Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Scientific Reports logoLink to Scientific Reports
. 2024 Sep 13;14:21378. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-66553-5

A U-shaped association between selenium intake and cancer risk

Ngoan Tran Le 1,2,✉, Yen Thi-Hai Pham 3,4, Chung Thi-Kim Le 5, Linh Thuy Le 6, Thanh-Do Le 7, Hang Viet Dao 8, Toan H Ha 9, Suresh V Kuchipudi 9, Hung N Luu 3,4,✉
PMCID: PMC11399399  PMID: 39271688

Abstract

While selenium is a cofactor of several antioxidant enzymes against cancer and is essential for human health, its excess intake may also be harmful. Though a safe intake of selenium has recently been recommended, it is not well understood in the Asian population. We aimed to determine the association between dietary intake of selenium and cancer risk in a case–control study of 3758 incident cancer cases (i.e., stomach, colon, rectum, lung cancers, and other sites) and 2929 control subjects in Vietnam. Daily intake of selenium was derived from a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire. The unconditional logistic regression model was used to calculate the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between selenium intake and cancer risk. We observed a U-shaped association between selenium intake and cancer risk. A safe intake ranged from 110.8 to 124.4 µg/day (mean 117.8 µg/day). Compared to individuals with the safe intake of selenium, individuals with the lowest intake (i.e., 27.8–77.2 µg/day) were associated with an increased risk of cancer (OR = 3.78, 95% CI 2.89–4.95) and those with the highest intake (169.1–331.7 µg/day) also had an increased cancer risk (OR = 1.86, 95% CI 1.45–2.39). A U-shaped pattern of association between selenium intake and cancer risk was stronger among participants with body mass index (BMI) < 23 kg/m2 and never smokers than BMI ≥ 23 kg/m2 and ever smokers (P’sheterogeneity = 0.003 and 0.021, respectively) but found in both never and ever-drinkers of alcohol (Pheterogeneity = 0.001). A U-shaped association between selenium intake and cancer risk was seen in cancer sites of the stomach, colon, rectum, and lung cancers. In summary, we found a U-shaped association between selenium intake and cancer risk and a safe selenium intake (mean: 117.8 µg/day) in the Vietnamese population. Further mechanistic investigation is warranted to understand better a U-shaped association between selenium intake and cancer risk.

Keywords: Selenium intake, Dietary, Cancer risk, Case–control study, Vietnam

Subject terms: Cancer, Chemical biology, Biomarkers, Diseases, Risk factors

Introduction

Selenium is an essential element of selenoproteins, playing an important role in different biological functions, including DNA synthesis, antioxidant defense, fertility and reproduction, and thyroid hormone formation1. Selenium species can be classified into selenium-containing organic compounds (e.g., selenomethionine, selenocysteine) and inorganic forms (selenate, selenite)2. Tissue selenium supply is dependent on the plasma selenium transporter selenoprotein P3. Prior animal model studies showed that loss of motor coordination and viability reduction of whole-body selenoprotein P knockout mice were exhibited 15 days after weaning4. The survival rate and neurological and reproductive impairments are circumvented by supplementing diets with an established nutritional requirement of 0.1 mg/kg selenium4,5.

Food consumption is the main source of selenium exposure, however, selenium exposure in humans can occur through different other routes, including drinking water, air or dietary supplements6–8. While selenium is essential for human health, it is also toxic2,9. It is critical to note that the range between an essential level and a toxic level of selenium is narrow, and the range of safe intake for selenium is still not well-defined10,11. Selenium toxicity results in hair and nail loss, blindness, or changes in the nervous system and skin lesions12. Acute selenium poisoning was recently described in the United States from ingestion of liquid dietary supplements that contained 200 times higher selenium content than labeled13. Toxic signs of selenium excess were observed in subjects with blood selenium levels of 13.3 μmol/L and above. In humans, an intake of up to 500 μg/day can be a tolerable level; yet other studies indicate that the maximum tolerable selenium level in the lumen could be from 1000 to 1500 μg/day14.

The recommended daily allowance of selenium intake differs between regulatory agencies. For example, the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for selenium is 55 μg/day for adults1,15. The US Institute of Medicine has set the tolerable upper intake level to 400 μg/day for adults16. The World Health Organization recommends 25 to 34 µg/day, depending on age and sex17. Vinceti et al. questioned the current upper limit of ‘safe intake’ and proposed a far lower ‘safe level’ for long-term usage (i.e., 20 μg/day for organic selenium) and a differentiation between organic and inorganic selenium sources18. While acute and chronic toxicity of high selenium exposure has been well-studied, the long-term effects (i.e., harmful) of low-dose selenium intake are not fully understood19. Also, because there may be differences in the biological activities of selenium in organic and inorganic forms2,20. Recently, the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) conducted a systematic review and identified the lowest‐observed‐adverse‐effect‐level (LOAEL) of 330 μg/day, a result from the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT), a large randomized controlled trial in human21. Since this trial focused on the Caucasian population, there is still an urgently unmet need to understand better the safe intake of selenium among the Asian population, other than the Chinese22,23.

There has been inconclusive evidence about the role of selenium in cancer prevention. A recent review found that selenium was associated with reduced risk of stomach, colorectal, lung, breast, and bladder24. However, they also pointed out that these studies had significant limitations. No dose–response relation between selenium and cancer risk was observed. More importantly, the same review also showed that data from randomized clinical trials did not support the protective effect of selenium administration against cancers, including colorectal, non‐melanoma, skin, lung, breast, bladder, and prostate cancer24. We aimed to determine the association between dietary intake of selenium, both low- and high-levels, using a safe intake as a reference, and cancer risk in a large case–control study comprising 3758 cancer incidents and 2929 control patients in Vietnam.

Methods

Study population

We used data from a hospital-based case–control study in Vietnam that recruited participants from four leading facility hospitals in Hanoi between 2003 and 2019, breaking into four periods: (1) 2003–2006 period (n = 625 participants), (2) 2006–2007 period (n = 1342 participants), (3) 2008 period (n = 407 participants) and (4) 2018–2019 period (n = 4902 participants). Patients were newly diagnosed by histopathology and underwent surgery for cancer treatment at the Bach Mai Hospital, Viet Duc University Hospital, National Cancer Hospital, and Hanoi Medical University Hospital, four tertiary hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam. Our study was performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations by two Institution Review Boards, including the Institution Review Board (IRB) approved the study protocol for Ethics in Biomedical Research—Hanoi Medical University (Approval number 3918/HMUIRB and the ethics committees of the IRB-International University of Health and Welfare, Japan (Approval number 19-Ig-17). All participants provided written informed consent. Detailed methods and initial results of this case–control study were published elsewhere25–28.

