MH,
    2. Lai CS,
    3. Dushenkov S,
    4. Ho CT
    . Modulation of inflammatory genes by natural dietary bioactive compounds. J Agric Food Chem 2009;57:4467–77.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Thun MJ,
    2. Henley SJ,
    3. Gansler T
    . Inflammation and cancer: an epidemiological perspective. Novartis Found Symp 2004;256:6–21; discussion 2–8, 49–52, 266–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Warnberg J,
    2. Gomez-Martinez S,
    3. Romeo J,
    4. Diaz LE,
    5. Marcos A
    . Nutrition, inflammation, and cognitive function. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009;1153:164–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Chung Y-C,
    2. Chang Y-F
    . Serum interleukin-6 levels reflect the disease status of colorectal cancer. J Surg Oncol 2003;83:222–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Terzic J,
    2. Grivennikov S,
    3. Karin E,
    4. Karin M
    . Inflammation and colon cancer. Gastroenterology 2010;138:2101–14 e5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Toriola AT,
    2. Cheng TY,
    3. Neuhouser ML,
    4. Wener MH,
    5. Zheng Y,
    6. Brown E,
    7. et al.
    Biomarkers of inflammation are associated with colorectal cancer risk in women but are not suitable as early detection markers. Int J Cancer J 2013;132:2648–58.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. de Mello VD,
    2. Schwab U,
    3. Kolehmainen M,
    4. Koenig W,
    5. Siloaho M,
    6. Poutanen K,
    7. et al.
    A diet high in fatty fish, bilberries and wholegrain products improves markers of endothelial function and inflammation in individuals with impaired glucose metabolism in a randomised controlled trial: the Sysdimet study. Diabetologia 2011;54:2755–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Khoo J,
    2. Piantadosi C,
    3. Duncan R,
    4. Worthley SG,
    5. Jenkins A,
    6. Noakes M,
    7. et al.
    Comparing effects of a low-energy diet and a high-protein low-fat diet on sexual and endothelial function, urinary tract symptoms, and inflammation in obese diabetic men. J Sex Med 2011;8:2868–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Luciano M,
    2. Mottus R,
    3. Starr JM,
    4. McNeill G,
    5. Jia X,
    6. Craig LC,
    7. et al.
    Depressive symptoms and diet: their effects on prospective inflammation levels in the elderly. Brain Behav Immun 2012;26:717–20.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Michaud DS,
    2. Fuchs CS,
    3. Liu S,
    4. Willett WC,
    5. Colditz GA,
    6. Giovannucci E
    . Dietary glycemic load, carbohydrate, sugar, and colorectal cancer risk in men and women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:138–47.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Miller PE,
    2. Lazarus P,
    3. Lesko SM,
    4. Cross AJ,
    5. Sinha R,
    6. Laio J,
    7. et al.
    Meat-related compounds and colorectal cancer risk by anatomical subsite. Nutr Cancer 2013;65:202–26.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Miller PE,
    2. Lazarus P,
    3. Lesko SM,
    4. Muscat JE,
    5. Harper G,
    6. Cross AJ,
    7. et al.
    Diet index-based and empirically derived dietary patterns are associated with colorectal cancer risk. J Nutr 2010;140:1267–73.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Weizman AV,
    2. Nguyen GC
    . Colon cancer screening in 2010: an up-date. Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol 2010;56:181–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Smith RA,
    2. Cokkinides V,
    3. Brawley OW
    . Cancer screening in the United States, 2009: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin 2009;59:27–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Shivappa N,
    2. Steck SE,
    3. Hurley TG,
    4. Hussey JR,
    5. Hebert JR
    . Designing and developing a literature-derived, population-based dietary inflammatory index. Public Health Nutr 2013;14:1–8.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    1. Shivappa N,
    2. Steck SE,
    3. Hurley TG,
    4. Hussey JR,
    5. Ma Y,
    6. Ockene IS,
    7. et al.
    A population-based dietary inflammatory index predicts levels of C-reactive protein in the Seasonal Variation of Blood Cholesterol Study (SEASONS). Public Health Nutr 2013;10:1–9.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    1. Wood L,
    2. Shivappa N,
    3. Berthon BS,
    4. Gibson PG,
    5. Hebert JR
    . Dietary inflammatory index is related to asthma risk, lung function and systemic inflammation in asthma. Clin Exp Allergy 2014 Apr 8. [Epub ahead of print].
