Bertrand Hémon

The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) is an ongoing multi-centre prospective cohort study designed to investigate the relationship between nutrition and cancer, with the potential for studying other diseases as well. The study currently includes 519 978 participants (366 521 women and 153 457 men, mostly aged 35-70 years) in 23 centres located in 10 European countries, to be followed for cancer incidence and cause-specific mortality for several decades. At enrollment, which took place between 1992 and 2000 at each of the different centres, information was collected through a non-dietary questionnaire on lifestyle variables and through a dietary questionnaire addressing usual diet. Anthropometric measurements were performed and blood samples taken, from which plasma, serum, red cells and buffy coat fractions were separated and aliquoted for long-term storage, mostly in liquid nitrogen. To calibrate dietary measurements, a standardised, computer-assisted 24-hour dietary recall was implemented at each centre on stratified random samples of the participants, for a total of 36 900 subjects. EPIC represents the largest single resource available today world-wide for prospective investigations on the aetiology of cancers (and other diseases) that can integrate questionnaire data on lifestyle and diet, biomarkers of diet and of endogenous metabolism (e.g. hormones and growth factors) and genetic polymorphisms. First results of case-control studies nested within the cohort are expected early in 2003. The present paper provides a description of the EPIC study, with the aim of simplifying reference to it in future papers reporting substantive or methodological studies carried out in the EPIC cohort.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence suggests that high red meat intake is associated with increased colorectal cancer risk. High fish intake may be associated with a decreased risk, but the existing evidence is less convincing. METHODS: We prospectively followed 478 040 men and women from 10 European countries who were free of cancer at enrollment between 1992 and 1998. Information on diet and lifestyle was collected at baseline. After a mean follow-up of 4.8 years, 1329 incident colorectal cancers were documented. We examined the relationship between intakes of red and processed meat, poultry, and fish and colorectal cancer risk using a proportional hazards model adjusted for age, sex, energy (nonfat and fat sources), height, weight, work-related physical activity, smoking status, dietary fiber and folate, and alcohol consumption, stratified by center. A calibration substudy based on 36 994 subjects was used to correct hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for diet measurement errors. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Colorectal cancer risk was positively associated with intake of red and processed meat (highest [>160 g/day] versus lowest [<20 g/day] intake, HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.88; Ptrend = .03) and inversely associated with intake of fish (>80 g/day versus <10 g/day, HR = 0.69, 95 % CI = 0.54 to 0.88; Ptrend<.001), but was not related to poultry intake. Correcting for measurement error strengthened the associations between colorectal cancer and red and processed meat intake (per 100-g increase HR = 1.25, 95% CI =1.09 to 1.41, Ptrend = .001 and HR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.19 to 2.02, Ptrend = .001 before and after calibration, respectively) and for fish (per 100 g increase HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.57 to 0.87, Ptrend<.001 and HR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.77, Ptrend = .003; before and after correction, respectively). In this study population, the absolute risk of development of colorectal cancer within 10 years for a study subject aged 50 years was 1.71% for the highest category of red and processed meat intake and 1.28% for the lowest category of intake and was 1.86% for subjects in the lowest category of fish intake and 1.28% for subjects in the highest category of fish intake. CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirm that colorectal cancer risk is positively associated with high consumption of red and processed meat and support an inverse association with fish intake.