Cases recruitment

New cancer cases were recruited from four tertiary hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam, including the Bach Mai University Hospital, Viet Duc University Hospital, National Cancer Hospital, and Hanoi Medical University Hospital. The recruited cancer sites included stomach (ICD-10: C16, n = 1,182), colon cancer (ICD-10: C18, n = 567), rectal cancer (ICD-10: C20, n = 482), lung (ICD-10: C34, n = 225), breast cancer (ICD-10: C50, n = 287), cervical cancer (ICD-10: C53, n = 45), ovary cancer (ICD-10: C56, n = 50) esophageal cancer (ICD-10: C15, n = 195), liver (ICD-10: C22, n = 68), nasopharynx (ICD-10: C11, n = 119), pancreas (ICD-10: C25, n = 37), bladder (ICD-10: C67, n = 40), thyroid (ICD-10: C73, n = 87), and other 26 cancer sties (n = 374). Consequently, a total of 3,758 new cancer patients were recruited in the current study.

The inclusion criteria were (1) those indicated for surgery when physically healthy enough to endure the surgery; (2) could communicate well by providing exposure data; (3) confirmed histopathology with cancer; and (4) who agreed to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria were (1) those who refused to participate in the study, (2) those who could not communicate in providing exposure data, and (3) those who had a change in diet due to illness. The recruitment process of cases has been published elsewhere27–29.

Controls recruitment

Controls were randomly chosen and matched with cases based on sex- and age (± 5 years). Control subjects were commonly diagnosed with prostate fibroma (n = 91), urinary tract stone (n = 704), biliary tract stone (n = 230), injury, or non-cancer surgery (n = 1970), making a total of 2995 control participants. Inclusion criteria were (1) those who did not have cancer at the time or in the past and (2) those who had good communication in providing exposure data and agreed to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria were (1) those who refused to participate in the study and (2) those who changed their diet due to health conditions or illness. The recruitment process of control was published elsewhere27–29. Due to (i) advanced matching of sex and age to get comparability between cases and controls, and (ii) more cancer patients were admitted to these four hospitals than non-cancer patients, by the end of the projects, we successfully recruited 3758 cancer patients and only 2995 control patients.

Exposure data collection

Using structured and validated questionnaires and face-to-face interviews, trained interviewers performed the interview at the outpatient departments or in-patient beds the day before the surgery. The exposure data of the cases and controls provided were validated and confirmed by the family members who prepared the foods. Information collected in the questionnaire included socio-demographics, body weight and height, lifetime tobacco use, occupational exposure, medical history, family history of cancer, and diet (details below in the Dietary Assessment). Additional information, including test results for HBV, HCV, HIV, and H. pylori (if any), was extracted from the medical records after the interview by the investigators.

Dietary assessment

A semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) was used to collect the average frequency of food intakes and portion sizes during the past 12 months for 85 food items commonly consumed by Vietnamese, based on the results of the dietary survey in general populations. The FFQ was first designed in 2003 and updated in 2017 based on the results of a survey asking to record food consumption in the past 24 h for three consecutive days in 158 households (n = 741 individuals) in 2003 and 298 households (n = 1327 individuals) in 2017. Food selection for the FFQ from a household survey made up to 90% of essential nutrients converted from the natural organic whole food used by the participating households26,30,31.

In the FFQ, study participants were asked how frequently they consumed the food and food group in 6 categories, ranging from “6–11 times/year”, “1–3 times/month”, “1–2 times/week”, “3–4 times/week”, “5–6 times/week”, and “1–3 times/day”, followed by a question on the amount of food consumed from three portion sizes (i.e., small, medium and large). The average daily intake of 95 nutrients and non-nutrient compounds, including selenium, was calculated for each participant using the Vietnamese Food Composition Database32. The FFQ was validated using two 24-h dietary recalls (24-HDRs) from October through December 2017, once every weekday and once every three consecutive other days, among 298 families (n = 1327 individuals). The Pearson correlation coefficients (R2) between the FFQ and 24-HDR ranged from 0.34 (for selenium) to 0.53 (for energy intake)30,33.

Assessment of other covariates

Other covariate information was collected using a structured questionnaire. Such information, which was also included in the multivariable logistic regression models, were age (i.e., 15–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, ≥ 70 years of age), sex (male vs. female), the highest education level (i.e., primary school, secondary school, high school or higher), BMI (kg/m2, including < 18.5, 18.5–< 23, 23–24.9, ≥ 25), alcohol consumption (i.e., never vs. ever), family history of cancer (i.e., yes vs. no), smoking status (i.e., ever vs. never), history of diabetes (i.e., yes vs. no), coffee drinking (i.e., yes vs. no), total energy intake (kcal/day, tertile), and four periods of data collection (i.e., 2003–2006, 2006–2007, 2008, and 2018–2019).

Statistical analysis

For continuous variables, means and standard deviations (SDs) were calculated, and for categorical variables, we computed counts and proportions. To compare the difference in distributions of continuous variables and categorical variables between cancer cases vs. control participants and across different levels of selenium intakes, we calculated the t-test and χ2 test, respectively.

We performed an unconditional logistic regression model to determine the association between selenium intake and risk of cancer by calculating odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) across different levels of dietary selenium intake compared with the reference group. Since there is no preconceived notification of the recommended or safe selenium intake for Vietnamese, mean selenium intake at 117.8 µg/day (range: 110.8–124.4 µg/day) was used as a reference group in the current analysis. Since the second and third quartiles were close to each other in the lower range than the mean level, we decided to collapse them into one category. Finally, there were eight categories of selenium intake used in our analysis, including 67.4 µg/day (range: 27.8–77.2 µg/day), 86.8 µg/day (range: 77.3–95.0 µg/day), and 103.1 µg/day (range: 95.1–110.7 µg/day) as lower intakes of selenium and 130.9 µg/day (124.5–137 µg/day), 143.8 µg/day (137.1–151 µg/day), 159.2 µg/day (151.1–169.0 µg/day), and 186.3 µg/day (169.1–331.7 µg/day) as higher intakes of selenium. To see a U-shape association between selenium intake and cancer risk, we used point estimates (ORs) and their respective CIs, which were not dependent on the P-value and were shown to have different limitations as reported prior34–37. We estimated P for trend (Ptrend) for the estimated quantiles below a reference group and the estimated quantiles above a reference group.