  19. 19.↵
    1. Wirth MD,
    2. Burch J,
    3. Shivappa N,
    4. Violanti JM,
    5. Burchfiel CM,
    6. Fekedulegn D,
    7. et al.
    Association of a dietary inflammatory index with inflammatory indices and metabolic syndrome among police officers. J Occup Environ Med 2014;18:18.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    1. Folsom AR,
    2. Kaye SA,
    3. Prineas RJ,
    4. Potter JD,
    5. Gapstur SM,
    6. Wallace RB
    . Increased incidence of carcinoma of the breast associated with abdominal adiposity in postmenopausal women. Am J Epidemiol 1990;131:794–803.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Bisgard KM,
    2. Folsom AR,
    3. Hong CP,
    4. Sellers TA
    . Mortality and cancer rates in nonrespondents to a prospective study of older women: 5-year follow-up. Am J Epidemiol 1994;139:990–1000.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Willett WC,
    2. Sampson L,
    3. Browne ML,
    4. Stampfer MJ,
    5. Rosner B,
    6. Hennekens CH,
    7. et al.
    The use of a self-administered questionnaire to assess diet four years in the past. Am J Epidemiol 1988;127:188–99.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Cavicchia PP,
    2. Steck SE,
    3. Hurley TG,
    4. Hussey JR,
    5. Ma Y,
    6. Ockene IS,
    7. et al.
    A new dietary inflammatory index predicts interval changes in high-sensitivity c-reactive protein. J Nutr 2009;139:2365–72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Kennedy ET,
    2. Ohls J,
    3. Carlson S,
    4. Fleming K
    . The healthy eating index: design and applications. J Am Diet Assoc 1995;95:1103–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Panagiotakos DB,
    2. Pitsavos C,
    3. Stefanadis C
    . Dietary patterns: a Mediterranean diet score and its relation to clinical and biological markers of cardiovascular disease risk. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2006;16:559–68.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Reedy J,
    2. Mitrou PN,
    3. Krebs-Smith SM,
    4. Wirfalt E,
    5. Flood A,
    6. Kipnis V,
    7. et al.
    Index-based dietary patterns and risk of colorectal cancer: the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. Am J Epidemiol 2008;168:38–48.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Parr CL,
    2. Hjartaker A,
    3. Lund E,
    4. Veierod MB
    . Meat intake, cooking methods and risk of proximal colon, distal colon and rectal cancer: The Norwegian Women and Cancer (NOWAC) cohort study. Int J Cancer 2013;133:1153–63.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Razzak AA,
    2. Oxentenko AS,
    3. Vierkant RA,
    4. Tillmans LS,
    5. Wang AH,
    6. Weisenberger DJ,
    7. et al.
    Associations between intake of folate and related micronutrients with molecularly defined colorectal cancer risks in the Iowa Women's Health Study. Nutr Cancer 2012;64:899–910.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Zhang X,
    2. Giovannucci EL,
    3. Smith-Warner SA,
    4. Wu K,
    5. Fuchs CS,
    6. Pollak M,
    7. et al.
    A prospective study of intakes of zinc and heme iron and colorectal cancer risk in men and women. Cancer Causes Control 2011;22:1627–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Esmaillzadeh A,
    2. Kimiagar M,
    3. Mehrabi Y,
    4. Azadbakht L,
    5. Hu FB,
    6. Willett WC
    . Dietary patterns and markers of systemic inflammation among Iranian women. J Nutr 2007;137:992–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Festa A,
    2. D'Agostino R,
    3. Howard G,
    4. Mykkänen L,
    5. Tracy RP,
    6. Haffner SM
    . Chronic subclinical inflammation as part of the insulin resistance syndrome: the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study (IRAS). Circulation 2000;102:42–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Bruce WR,
    2. Wolever TM,
    3. Giacca A
    . Mechanisms linking diet and colorectal cancer: the possible role of insulin resistance. Nutr Cancer 2000;37:19–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Bruce WR,
    2. Giacca A,
    3. Medline A
    . Possible mechanisms relating diet and risk of colon cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2000;9:1271–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Bostick RM,
    2. Potter JD,
    3. Sellers TA,
    4. McKenzie DR,
    5. Kushi LH,
    6. Folsom AR
    . Relation of calcium, vitamin D, and dairy food intake to incidence of colon cancer among older women. The Iowa Women's Health Study. Am J Epidemiol 1993;137:1302–17.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Folsom AR,
    2. Hong C-P
    . Magnesium intake and reduced risk of colon cancer in a prospective study of Women. Am J Epidemiol 2006;163:232–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Bostick RM,
    2. Potter JD,
    3. McKenzie DR,
    4. Sellers TA,
    5. Kushi LH,
    6. Steinmetz KA,
    7. et al.
