Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Nutr.
Sec. Nutritional Epidemiology
Volume 11 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fnut.2024.1463481
This article is part of the Research Topic Preventative Medicine: Nutritional and Lifestyle Interventions for Healthy Ageing and Chronic Diseases View all 19 articles

Adherence to Lifelines Diet Is Associated With Lower Lung Cancer Risk in 98,459 Participants Aged 55 Years and Above: A Large Prospective Cohort Study

Provisionally accepted
Yangpiaoyi Shi Yangpiaoyi Shi 1Linglong Peng Linglong Peng 1Zhiquan Xu Zhiquan Xu 1Hang Liu Hang Liu 1Qi Wei Qi Wei 1Wanhao Tan Wanhao Tan 1Yaxu Wang Yaxu Wang 1Ling Xiang Ling Xiang 2Haitao Gu Haitao Gu 1*
  • 1 Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
  • 2 Department of Clinical Nutrition, Second Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Background: Lifelines Diet Score (LLDS) was developed based on the 2015 Dutch Dietary Guidelines and current international scientific evidence. As a dietary quality assessment tool, the LLDS aims to evaluate the association between the Lifeline diet and the risk of chronic diseases. However, the evidence linking LLDS to lung cancer risk is currently limited. Objective: Our objective was to explore whether adherence to the LLDS is associated with reduced incidence and mortality of lung cancer, including its major histological subtypes: small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Data for this research were sourced from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Trial. The LLDS for each participant was calculated based on responses to the dietary history questionnaire (DHQ), and subsequently analyzed after being categorized into quintiles. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was utilized to compute the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for both the incidence and mortality of lung cancer, SCLC and NSCLC. Additionally, stratified analyses were conducted to ascertain possible effect modifiers, and several sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the findings. Results: During the mean follow-up periods of 8.8 years for incidence and 15.1 years for mortality, we identified 1,642 new cases and 1,172 related deaths from lung cancer. Participants in the highest quartiles of LLDS compared to those in the lowest exhibited a reduced incidence (HR Q4:Q1 = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.68-0.94, P for trend = 0.003) and mortality (HR Q4:Q1 = 0.81, 95%CI = 0.67-0.98, P for trend = 0.009) of lung cancer. Furthermore, this negative association remained for SCLC incidence (HR Q4:Q1 = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.35-0.87, P for trend = 0.002) and mortality (HR Q4:Q1 = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.25-0.70, P for trend < 0.001). The association between LLDS and the incidence and mortality of lung cancer is not influenced by pre-defined potential effect modifiers (all P interaction > 0.05). The sensitivity analyses substantiated the robustness of the results. Conclusion:our research indicates that adherence to the LLDS is linked to a diminished incidence and mortality of lung cancer.

    Keywords: Lifeline diet score, lung cancer, diet quality, Epidemiology, cohort study, cancer prevention

    Received: 12 Jul 2024; Accepted: 10 Oct 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Shi, Peng, Xu, Liu, Wei, Tan, Wang, Xiang and Gu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence: Haitao Gu, Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.