We further conducted stratified analysis by sex, BMI (< 23 kg/m2 vs. ≥ 23 kg/m2), smoking status (ever vs. never), and alcohol drinking status (ever vs. never). The linear trend for cancer risk with selenium intake was tested based on the ordinal values of the lower and upper of the mean intake. The interactions between selected factors, including sex, BMI kg/m2, smoking status, alcohol drinking status, and selenium intake, were determined by including product terms between selenium intake and these factors in the multivariable logistic regression models. For specific cancer sites, we analyzed for cancer of the stomach (ICD-10: C16, n = 1,182), colon cancer (ICD-10: C18, n = 567), rectal cancer (ICD-10: C20, n = 482), and lung (ICD-10: C34, n = 225). All other cancer sites were grouped into “other cancers.” All statistical analysis used the Stata statistical package (Version 14.0—StataCorp LP., College Station, TX). We used 0.05 as a level of statistical significance in the current analysis.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

We confirm that all methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations by two Institution Review Boards, including the Institution Review Board (IRB) approved the study protocol for Ethics in Biomedical Research—Hanoi Medical University (Approval number 3918/HMUIRB dated 25 December 2018 and by the ethics committees of the IRB-International University of Health and Welfare, Japan (Approval number 19-Ig-17) dated 27 May 2019. All participants provided written informed consent. Study participants completed a questionnaire survey that allowed investigators access to data from routine laboratory tests of H. pylori infection and hepatitis viral infection.

Participants were anonymous, and personal information was coded, which cannot identify participants. Each participant was coded with an ID. Data is saved into a USB stick memory with a password.

Results

Compared to cancer patients, controls were younger, had higher levels of education, higher BMI kg/m2, were less likely to be smokers or drinkers but more likely to be coffee drinkers, less likely to have a history of cancer, higher proportion of history of type 2 diabetes, more likely to be with blood groups AB and O, had lower total energy intake and higher levels of selenium intake (All P’s < 0.05). (Table 1). Compared to participants in the lowest intake of selenium (67.4 µg/day), participants in the highest level of selenium intake (188.3 µg/day) were younger, more likely to be male, had higher levels of education, more likely to have a history of cancer, lower BMI kg/m2, more likely to be smoker and coffee drinker but less likely to be alcohol drinker, had a higher proportion of history of type 2 diabetes, more likely to have blood groups of B and O, and had higher level of total energy intake (All P’s < 0.05) (Table 2).

Table 1.

Distribution of selected characteristics among study participants.

Characteristics Controls (n = 2995) Cancer cases (n = 3758) P-value
Age, (mean ± SD) 54.5 (± 12.2) 56.5 (± 11.9)  < 0.001
 15–29 80 (2.7) 75 (2.0)  < 0.001
 30–39 287 (9.6) 262 (7.0)
 40–49 622 (20.8) 613 (16.3)
 50–59 916 (30.6) 1189 (31.6)
 60–69 781 (26.1) 1142 (30.4)
 ≥ 70 309 (10.3) 477 (12.7)
Sex
 Men 1757 (58.7) 2267 (60.3) 0.167
 Women 1238 (41.3) 1491 (39.7)
Highest level of education
 Primary school 442 (14.8) 705 (18.8)  < 0.001
 Secondary school 1322 (44.1) 1626 (43.3)
 High school or higher 1231 (41.1) 1427 (38.0)
History of cancer
 No 2764 (92.3) 3416 (90.9) 0.042
 Yes 231 (7.7) 342 (9.1)
BMI, (mean ± SD) 21.3 (± 3.0) 20.1 (± 2.8)  < 0.001
 < 18.5 557 (18.6) 1348 (35.9)  < 0.001
 18.5–22.9 1630 (54.4) 1858 (49.4)
 23.0–24.9 509 (17.0) 391 (10.4)
 ≥ 25 299 (10.0) 161 (4.3)
Smoking status
 Never smoker 1822 (60.8) 2190 (58.3) 0.033
 Ever smoker 1173 (39.2) 1568 (41.7)
Alcohol consumption
 Never drinker 1706 (57.0) 1969 (52.4)  < 0.001
 Ever drinker 1289 (43.0) 1789 (47.6)
Coffee drinking status
 Never drinker 2289 (76.4) 3110 (82.8)  < 0.001
 Ever drinker 706 (23.6) 648 (17.2)
History of diabetes
 Yes 524 (17.5) 447 (11.9)  < 0.001
 No 2471 (82.5) 3311 (88.1)
Blood groupa
 A 477 (20.8) 838 (30.0)  < 0.001
 B 111 (4.8) 172 (6.2)
 AB 671 (29.2) 758 (27.1)
 O 1037 (45.2) 1027 (36.7)
Total energy intake (kcal/day, mean ± SD) 1703.6 (± 441.4) 1485.5 (± 506.8)  < 0.001
 Tertile 1 595 (19.9) 1664 (44.3)
 Tertile 2 1172 (39.1) 1076 (28.6)
 Tertile 3 1228 (41.0) 1018 (27.1)  < 0.001
Selenium intake (µg/day) (mean ± SD) 129 (± 34) 113.6 (± 38.6)  < 0.001
 67.4 (27.8–77.2) µg/day 152 (5.1) 599 (15.9)  < 0.001
 86.8 (77.3–95.0) µg/day 437 (14.6) 1063 (28.3)
 103.1 (95.1–110.7) µg/day 345 (11.5) 409 (10.9)
 117.8 (110.8–124.4) µg/day 424 (14.2) 324 (8.6)
 130.9 (124.5–137.0) µg/day 435 (14.5) 314 (8.4)
 143.8 (137.1–151.0) µg/day 419 (14.0) 332 (8.8)
 159.2 (151.1–169.1) µg/day 405 (13.5) 345 (9.2)
 188.3 (169.2–331.7) µg/day 378 (12.6) 372 (9.9)
Open in a new tab

aBased on available data, SD is standard deviation, BMI is body Mass Index (Asian category).

Table 2.

Distribution of selected characteristics among study participants according to mean levels of selenium intake.

