NO - Besoin d'assistance

Observational epidemiological surveys (WG 3) page 18
_________________________________________________________________________________________
1- 2-1 Tomatoes (Table 8)
Comments on table 8:
The recent studies:
• confirm the beneficial effect of tomato intake against larynx, lung and stomach
cancers and indicate an absence of relationship between raw tomatoes and colo-rectal and
breast cancers,
• indicate a possible beneficial effect of cooked tomatoes against prostate cancer,
• do not bring any new data on mouth and pharynx, oesophagus, endometrium and cervix
cancers.
The data reported by Giovanucci in his recent review (1999) were in agreement with these
observations, although his conclusion (anticancer properties of tomatoes) tends to generalize
data which, by now, appear to be restricted to some cancers.
1-2-2 Fruit and vegetables (Tables 9 and 10)
Comments on tables 9 and 10
The recent case-control and prospective studies totally agreed with the previous results on the
risk reduction of stomach and lung cancers conferred by fruit and vegetables intake with the
exception of the Netherlands cohort study (Botterweck et al., 1998). However, in this study,
adjustment on previous stomach disorders might represent an overadjustment and decrease
the estimation of the effect. With regards to cancers for which the effect of fruit and
vegetables appeared less pronounced (colon, rectum and hormone-related cancers) the recent
case control studies tend to reinforce the inverse association with vegetables especially
carotenoids-(but not lycopene) rich vegetables. It has to be noted that the studies showing this
trend were based on a wide range of intake with high upper quantile (about two servings per
day versus less than one) and that for these cancers, the prospective studies are only
borderline significant and only for categories of plant food (e.g. only fruit, green leafy
vegetables) or of patients (premenopausal breast cancers found in two studies). For prostate,
cruciferous vegetables appear to reduce the risk in one study (Cohen et al., 2000) but not in
another one (Norrish et al., 2000).