Garlic intake and gastric cancer risk: Results from two large prospective US cohort studies

Hanseul Kim, Na Na Keum, Edward L. Giovannucci, Charles S. Fuchs, Ying Bao

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

25 Scopus citations

Abstract

Although many case–control studies suggested that garlic intake may reduce gastric cancer risk, evidence from prospective cohort studies has been lacking. We examined the association between garlic intake and subsequent risk of gastric cancer among 77,086 women in the Nurses’ Health Study (1984–2014) and 46,398 men in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (1986–2014). Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. We additionally examined garlic intake in relation to Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection among 613 participants using logistic regression. During up to 30 years of follow-up, 292 participants were diagnosed with gastric cancer. The pooled multivariable RR of gastric cancer among participants who ate garlic, as compared to those who did not, were 1.11 (95% CI = 0.81–1.51) for the intake of garlic less than once per week, 0.98 (95% CI = 0.71–1.36) for one to four times per week and 1.39 (95% CI = 0.89–2.17) for five or more times per week (p for trend = 0.23). Similarly, no statistically significant association was observed cross-sectionally between garlic intake and H. pylori infection (comparing five or more times per week to never, pooled multivariable odds ratio = 1.66, 95% CI = 0.89–3.09; p for trend = 0.11). The findings from this large prospective study do not support the hypothesis that high garlic intake reduces risk of gastric cancer.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1047-1053
Number of pages7
JournalInternational Journal of Cancer
Volume143
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Sep 2018

Keywords

  • garlic
  • gastric cancer
  • prospective cohort study

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Garlic intake and gastric cancer risk: Results from two large prospective US cohort studies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this