Selenium intake, µg/day, mean 67.4 µg/day 86.8 µg/day 103.1 µg/day 117.8 µg/day 130.9 µg/day 143.8 µg/day 159.2 µg/day 188.3 µg/day P-value
Range (min–max), µg/day 27.8–77.2 µg/day 77.3–95.0 µg/day 95.1–110.7 µg/day 110.8–124.4 µg/day 124.5–137.0 µg/day 137.1–151.0 µg/day 151.1–169.0 µg/day 169.1–331.7 µg/day
Control, n (%) a 152 (20.2) 437 (29.1) 345 (45.8) 424 (56.7) 435 (58.1) 419 (55.8) 405 (54.0) 378 (50.4)  < 0.001
Cancer, n (%) 599 (79.8) 1,063 (70.9) 409 (54.2) 324 (43.3) 314 (41.9) 332 (44.2) 345 (46.0) 372 (49.6)
Age, mean(± SD) 57 (± 12) 56.1 (± 12.1) 56.6 (± 12.3) 57.4 (± 12.5) 56.4 (± 12) 55 (± 12) 53.9 (± 11) 52 (± 11.9)
 15–29, n (%) 10 (1.3) 35 (2.3) 14 (1.9) 18 (2.4) 14 (1.9) 21 (2.8) 17 (2.3) 26 (3.5)  < 0.001
 30–39, n (%) 46 (6.1) 128 (8.5) 68 (9.9) 53 (7.1) 62 (8.3) 57 (7.6) 58 (7.7) 77 (10.3)
 40–49, n (%) 126 (16.8) 236 (15.7) 111 (14.7) 110 (14.7) 122 (16.3) 154 (20.5) 172 (22.9) 204 (27.2)
 50–59, n (%) 250 (33.3) 454 (30.3) 233 (30.9) 207 (27.7) 208 (27.8) 243 (32.4) 268 (35.7) 242 (32.3)
 60–69, n (%) 213 (28.4) 467 (31.1) 228 (30.2) 241 (32.2) 246 (32.8) 190 (25.3) 185 (24.7) 153 (20.4)
 ≥ 70, n (%) 106 (14.1) 180 (12.0) 100 (13.3) 119 (15.9) 97 (13.0) 86 (11.5) 50 (6.7) 48 (6.4)
Sex
 Men, n (%) 392 (52.2) 830 (55.3) 417 (55.3) 417 (55.7) 443 (59.1) 459 (61.1) 518 (69.1) 548 (73.1)  < 0.001
 Women, n (%) 359 (47.8) 670 (44.7) 337 (44.7) 331 (44.3) 306 (40.9) 292 (38.9) 232 (30.9) 202 (26.9)
Highest level of education
 Primary school, n (%) 209 (27.8) 211 (14.1) 138 (18.3) 127 (17.0) 113 (15.1) 119 (15.8) 106 (14.1) 124 (16.5)  < 0.001
 Secondary school, n (%) 322 (42.9) 605 (40.3) 327 (43.4) 326 (43.6) 337 (45.0) 326 (43.4) 348 (46.4) 357 (47.6)
 High school or higher, n (%) 220 (29.3) 684 (45.6) 289 (38.3) 295 (39.4) 299 (39.9) 306 (40.7) 296 (39.5) 269 (35.9)
History of cancer
 No, n (%) 693 (92.3) 1,407 (93.8) 681 (90.3) 685 (91.6) 681 (90.9) 678 (90.3) 675 (90.0) 680 (90.7) 0.019
 Yes, n (%) 58 (7.7) 93 (6.2) 73 (9.7) 63 (8.4) 68 (9.1) 73 (9.7) 75 (10.0) 70 (9.3)
BMI, mean (SD) 21.1 (± 2.8) 20.6 (± 2.8) 21.0 (± 3.1) 20.9 (± 2.9) 20.5 (± 3.1) 20.4 (± 3.0) 20.6 (± 2.9) 20.5 (± 3.0)
 < 18.5, n (%) 198 (26.4) 500 (33.3) 187 (24.8) 174 (23.3) 213 (28.4) 218 (29.0) 206 (27.5) 209 (27.9)  < 0.001
 18.5–22.9, n (%) 388 (51.7) 760 (50.7) 379 (50.3) 411 (54.9) 365 (48.7) 401 (53.4) 393 (52.4) 391 (52.1)
 23.0–24.9, n (%) 116 (15.4) 150 (10.0) 118 (15.6) 112 (15.0) 125 (16.7) 81 (10.8) 96 (12.8) 102 (13.6)
 ≥ 25, n (%) 49 (6.5) 90 (6.0) 70 (9.3) 51 (6.8) 46 (6.1) 51 (6.8) 55 (7.3) 48 (6.4)
Smoking status
 Never smoker, n (%) 470 (62.6) 955 (63.7) 457 (60.6) 451 (60.3) 452 (60.3) 448 (59.7) 388 (51.7) 391 (52.1)  < 0.001
 Ever smoker, n (%) 281 (37.4) 545 (36.3) 297 (39.4) 297 (39.7) 297 (39.7) 303 (40.3) 362 (48.3) 359 (47.9)
Alcohol consumption
 Never drinker, n (%) 342 (45.5) 843 (56.2) 458 (60.7) 440 (58.8) 428 (57.1) 407 (54.2) 364 (48.5) 393 (52.4)  < 0.001
 Ever drinker, n (%) 409 (54.5) 657 (43.8) 296 (39.3) 308 (41.2) 321 (42.9) 344 (45.8) 386 (51.5) 357 (47.6)
Coffee drinking status
 Never drinker, n (%) 649 (86.4) 1,279 (85.3) 632 (83.8) 609 (81.4) 578 (77.2) 571 (76.0) 535 (71.3) 546 (72.8)  < 0.001
 Ever drinker, n (%) 102 (13.6) 221 (14.7) 122 (16.2) 139 (18.6) 171 (22.8) 180 (24.0) 215 (28.7) 204 (27.2)
History of diabetes
 Yes, n (%) 69 (9.2) 103 (6.9) 55 (7.3) 79 (10.6) 137 (18.3) 152 (20.2) 180 (24.0) 196 (26.1)  < 0.001
 No, n (%) 682 (90.8) 1,397 (93.1) 699 (92.7) 669 (89.4) 612 (81.7) 599 (79.8) 570 (76.0) 554 (73.9)
ABO blood groupb
 A, n (%) 236 (37.8) 318 (28.7) 168 (27.5) 131 (21.7) 117 (20.7) 119 (21.7) 126 (23.7) 100 (20.1)  < 0.001
 AB, n (%) 44 (7.0) 63 (5.7) 30 (4.9) 29 (4.8) 34 (6.0) 25 (4.6) 31 (5.8) 27 (5.4)
 B, n (%) 162 (25.9) 312 (28.1) 165 (27.0) 171 (28.4) 179 (31.6) 155 (28.3) 138 (25.9) 147 (29.6)
 O, n (%) 183 (29.3) 416 (37.5) 248 (40.6) 272 (45.1) 236 (41.7) 249 (45.4) 237 (44.5) 223 (44.9)
Total energy intake (kcal/day), mean (± SD) 950.5 (± 174.7) 1171.3 (± 210) 1407.4 (± 219.9) 1581 (± 259.6) 1714 (± 233.3) 1870.3 (± 232.9) 2030.5 (± 254.4) 2345.7 (± 332.5)
 Tertile 1, n (%) 728 (96.9) 1,210 (80.7) 269 (35.7) 51 (6.8) 1 (0.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)  < 0.001
 Tertile 2, n (%) 20 (2.7) 259 (17.3) 447 (59.3) 589 (78.7) 533 (71.2) 319 (42.5) 81 (10.8) 0 (0.0)
 Tertile 3, n (%) 3 (0.4) 31 (2.1) 38 (5.0) 108 (14.4) 215 (28.7) 432 (57.5) 669 (89.2) 750 (100.0)
Open in a new tab