BACKGROUND: Dietary factors are thought to have an important role in gastric and esophageal carcinogenesis, but evidence from cohort studies for such a role is lacking. We examined the risks of gastric cancer and esophageal adenocarcinoma associated with meat consumption within the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort. METHODS: A total of 521,457 men and women aged 35-70 years in 10 European countries participated in the EPIC cohort. Dietary and lifestyle information was collected at recruitment. Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine associations between meat intake and risks of cardia and gastric non-cardia cancers and esophageal adenocarcinoma. Data from a calibration substudy were used to correct hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for diet measurement errors. In a nested case-control study, we examined interactions between Helicobacter pylori infection status (i.e., plasma H. pylori antibodies) and meat intakes. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 6.5 years, 330 gastric adenocarcinoma and 65 esophageal adenocarcinomas were diagnosed. Gastric non-cardia cancer risk was statistically significantly associated with intakes of total meat (calibrated HR per 100-g/day increase = 3.52; 95% CI = 1.96 to 6.34), red meat (calibrated HR per 50-g/day increase = 1.73; 95% CI = 1.03 to 2.88), and processed meat (calibrated HR per 50-g/day increase = 2.45; 95% CI = 1.43 to 4.21). The association between the risk of gastric non-cardia cancer and total meat intake was especially large in H. pylori-infected subjects (odds ratio per 100-g/day increase = 5.32; 95% CI = 2.10 to 13.4). Intakes of total, red, or processed meat were not associated with the risk of gastric cardia cancer. A positive but non-statistically significant association was observed between esophageal adenocarcinoma cancer risk and total and processed meat intake in the calibrated model. In this study population, the absolute risk of development of gastric adenocarcinoma within 10 years for a study subject aged 60 years was 0.26% for the lowest quartile of total meat intake and 0.33% for the highest quartile of total meat intake. CONCLUSION: Total, red, and processed meat intakes were associated with an increased risk of gastric non-cardia cancer, especially in H. pylori antibody-positive subjects, but not with cardia gastric cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate under- and overreporting and their determinants in the EPIC 24-hour diet recall (24-HDR) measurements collected in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. 24-HDR measurements were obtained by means of a standardised computerised interview program (EPIC-SOFT). The ratio of reported energy intake (EI) to estimated basal metabolic rate (BMR) was used to ascertain the magnitude, impact and determinants of misreporting. Goldberg's cut-off points were used to identify participants with physiologically extreme low or high energy intake. At the aggregate level the value of 1.55 for physical activity level (PAL) was chosen as reference. At the individual level we used multivariate statistical techniques to identify factors that could explain EI/BMR variability. Analyses were performed by adjusting for weight, height, age at recall, special diet, smoking status, day of recall (weekday vs. weekend day) and physical activity. SETTING: Twenty-seven redefined centres in the 10 countries participating in the EPIC project. SUBJECTS: In total, 35 955 men and women, aged 35-74 years, participating in the nested EPIC calibration sub-studies. RESULTS: While overreporting has only a minor impact, the percentage of subjects identified as extreme underreporters was 13.8% and 10.3% in women and men, respectively. Mean EI/BMR values in men and women were 1.44 and 1.36 including all subjects, and 1.50 and 1.44 after exclusion of misreporters. After exclusion of misreporters, adjusted EI/BMR means were consistently less than 10% different from the expected value of 1.55 for PAL (except for women in Greece and in the UK), with overall differences equal to 4.0% and 7.4% for men and women, respectively. We modelled the probability of being an underreporter in association with several individual characteristics. After adjustment for age, height, special diet, smoking status, day of recall and physical activity at work, logistic regression analyses resulted in an odds ratio (OR) of being an underreporter for the highest vs. the lowest quartile of body mass index (BMI) of 3.52 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.91-4.26) in men and 4.80 (95% CI 4.11-5.61) in women, indicating that overweight subjects are significantly more likely to underestimate energy intake than subjects in the bottom BMI category. Older people were less likely to underestimate energy intake: ORs were 0.58 (95% CI 0.45-0.77) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.63-0.88) for age (> or =65 years vs. <50 years). Special diet and day of the week showed strong effects. CONCLUSION: EI tends to be underestimated in the vast majority of the EPIC centres, although to varying degrees; at the aggregate level most centres were below the expected reference value of 1.55. Underreporting seems to be more prevalent among women than men in the EPIC calibration sample. The hypothesis that BMI (or weight) and age are causally related to underreporting seems to be confirmed in the present work. This introduces further complexity in the within-group (centre or country) and between-group calibration of dietary questionnaire measurements to deattenuate the diet-disease relationship.