    Reduced risk of colon cancer with high intake of vitamin E: the Iowa Women's health study. Cancer Res 1993;53:4230–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Arts IC,
    2. Jacobs DR Jr.,
    3. Gross M,
    4. Harnack LJ,
    5. Folsom AR
    . Dietary catechins and cancer incidence among postmenopausal women: the Iowa Women's Health Study (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2002;13:373–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Bostick RM,
    2. Potter JD,
    3. Kushi LH,
    4. Sellers TA,
    5. Steinmetz KA,
    6. McKenzie DR,
    7. et al.
    Sugar, meat, and fat intake, and non-dietary risk factors for colon cancer incidence in Iowa women (United States). Cancer Causes Control 1994;5:38–52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Jain M,
    2. Howe GR,
    3. Harrison L,
    4. Miller AB
    . A study of repeatability of dietary data over a seven-year period. Am J Epidemiol 1989;129:422–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Jensen OM,
    2. Wahrendorf J,
    3. Rosenqvist A,
    4. Geser A
    . The reliability of questionnaire-derived historical dietary information and temporal stability of food habits in individuals. Am J Epidemiol 1984;120:281–90.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.↵
    1. Lindsted KD,
    2. Kuzma JW
    . Long-term (24-year) recall reliability in cancer cases and controls using a 21-item food frequency questionnaire. Nutr Cancer 1989;12:135–49.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Mursu J,
    2. Steffen LM,
    3. Meyer KA,
    4. Duprez D,
    5. Jacobs DR Jr.
    . Diet quality indexes and mortality in postmenopausal women: the Iowa Women's Health Study. Am J Clin Nutr 2013;98:444–53.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Sijtsma FP,
    2. Meyer KA,
    3. Steffen LM,
    4. Shikany JM,
    5. Van Horn L,
    6. Harnack L,
    7. et al.
    Longitudinal trends in diet and effects of sex, race, and education on dietary quality score change: the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study. Am J Clin Nutr 2012;95:580–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Thompson FE,
    2. Metzner HL,
    3. Lamphiear DE,
    4. Hawthorne VM
    . Characteristics of individuals and long term reproducibility of dietary reports: the Tecumseh Diet Methodology Study. J Clin Epidemiol 1990;43:1169–78.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention: 23 (11)
November 2014
Volume 23, Issue 11
  • 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.
Dietary Inflammatory Index and Risk of Colorectal Cancer in the Iowa Women's Health Study
(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
Dietary Inflammatory Index and Risk of Colorectal Cancer in the Iowa Women's Health Study
Nitin Shivappa, Anna E. Prizment, Cindy K. Blair, David R. Jacobs Jr, Susan E. Steck and James R. Hébert
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev November 1 2014 (23) (11) 2383-2392; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0537

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Dietary Inflammatory Index and Risk of Colorectal Cancer in the Iowa Women's Health Study
Nitin Shivappa, Anna E. Prizment, Cindy K. Blair, David R. Jacobs Jr, Susan E. Steck and James R. Hébert
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev November 1 2014 (23) (11) 2383-2392; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0537
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
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Disclaimer
    • Authors' Contributions
    • Grant Support
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Gallstones and Gallbladder Cancer
  • Additive Effects of Aristolochic Acid and Arsenic in UTUC
  • Provider Lifestyle Discussions
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