an(column %), bBased on available data, SD is standard deviation, BMI is body Mass Index (Asian category), min is minimum, max is maximum.

A U-shaped association between selenium intake and cancer risk was observed in the current analysis. A safe intake ranged from 110.8 to 124.4 µg/day (mean 117.8 µg/day). Compared to individuals with the safe intake of selenium, individuals with the lowest intake (i.e., 27.8–77.2 µg/day) were associated with an increased risk of cancer (OR = 3.78, 95% CI 2.89–4.95), Ptrend < 0.001, and those with the highest intake (i.e., 169.1–331.7 µg/day) also had an increased cancer risk (OR = 1.86, 95% CI 1.45–2.39), Ptrend = 0.003. We observed a similar U-shaped pattern in both men and women (Table 3).

Table 3.

Association between selenium intake and risk of cancer overall and stratified by sex.

Selenium intake, µg/day, mean (min–max) Overall Men Women
Case Control OR (95% CI)a Case Control OR (95% CI)a Case Control OR (95% CI)a
Ptrendb  < 0.001 0.002 0.022
67.4 (27.8–77.2) µg/day 599 152 3.78 (2.89, 4.95) 316 76 3.95 (2.73, 5.72) 283 76 3.10 (2.07, 4.66)
86.8 (77.3–95.0) µg/day 1063 437 2.41 (1.94, 3.00) 609 221 2.73 (2.03, 3.66) 454 216 1.98 (1.42, 2.76)
103.1 (95.1–110.7) µg/day 409 345 1.37 (1.10, 1.70) 235 182 1.42 (1.06, 1.89) 174 163 1.25 (0.90, 1.74)
117.8 (110.8–124.4) µg/day 324 424 1.00 191 226 1.00 133 198 1.00
130.9 (124.5–137.0) µg/day 314 435 1.01 (0.81, 1.25) 189 254 0.90 (0.68, 1.19) 125 181 1.23 (0.88, 1.72)
143.8 (137.1–151.0) µg/day 332 419 1.24 (0.99, 1.55) 202 257 1.04 (0.78, 1.40) 130 162 1.63 (1.15, 2.31)
159.2 (151.1–169.0) µg/day 345 405 1.50 (1.18, 1.91) 245 273 1.29 (0.95, 1.75) 100 132 1.91 (1.29, 2.85)
188.3 (169.1–331.7) µg/day 372 378 1.86 (1.45, 2.39) 280 268 1.58 (1.15, 2.16) 92 110 2.30 (1.50, 3.52)
Ptrendc 0.003 0.028 0.050
Pheterogeneity 0.005
Open in a new tab

Using an estimated mean intake of 117.8 µg/day (Range: 110.8–124.4 µg/day) as a Reference Group. Min is minimum; max is maximum, OR (95% CI): odds ratio (95% confidence interval).

aModel adjusted age groups (15–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, 70+), sex (if applicable), highest education level (primary, secondary, high school or higher), BMI (kg/m2, < 18.5, 18.5–< 23, 23–24.9, 25+), alcohol consumption (yes/no), family history of cancer (yes/no), smoking status (ever/never), history of diabetes (yes/no), coffee drinking (yes/no). and total energy intake (kcal/day, tertile), and four data collection periods.

bPtrend for estimates below mean intake (reference).

cPtrend for estimates above mean intake (reference).

In stratified analysis, a U-shaped pattern of association between selenium intake and cancer risk was stronger among participants with BMI < 23 kg/m2 and never smokers than BMI ≥ 23 kg/m2 and ever smokers (P’sheterogeneity = 0.003 and 0.021, respectively). A U-shaped association between selenium intake and increased risk of cancer was observed in both never and ever-drinkers of alcohol (Pheterogeneity < 0.001) (Table 4).

Table 4.

Association between selenium intake and risk of cancer, stratified by BMI, smoking status, and drinking status.

