Substitution of dietary protein sources in relation to colorectal cancer risk in the NIH-AARP cohort study
- 102 Downloads
To evaluate the substitution effect of plant for animal protein with risk of CRC in the large prospective National Institutes of Health-AARP cohort study.
Protein intake was assessed at baseline using a food frequency questionnaire. HRs and 95% CIs were estimated using multivariable adjusted hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazards models. We used a substitution model with total protein intake held constant, so that an increase in plant protein was offset by an equal decrease in animal protein.
Among 489,625 individuals, we identified 8,995 incident CRCs after a median follow-up of 15.5 years. Substituting plant protein for animal protein was associated with a reduced risk of CRC (HR for highest vs. lowest fifth 0.91; 95% CI 0.83–0.99). This reduction in CRC risk appeared to be primarily due to substituting plant protein for red meat protein (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.81–0.97), not white meat protein (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.88–1.05) or other animal protein (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.86–1.03). When further evaluated by source, reduction in CRC risk was limited to the substitution of protein from bread, cereal, and pasta for red meat protein (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.80–0.93); this association was stronger for distal colon (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.67–0.90) and rectal cancer (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68–0.91) but null for proximal colon (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.88–1.11).
This study shows that substituting plant protein for animal protein, especially red meat protein, is associated with a reduced risk of CRC, and suggests that protein source impacts CRC risk.
KeywordsDietary protein Protein source Plant protein Colorectal cancer Prospective cohort study
This research was supported [in part] by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Cancer Institute. Cancer incidence data from the Atlanta metropolitan area were collected by the Georgia Center for Cancer Statistics, Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. Cancer incidence data from California were collected by the California Cancer Registry, California Department of Public Health’s Cancer Surveillance and Research Branch, Sacramento, California. Cancer incidence data from the Detroit metropolitan area were collected by the Michigan Cancer Surveillance Program, Community Health Administration, Lansing, Michigan. The Florida cancer incidence data used in this report were collected by the Florida Cancer Data System (Miami, Florida) under contract with the Florida Department of Health, Tallahassee, Florida. The views expressed herein are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the FCDC or FDOH. Cancer incidence data from Louisiana were collected by the Louisiana Tumor Registry, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center School of Public Health, New Orleans, Louisiana. Cancer incidence data from New Jersey were collected by the New Jersey State Cancer Registry, The Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Cancer incidence data from North Carolina were collected by the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry, Raleigh, North Carolina. Cancer incidence data from Pennsylvania were supplied by the Division of Health Statistics and Research, Pennsylvania Department of Health, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Health specifically disclaims responsibility for any analyses, interpretations, or conclusions. Cancer incidence data from Arizona were collected by the Arizona Cancer Registry, Division of Public Health Services, Arizona Department of Health Services, Phoenix, Arizona. Cancer incidence data from Texas were collected by the Texas Cancer Registry, Cancer Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch, Texas Department of State Health Services, Austin, Texas. Cancer incidence data from Nevada were collected by the Nevada Central Cancer Registry, Division of Public and Behavioral Health, State of Nevada Department of Health and Human Services, Carson City, Nevada. We are indebted to the participants in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study for their outstanding cooperation. We also thank Sigurd Hermansen and Kerry Grace Morrissey from Westat for study outcomes ascertainment and management and Leslie Carroll at Information Management Services for data support and analysis.
Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no potential conflicts of interest.
- 5.Cross AJ, Ferrucci LM, Risch A, Graubard BI, Ward MH, Park Y, Hollenbeck AR, Schatzkin A, Sinha R (2010) A large prospective study of meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: an investigation of potential mechanisms underlying this association. Cancer Res 70:2406–2414CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 7.Etemadi A, Abnet CC, Graubard BI, Beane-Freeman L, Freedman ND, Liao L, Dawsey SM, Sinha R (2018) Anatomical subsite can modify the association between meat and meat compounds and risk of colorectal adenocarcinoma: findings from three large U.S. cohorts. Int J Cancer 143:2261–2270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Schatzkin A, Subar AF, Thompson FE, Harlan LC, Tangrea J, Hollenbeck AR, Hurwitz PE, Coyle L, Schussler N, Michaud DS, Freedman LS, Brown CC, Midthune D, Kipnis V (2001) Design and serendipity in establishing a large cohort with wide dietary intake distributions: the National Institutes of Health-American Association of Retired Persons Diet and Health Study. Am J Epidemiol 154:1119–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Thompson FE, Kipnis V, Midthune D, Freedman LS, Carroll RJ, Subar AF, Brown CC, Butcher MS, Mouw T, Leitzmann M, Schatzkin A (2008) Performance of a food-frequency questionnaire in the US NIH-AARP (National Institutes of Health-American Association of Retired Persons) diet and health study. Public Health Nutr 11:183–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Michaud D, Midthune D, Hermansen S, Leitzmann M, Harlan L, Kipnis V, Schatzkin A (2005) Comparison of cancer registry case ascertainment with SEER estimates and self-reporting in a subset of the NIH-aarp diet and health study. J Regist Manag 32:70–75Google Scholar
- 23.Halkjaer J, Olsen A, Overvad K, Jakobsen MU, Boeing H, Buijsse B, Palli D, Tognon G, Du H, Forouhi NG, Wareham NJ, Feskens EJ, Sorensen TI, Tjonneland A (2011) Intake of total, animal and plant protein and subsequent changes in weight or waist circumference in European men and women: the diogenes project. Int J Obes 35:1104–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (2017) Food patterns equivalents intakes from food: mean amounts consumed per individual, by gender and age, what we eat in America, NHANES 2013–2014. www.ars.usda.gov/nea/bhnrc/fsrg