Anthropometric and reproductive factors and risk of esophageal and gastric cancer by subtype and subsite: Results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort

Obesity has been associated with upper gastrointestinal cancers; however, there are limited prospective data on associations by subtype/subsite. Obesity can impact hormonal factors, which have been hypothesized to play a role in these cancers. We investigated anthropometric and reproductive factors in relation to esophageal and gastric cancer by subtype and subsite for 476,160 participants from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohort. Multivariable hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox models. During a mean follow-up of 14 years, 220 esophageal adenocarcinomas (EA), 195 esophageal squamous cell carcinomas, 243 gastric cardia (GC) and 373 gastric noncardia (GNC) cancers were diagnosed. Body mass index (BMI) was associated with EA in men (BMI ≥30 vs. 18.5–25 kg/m²: HR = 1.94, 95% CI: 1.25–3.03) and women (HR = 2.66, 95% CI: 1.15–6.19); however, adjustment for waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) attenuated these associations. After mutual adjustment for BMI and HC, respectively, WHR and waist circumference (WC) were associated with EA in men (HR = 3.47, 95% CI: 1.99–6.06 for WHR >0.96 vs. <0.91; HR = 2.67, 95% CI: 1.52–4.72 for WC >98 vs. <90 cm) and women (HR = 4.40, 95% CI: 1.35–14.33 for WHR >0.82 vs. <0.76; HR = 5.67, 95% CI: 1.76–18.26 for WC >84 vs. <74 cm). WHR was also positively associated with GC in women, and WC was positively associated with GC in men. Inverse associations were observed between parity and EA (HR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.14–0.99; >2 vs. 0) and age at first pregnancy and GNC (HR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.32–0.91; >26 vs. <22 years); whereas bilateral ovariectomy was positively associated with GNC (HR = 1.87, 95% CI: 1.04–3.36). These findings support a role for hormonal pathways in upper gastrointestinal cancers.     

Functionalizing bioinks for 3D bioprinting applications

1. Download high-res image (101KB)
2. Download full-size image

     

The tongue: structure and function relevant to disease and oral health.

The tongue (L. lingua; G. glossa) functions as a digestive organ by facilitating the movement of food during mastication and assisting swallowing. Other important functions include speech and taste. The tongue consists of striated muscle and occupies the floor of the mouth. The dorsal mucosal surface consists of stratified squamous epithelium, with numerous papillae and taste buds. The tongue, a voluntary muscular structure, is attached by a fold, called the frenulum, to the floor of the mouth. Typically, between 8 and 12 circumvallate papillae are arranged in an inverted V-shape towards the base of the tongue. This anatomical review focuses on structure, function relationships and diseases affecting the tongue. From a primary oral health care perspective, this overview will facilitate the process of differential diagnosis in persons presenting with vesiculo-bullous, ulcerative, atrophic and cystic disorders of the tongue. Suspicious lesions should be biopsied to rule out carcinoma.     

Quantification of refractive error: comparison of autorefractor and focometer.

PURPOSE: The advantages of a focometer (FOCOMETER) over other methods of refraction for use in developing countries are that it is lightweight, compact, relatively inexpensive, fairly quick, and easy to use with minimal training. This clinical trial compared the repeatability, validity, and ease of use of the focometer with an autorefractor. METHODS: The refractive status of the right eye of 80 participants was determined with an autorefractor (Canon RK3). Three measurements were also taken with the focometer. RESULTS: The spherical equivalent (M) of the focometer was 0.25 D more positive than the autorefractor (p < 0.001) and 84% of measurements were within 0.75 D of the autorefractor. The autorefractor detected astigmatism in 91% (73) of the eyes, whereas the focometer identified only 32% (26). The design of the clock target restricts cylinder axis accuracy to the nearest 15 degrees . There was evidence of a learning effect for the focometer: the second and third measurements were more repeatable in the untrained group. There were no differences between the mean (1.03 +/- 2.28) and third focometer (-1.05 +/- 2.32) measurements (p = 0.34). However, using the third focometer measurement, 94% of participants had visual acuities of at least 6/12(-2). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the focometer's restricted power range, inaccuracy of astigmatism and axis determination, and dependence on subject understanding and compliance. Therefore, in most clinical settings, the focometer would not be adequate for quantifying refractive error, but the focometer spherical equivalent was within acceptable limits of the autorefractor, and the visual acuity with lenses determined by the focometer indicates its potential usefulness in public health settings, especially where only spherical ready-made spectacles are dispensed. There may be more cost-effective ways to determine refractive error in these circumstances. A potentially important enhancement in focometer methodology that improves its ease of use was identified: use only the third measurement for each eye.