Ptrend b 67.4 µg/day 86.8 µg/day 103.1 µg/day 117.8 µg/day 130.9 µg/day 143.8 µg/day 159.2 µg/day 188.3 µg/day Ptrendc Pinteraction
Range (min–max), µg/day 27.8–77.2 µg/day 77.3–95.0 µg/day 95.1–110.7 µg/day 110.8–124.4 µg/day 124.5–137.0 µg/day 137.1–151.0 µg/day 151.1–169.0 µg/day 169.1–331.7 µg/day
By BMI status
 BMI < 23 kg/m2
  Case (n = 2945) 430 808 311 261 256 281 280 318
  Control (n = 2121) 97 303 232 303 313 315 297 261
  OR (95% CI)a  < 0.001 3.72 (2.71, 5.11) 2.44 (1.90, 3.14) 1.38 (1.08, 1.77) 1.00 1.03 (0.81, 1.30) 1.25 (0.97, 1.60) 1.48 (1.13, 1.95) 2.01 (1.51, 2.67)  < 0.001
 BMI ≥ 23 kg/m2 0.003
  Case (n = 813) 169 255 98 63 58 51 65 54
  Control (n = 874) 55 134 113 121 122 104 108 117
  OR (95% CI)a  < 0.001 3.63 (2.16, 6.11) 2.45 (1.58, 3.80) 1.45 (0.95, 2.23) 1.00 1.12 (0.71, 1.76) 1.35 (0.83, 2.21) 1.76 (1.06, 2.92) 1.61 (0.94, 2.74) 0.146
By smoking status
 Never smokers
  Case (n = 2190) 373 675 227 177 182 198 176 182
  Control (1822) 97 280 230 274 270 250 212 209
  OR (95% CI)a  < 0.001 3.72 (2.63, 5.27) 2.49 (1.88, 3.30) 1.26 (0.95, 1.67) 1.00 1.17 (0.89, 1.55) 1.59 (1.19, 2.13) 2.10 (1.52, 2.91) 2.49 (1.77, 3.49) 0.008 0.021
 Ever smokers
  Case (n = 1568) 226 388 182 147 132 134 169 190
  Control (n = 1173) 55 157 115 150 165 169 193 169
  OR (95% CI)a  < 0.001 3.69 (2.39, 5.70) 2.27 (1.60, 3.22) 1.52 (1.08, 2.13) 1.00 0.79 (0.56, 1.11) 0.85 (0.59, 1.20) 0.95 (0.66, 1.37) 1.25 (0.86, 1.82) 0.089
By alcohol drinking status
 Never drinker
  Case (n = 1969) 246 566 232 185 181 195 169 195
  Control (n = 1706) 96 277 226 255 247 212 195 198
  OR (95% CI)a  < 0.001 2.71 (1.91, 3.85) 2.13 (1.61, 2.83) 1.24 (0.94, 1.64) 1.00 1.07 (0.81, 1.42) 1.48 (1.10, 1.99) 1.64 (1.18, 2.27) 1.95 (1.39, 2.74) 0.028  < 0.001
 Ever drinker
  Case (n = 1789) 353 497 177 139 133 137 176 177
  Control (n = 1289) 56 160 119 169 188 207 210 180
  OR (95% CI) a  < 0.001 4.99 (3.23, 7.71) 2.76 (1.95, 3.92) 1.57 (1.12, 2.21) 1.00 0.93 (0.67, 1.29) 1.01 (0.71, 1.42) 1.39 (0.97, 2.00) 1.75 (1.20, 2.54) 0.020
Open in a new tab

Using an estimated mean intake of 117.8 µg/day (Range: 110.8–124.4 µg/day) as a Reference Group. Min is minimum; max is maximum, OR (95% CI): odds ratio (95% confidence interval).

a Model adjusted for age groups (15–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, 70+), sex (if applicable), highest education level (primary, secondary, high school or higher), BMI (kg/m2, < 18.5, 18.5–< 23, 23–24.9, 25+), alcohol consumption (yes/no), family history of cancer (yes/no), smoking status (ever/never), history of diabetes (yes/no), coffee drinking (yes/no). and total energy intake (kcal/day, tertile), and four data collection periods.

bPtrend for estimates below mean intake (Reference).

cPtrend for estimates above mean intake (Reference).

In an analysis of cancer-specific sites, a U-shaped association between selenium intake and cancer risk was seen in cancer sites of the stomach, colon, rectum, and lung cancers (Supplementary Table 1).

Discussion

The new findings were that we found a U-shaped association between selenium intake and cancer risk. A safe intake ranged from 110.8 to 124.4 µg/day. A similar U-shaped association was also seen among men and women, ever and never-smokers, BMI < 23 kg/m2 and BMI ≥ 23 kg/m2, ever and never drinkers, cancer sites of the stomach, colon, rectum, and lung cancers.

We observed a safe intake of the micronutrient selenium, which protects against cancer, at a narrow range of 110.8–124.4 µg/day. People who eat less than this safe intake level increase their cancer risk gradually as their intake level decreases. People who eat higher than this level also have a continuous increase in cancer risk with increasing selenium intake, and the increase has the most robust statistical significance at the highest selenium intake from 169.1 to 331.7 µg/day. A U-shaped pattern of association between selenium intake and cancer risk was stronger among participants with BMI < 23 kg/m2 and never smokers than among those with BMI ≥ 23 kg/m2 and ever smokers would be explained by the differed sample size. The number of cancer patients was 2945 (BMI < 23 kg/m2) versus 813 (BMI ≥ 23 kg/m2) and 2190 (never smokers) versus 1586 (ever smokers).

The Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for selenium is 55 μg/day for adults1,15. The other study also suggested that humans selenium intake levels of 60 μg/day to prevent type 2 diabetes38. This range from 55 to 60 μg/day is lower than a safe selenium intake in the present Vietnamese study population. The estimated lowest mean intake was 67.4 μg/day, ranging from 27.8 to 77.2 μg/day (The first quantile). Compared to individuals with the safe intake of selenium, individuals with the lowest mean intake were associated with an increased risk of cancer. A safe selenium intake might be associated with specific populations because the lowest quantile might be related to food deficiency of protein, amino acids, vitamins, minerals, and other essential micronutrients.

The present findings were consistent with previous studies. In a nested-case control study of 97 incident cancer cases and 184 controls in Poland, Narod et al.36 reported that individuals with serum selenium levels ≤ 70 µg/L (OR = 2.60, 95% CI 1.26, 5.35), 70.01–80 µg/L (OR = 1.13, 95% CI (0.59, 2.16), and > 90 µg/L (OR = 1.63, 95% CI 0.63, 4.19), compared to those with serum selenium level at 80.01–90 µg/L were suggestively increased risk of cancer; a similar U-shaped association to ours. Serum selenium concentration showed a U-shaped association with all-cause mortality, including cancer37.

A comprehensive review from the Cochrane Library on randomized clinical trials showed no protective effect of selenium against different types of cancers, including colorectal cancer, breast cancer, non‐melanoma skin cancer, bladder cancer, and lung cancer24. These findings might be limited because there was no data on a safe intake.

Different animal models have shown that selenium protects against cancer through various mechanisms, including effects on DNA stability, cell proliferation, necrosis, and apoptosis in both normal and malignant cells, as well as immune system and oxidative stress regulation39,40. However, other studies also reported that selenium might promote cancer cell transformation and progression41–43. For instance, in an experimental study by Chen et al.43 showed that vitamin E supplementation inhibited carcinogenesis through antioxidative properties. At the same time, a high dose of inorganic selenium might promote carcinogenesis by enhancing oxidative stress. This evidence of beneficial protection against cancer and cancer risk related to selenium intake might be explained by a U-sharp association in the present study. Prior studies showed that the primary sources of selenium are trace elements in crops, seafood, fish, animal products, or supplements7,8. Our study's primary sources of dietary selenium are rice and rice noodles, fish, pork, poultry, tofu, soy products, eggs, white radish, and cabbage (data not shown).

The current study has several limitations. Information bias and recall bias can be present in the case–control study design, mainly when participants had to place food they consumed 12 months before cancer diagnosis. However, our validation study of the FFQ showed that the Pearson correlation coefficients (R2) between the FFQ and 24-HDR ranged from 0.34 (for selenium) to 0.53 (for energy intake)30,33. Cancer patients might have changed their dietary habits during pre-clinical onset, leading to underestimating the association between selenium intake and cancer risk, an effect of latent disease in modifying metabolism (absorption, metabolism, and catabolism) of trace elements and their circulating levels, including selenium. A cautious interpretation of this association is thus warranted. Also, our findings might not be applied to the general population because cancer cases and control subjects were recruited in a hospital-based setting. Another concern is that our study exclusively focused on dietary selenium intake. However, previous studies found a moderate correlation between dietary intake of selenium, obtained from self-reported consumption of supplements, FFQ or nutritional records, and selenium levels in peripheral biomarkers, including blood, toenails, and hair44–47. Lastly, residual confounding might exist due to unmeasured confounding factors that could not be considered in the multivariable regression models. This study includes fewer controls than cases for the entire study population, which is another limitation of the study. However, by specific cancer sites of the stomach, colon, rectum, and lung cancers, the findings are consistent with the overall results.

Our study has several strengths. This study used data from a case–control design with a large sample size. From our household survey, we selected foods for FFQ that provided more than 90% of essential micronutrients, including selenium. All cancer cases were newly diagnosed patients with pathologic confirmed at the four leading tertiary hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam. Also, a structured questionnaire allowed us to collect important information that could be used in the multivariable models to adjust for confounding factors.

In summary, a large case–control study in Vietnam found a U-shaped association between selenium intake and cancer risk. We observed a safe intake ranging from 110.8 to 124.4 µg/day. Further studies are warranted to replicate our findings in other populations to provide a comprehensive understanding of the role of selenium in cancer development.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Table 1. (36KB, docx)

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the staff members of Hanoi Medical University Hospital, Bach Mai, Viet Duc, and National Cancer Hospitals for their valuable support in conducting the study. We sincerely thank patients and their family members for participating in the present research and providing information on their dietary habits and lifestyles.

Author contributions

All authors reviewed the manuscript and contributed revisions. N.T.L., Y.T.H.P., and H.N.L. were mainly responsible for drafting, revision, and analysis. N.T.L., L.T.L., and H.V.D. were principally responsible for data collection. N.T.L., Y.T.H.P., and H.N.L. extracted data and were mainly responsible for managing and analyzing data. Major manuscript writing contributors were N.T.L., Y.T.H.P., C.T.K.L., L.T.L., T.D.L., H.V.D., T.H.H., S.V.K., and H.N.L. All authors approved the version for publication.

Funding

Y.T-H. P. is supported by the NIH T32CA186873 (PI: J-M Yuan) training grant in cancer epidemiology and prevention. HN Luu is partially supported by the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hillman Cancer Center start-up grant. The study was partly supported by Duy Tan University and Hanoi Medical University (NTL). N.T.L was the PI for The Grant Agreement No.: 18/FIRST/1a/HMU, Under the Project: “Fostering Innovation through Research, Science, and Technology,” during 2017–2019; Viet Nam Ministry of Science and Technology. This work has also been supported by a UICC 2013 American Cancer Society Beginning Investigators Fellowship funded by the American Cancer Society, a UICC 2015 Yamagiwa -Yoshida Memorial International Cancer Study Grant, and a UICC technical fellowship 2023 to Ngoan Tran Le.

Data availability

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Ngoan Tran Le, Email: letranngoan@duytan.edu.vn, Email: letngoan@hmu.edu.vn.

Hung N. Luu, Email: HNL11@pitt.edu

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-024-66553-5.

References

  • 1.Zwolak, I. & Zaporowska, H. Selenium interactions and toxicity: A review. Cell Biol. Toxicol.28, 31–46 (2012). 10.1007/s10565-011-9203-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rayman, M. P., Infante, H. G. & Sargent, M. Food-chain selenium and human health: Spotlight on speciation. Br. J. Nutr.100, 238–253 (2008). 10.1017/S0007114508922522 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ha, H. Y., Alfulaij, N., Berry, M. J. & Seale, L. A. From selenium absorption to selenoprotein degradation. Biol. Trace Elem. Res.192, 26–37 (2019). 10.1007/s12011-019-01771-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hill, K. E. et al. Deletion of selenoprotein P alters distribution of selenium in the mouse. J. Biol. Chem.278, 13640–13646 (2003). 10.1074/jbc.M300755200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Weiss Sachdev, S. & Sunde, R. A. Selenium regulation of transcript abundance and translational efficiency of glutathione peroxidase-1 and -4 in rat liver. Biochem. J.357, 851–858 (2001). 10.1042/bj3570851 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kieliszek, M. Selenium fascinating microelement, properties and sources in food. Molecules24, 1298 (2019). 10.3390/molecules24071298 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hurst, R. et al. Soil-type influences human selenium status and underlies widespread selenium deficiency risks in Malawi. Sci. Rep.3, 1425 (2013). 10.1038/srep01425 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Vinceti, M. et al. Health risk assessment of environmental selenium: Emerging evidence and challenges (Review). Mol. Med. Rep15, 3323–3335 (2017). 10.3892/mmr.2017.6377 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Drake, E. N. Cancer chemoprevention: Selenium as a prooxidant, not an antioxidant. Med. Hypotheses67, 318–322 (2006). 10.1016/j.mehy.2006.01.058 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Burk, R. F., Norsworthy, B. K., Hill, K. E., Motley, A. K. & Byrne, D. W. Effects of chemical form of selenium on plasma biomarkers in a high-dose human supplementation trial. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.15, 804–810 (2006). 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0950 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Jablonska, E. et al. Lipid peroxidation and glutathione peroxidase activity relationship in breast cancer depends on functional polymorphism of GPX1. BMC Cancer15, 657 (2015). 10.1186/s12885-015-1680-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Fan, A. M. & Kizer, K. W. Selenium. Nutritional, toxicologic, and clinical aspects. West J. Med.153, 160–167 (1990). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.MacFarquhar, J. K. et al. Acute selenium toxicity associated with a dietary supplement. Arch. Intern. Med.170, 256–261 (2010). 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.495 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sauberlich, H. E., Dowdy, R. P. & Skala, J. H. Laboratory tests for the assessment of nutritional status. CRC Crit. Rev. Clin. Lab. Sci.4, 215–340 (1973). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Dodig, S. & Cepelak, I. The facts and controversies about selenium. Acta Pharm.54, 261–276 (2004). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Office of Dietary Supplements - Selenium. (Accessed 26 Sep 2023) https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Selenium-HealthProfessional/.
  • 17.World Health Organization-WHO. Cancer Fact Sheet - 2022. (Accessed 30 Sep 2023) https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer.
  • 18.Vinceti, M., Maraldi, T., Bergomi, M. & Malagoli, C. Risk of chronic low-dose selenium overexposure in humans: Insights from epidemiology and biochemistry. Rev. Environ. Health24, 231–248 (2009). 10.1515/REVEH.2009.24.3.231 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Vinceti, M., Wei, E. T., Malagoli, C., Bergomi, M. & Vivoli, G. Adverse health effects of selenium in humans. Rev. Environ. Health16, 233–251 (2001). 10.1515/REVEH.2001.16.4.233 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mandrioli, J. et al. Elevated levels of selenium species in cerebrospinal fluid of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients with disease-associated gene mutations. Neurodegener. Dis.17, 171–180 (2017). 10.1159/000460253 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) et al. Scientific opinion on the tolerable upper intake level for selenium. EFSA J.21, e07704 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Yang, G. & Zhou, R. Further observations on the human maximum safe dietary selenium intake in a seleniferous area of China. J. Trace Elem. Electrolytes Health Dis.8, 159–165 (1994). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Yang, G. et al. Studies of safe maximal daily dietary Se-intake in a seleniferous area in China. Part II: Relation between Se-intake and the manifestation of clinical signs and certain biochemical alterations in blood and urine. J. Trace Elem. Electrolytes Health Dis.3, 123–130 (1989). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Vinceti, M. et al. Selenium for preventing cancer. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.2018, CD005195 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ko, K.-P. et al. Plasma phytoestrogens concentration and risk of colorectal cancer in two different Asian populations. Clin. Nutr.37, 1675–1682 (2018). 10.1016/j.clnu.2017.07.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Tran, H. H., Sengngam, K., Pham, P. V. & Le, N. T. Case-control study of alcohol usage and fruit intake and stomach cancer in North Viet Nam. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev.22, 2903–2908 (2021). 10.31557/APJCP.2021.22.9.2903 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sengngam, K., Hoc, T. H., Hang, D. V. & Tran, N. L. Trans-lycopene and β-cryptoxanthin intake and stomach cancer in Vietnamese men: A pilot case-control study. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev.23, 861–865 (2022). 10.31557/APJCP.2022.23.3.861 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Nguyen, M. T. et al. Vitamin D intake and gastric cancer in Viet Nam: A case-control study. BMC Cancer22, 838 (2022). 10.1186/s12885-022-09933-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Nguyen, T. G. et al. Calcium intake contributed by whole foods and gastric cancer in Viet Nam: A case-control study. Nutr. Cancer75, 1243–1253 (2023). 10.1080/01635581.2023.2187721 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Le, N. T. et al. Reproducibility of a designed semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire in general populations in North Vietnam. Southeast Asia J. Sci.6, 188–197 (2018). [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Nguyen, C. L. et al. Waterpipe tobacco smoking and risk of stomach cancer: A case-control study in Vietnamese men. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev.23, 1587–1593 (2022). 10.31557/APJCP.2022.23.5.1587 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Nguyen, K. C. et al. Vietnamese Food Composition Table. (2007) https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/food_composition/documents/pdf/VTN_FCT_2007.pdf.
  • 33.Dao, L. V., Tran, H. H., Tran, D. T., Dinh, M. T. & Le, N. T. Development of a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire based on a household nutritional survey in communities in North Viet Nam. Biomed. J. Sci. Tech. Res.40, 32561–32569 (2022). [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Greenland, S. et al. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: A guide to misinterpretations. Eur. J. Epidemiol.31, 337–350 (2016). 10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ciapponi, A., Belizán, J. M., Piaggio, G. & Yaya, S. There is life beyond the statistical significance. Reprod. Health18, 80 (2021). 10.1186/s12978-021-01131-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Narod, S. A. et al. Serum selenium level and cancer risk: A nested case-control study. Hered. Cancer Clin. Pract.17, 33 (2019). 10.1186/s13053-019-0131-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Tan, Q.-H. et al. A U-shaped relationship between selenium concentrations and all-cause or cardiovascular mortality in patients with hypertension. Front. Cardiovasc. Med.8, 671618 (2021). 10.3389/fcvm.2021.671618 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Vinceti, M., Filippini, T., Jablonska, E., Saito, Y. & Wise, L. A. Safety of selenium exposure and limitations of selenoprotein maximization: Molecular and epidemiologic perspectives. Environ. Res.211, 113092 (2022). 10.1016/j.envres.2022.113092 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Fernandes, A. P. & Gandin, V. Selenium compounds as therapeutic agents in cancer. Biochim. Biophys. Acta1850, 1642–1660 (2015). 10.1016/j.bbagen.2014.10.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Misra, S., Boylan, M., Selvam, A., Spallholz, J. E. & Björnstedt, M. Redox-active selenium compounds—from toxicity and cell death to cancer treatment. Nutrients7, 3536–3556 (2015). 10.3390/nu7053536 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kasaikina, M. V. et al. Contrasting roles of dietary selenium and selenoproteins in chemically induced hepatocarcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis34, 1089–1095 (2013). 10.1093/carcin/bgt011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Harsha, H. C. et al. A compendium of potential biomarkers of pancreatic cancer. PLoS Med.6, e1000046 (2009). 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000046 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Chen, X. et al. Effects of vitamin E and selenium supplementation on esophageal adenocarcinogenesis in a surgical model with rats. Carcinogenesis21, 1531–1536 (2000). 10.1093/carcin/21.8.1531 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Hurst, R. et al. EURRECA—estimating selenium requirements for deriving dietary reference values. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.53, 1077–1096 (2013). 10.1080/10408398.2012.742861 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Longnecker, M. P. et al. Use of selenium concentration in whole blood, serum, toenails, or urine as a surrogate measure of selenium intake. Epidemiology7, 384–390 (1996). 10.1097/00001648-199607000-00008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Ovaskainen, M. L. et al. Toenail selenium as an indicator of selenium intake among middle-aged men in an area with low soil selenium. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.57, 662–665 (1993). 10.1093/ajcn/57.5.662 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Pestitschek, M. et al. Selenium intake and selenium blood levels: A novel food frequency questionnaire. Wien Klin Wochenschr125, 160–164 (2013). 10.1007/s00508-013-0334-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Table 1. (36KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES