Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: Int J Cancer. 2011 Aug 30;131(1):201–210. doi: 10.1002/ijc.26348

Vegetable and fruit intake after diagnosis and risk of prostate cancer progression

Erin L Richman 1,2,3, Peter R Carroll 3,4, June M Chan 3,4,5
PMCID: PMC3310254  NIHMSID: NIHMS342044  PMID: 21823116

Abstract

Cruciferous vegetables, tomato sauce, and legumes have been associated with reduced risk of incident advanced prostate cancer. In vitro and animal studies suggest these foods may inhibit progression of prostate cancer, but there are limited data in men. Therefore, we prospectively examined whether intake of total vegetables, and specifically cruciferous vegetables, tomato sauce, and legumes, after diagnosis reduce risk of prostate cancer progression among 1,560 men diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer and participating in the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor, a United States prostate cancer registry. As a secondary analysis, we also examined other vegetable sub-groups, total fruit, and subgroups of fruits. The participants were diagnosed primarily at community-based clinics and followed from 2004–2009. We assessed vegetable and fruit intake via a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire, and ascertained prostate cancer outcomes via urologist report and medical records. We observed 134 events of progression (53 biochemical recurrences, 71 secondary treatments likely due to recurrence, six bone metastases, four prostate cancer deaths) during 3,171 person-yrs. Men in the fourth quartile of post-diagnostic cruciferous vegetable intake had a statistically significant 59% decreased risk of prostate cancer progression compared to men in the lowest quartile (hazard ratio (HR): 0.41; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.22, 0.76; p-trend: 0.003). No other vegetable or fruit group was statistically significantly associated with risk of prostate cancer progression. In conclusion, cruciferous vegetable intake after diagnosis may reduce risk of prostate cancer progression.

Keywords: prostate cancer, vegetables, fruit, cruciferous, survivorship

INTRODUCTION

More than 2.2 million men currently live with prostate cancer in the United States (US).1 Cruciferous vegetables, tomato sauce, and legumes have been linked to a lower risk of incident prostate cancer and, in some cases, reduced risk of advanced or aggressive disease at diagnosis.2–6 However, there are limited data on the chemotherapeutic effects of diet after diagnosis of prostate cancer. Among 1,202 men with non-metastatic prostate cancer in the Health Professionals’ Follow-up Study (HPFS), post-diagnostic intake of tomato sauce and fish were associated with reduced risk of prostate cancer progression.7 In the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE™), intakes of poultry with skin and eggs after diagnosis were associated with elevated risk of prostate cancer progression.8 Saturated fat intake has also been reported to increase risk of prostate cancer progression,9, 10 and small clinical trials conducted in men with prostate cancer and examining biomarker outcomes support a role of diet in prostate cancer progression.11–14

Thus, we prospectively examined post-diagnostic intake of vegetables and fruits in relation to risk of prostate cancer progression among men with non-metastatic prostate cancer at diagnosis. We hypothesized that total vegetables, and specifically cruciferous vegetables, tomato sauce, and legumes, would be inversely associated with risk of prostate cancer progression.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Study population

CaPSURE is a US prostate cancer registry study initiated in 1995.15, 16 Forty sites (34 community-based clinics, three academic institutions, three Veterans Administration hospitals) have enrolled men with biopsy-verified prostate cancer. CaPSURE participants complete surveys at baseline and every 6 mos. thereafter, and urologists provide clinical data at baseline and subsequent clinic visits. The base population for this study included 2,134 participants in CaPSURE who completed a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) during 2004–2005. The Institutional Review Boards of the University of California, San Francisco and collaborating institutions approved this study.

Dietary Assessment

Vegetable and fruit groups of interest for this analysis are listed in Table 1. Men were asked how often on average they consumed a specific portion of 127 foods and beverages during the past year, with nine frequency options ranging from <1/mo. to ≥6/d. We also asked participants whether they were eating more, less, or the same amount of each item compared to before their diagnosis. Our FFQ was based on a FFQ that has been used to study diet and chronic disease relations in a variety of populations.17, 18 In a validation study, the median correlation between two 1-wk diet records and the original FFQ for vegetable and fruit items was 0.58 (range:0.19 for garlic to 0.95 for bananas).19

Table 1.

Vegetable and fruit groups of interest.

Vegetable Groups
Carrots/yams Raw carrots, cooked carrots, yams/sweet potatoes
Cruciferous vegetables Broccoli; cabbage/coleslaw; Brussels sprouts; cauliflower; kale/mustard/chard greens
Green/leafy vegetables Cooked spinach; raw spinach; iceberg or head lettuce; romaine/leafy lettuce; celery
Legumes Tofu/soybeans; string beans; peas/lima beans; beans/lentils
Squash Yellow/winter squash, eggplant/zucchini
Tomatoes (fresh) Tomatoes, tomato juice
Tomato sauce Tomato sauce, pizza
Total vegetables All of the above plus red chili sauce, mixed vegetables, beets, alfalfa sprouts, and garlic
Fruit Groups
Apples/pears Fresh apples or pears, apple juice or cider
Berries Strawberries, blueberries
Citrus fruits Oranges, orange juice, grapefruit, grapefruit juice
Fruit juice Orange juice, grapefruit juice, apple juice or cider, other juice
Total fruits All of the fruit groups plus raisins or grapes, prunes, bananas, cantaloupe, watermelon, peaches/apricots/plums
Total fruit excluding juice Fresh apples or pears, strawberries, blueberries, oranges, grapefruit, raisins or grapes, prunes, bananas, cantaloupe, watermelon, peaches/apricots/plums
Open in a new tab

Clinical Follow-up

We abstracted data on treatment, biopsy Gleason sum, stage, prostate specific antigen (PSA), and metastases from medical records or urologists’ reports. The National Death Index and Bureau of Vital Statistics were checked for mortality data, and death certificates were used to verify the date and cause of death.

Prostate cancer progression was defined as: prostate cancer death, bone metastases from prostate cancer, biochemical recurrence, or initiation of secondary treatment. A death was attributed to prostate cancer if prostate cancer was listed as the primary, secondary, or tertiary cause of death and no other malignancy was listed as a higher order cause. An outcome of bone metastases was defined as urologist report of: (1) prostate cancer progression to bone, (2) positive bone scan, (3) radiation for metastasis at a bone site, or (4) M1b stage. Biochemical recurrence was defined as two consecutive PSA values ≥0.2ng/ml ≥8 wks after radical prostatectomy or a PSA ≥2ng/ml above post-radiation nadir.20 Secondary treatment was defined as any treatment initiated ≥6 mos. after primary treatment.21, 22 The date of prostate cancer progression was the first of the following: prostate cancer death, diagnosis of bone metastases, second PSA ≥0.2ng/ml for radical prostatectomy patients, first PSA ≥2ng/ml above nadir for radiation patients, or initiation of secondary treatment.

Inclusion Criteria

We excluded men with extra-prostatic disease at diagnosis (T-stage≥T3b), men missing treatment information, and men who reported an energy intake outside 800–4200 kcal/d (n=241). To maintain the prospective nature of our analysis and reduce the potential for recall bias, we excluded men whose prostate cancer progressed prior to the FFQ (n=333), resulting in 1,560 men for analysis.

Statistical Methods

We examined associations between post-diagnostic vegetable and fruit intake and prostate cancer progression using Cox proportional hazards regression. Person-time was calculated from date of the FFQ until prostate cancer progression, non-prostate cancer death, last contact, or August 21, 2009, whichever occurred first. We modeled quartiles of vegetables and fruits with indicator variables and tested for linear trends using the median of each quartile as a continuous term.

Model 1 was adjusted for age at diagnosis (continuous), energy intake (continuous), and days from diagnosis to FFQ (continuous). Model 2 included the variables in Model 1 plus prognostic risk at diagnosis (low, intermediate, high), primary treatment (radical prostatectomy, radiation, other/active surveillance, androgen deprivation therapy), body mass index (BMI; <25, 25–29.9, ≥30 kg/m2), and walking metabolic equivalent task (MET)-h/wk (quartile rank).23 We classified participants’ prognostic risk using modified D’Amico definitions as follows: [High: PSA>20ng/ml or Gleason sum=8–10 or T-Stage≥T3a; else Intermediate: PSA=10.1–20ng/ml or Gleason sum=7 or secondary 4–5 pattern or T-Stage=T2b/T2c (2002) or T2b (1997); else Low: PSA≤10ng/ml and Gleason sum=2–6 and T-Stage=≤T2a].24, 25 Model 3 was additionally adjusted for quartile ranks of eggs, poultry with skin, fruits, and vegetables other than the exposure of interest. Adjustment for education, income, race, prostate cancer family history, smoking, and intakes of sweets, grains, or dairy did not change the results; therefore these variables were omitted from the final models.

We examined whether biopsy Gleason sum (<7 v. ≥7), age at diagnosis (<60 v. ≥60 y), smoking (ever v. never), BMI (<25 v. ≥ 25 kg/m2), or walking (< 7.5 v. ≥7.5 MET-h/wk) modified any of the relations using likelihood ratio tests. The cut-points for age at diagnosis and walking were chosen based on their distribution in the study population.

We performed a sensitivity analysis excluding events defined by secondary treatment that lacked evidence of a preceding PSA rise. In addition, we were concerned men with higher prognostic risk may increase their tomato intake more than men with lower prognostic risk; therefore we examined whether self-reported change in tomato items was associated with prognostic risk at diagnosis using chi-square tests.

All statistical tests were two-sided and considered significant at p<0.05. All analyses were conducted using SAS v. 9.1.3.

RESULTS

We observed 134 events of progression (53 biochemical recurrences, 71 secondary treatments, six bone metastases, four prostate cancer deaths) among 1,560 men during 3,171 person-yrs. The median year of diagnosis was 2002 [interquartile range (IQR): 2000–2003]. The median follow-up after the FFQ was 23 mos. (IQR: 10–32 mos.). Approximately 14% (n=213) of the men who completed the FFQ did not participate in CaPSURE follow-up after the FFQ; these men did not differ from the remaining men in terms of their biopsy Gleason sum, clinical T-stage, primary treatment, or intake of total vegetables, cruciferous vegetables, tomato sauce, or legumes. However, they were younger (mean=63y) compared to the remaining men (mean=65y) (p-value=0.001).

Men who consumed more vegetables were more educated, had higher household incomes, and expended more energy walking than men who consumed the least vegetables (Table 2). We observed a non-significant inverse trend for total vegetables and risk of progression (Table 3), which appeared to be driven by cruciferous vegetables (e.g. broccoli; cabbage, coleslaw; cauliflower; Brussels sprouts; kale, mustard, chard greens). Men in the fourth quartile of post-diagnostic intake of cruciferous vegetables had a 59% reduced risk of prostate cancer progression compared to men in the lowest quartile (hazard ratio (HR): 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.22, 0.76; p-trend: 0.003). The remaining vegetable groups were not associated with risk of prostate cancer progression. Most of the individual cruciferous items were inversely related to risk of prostate cancer progression, but none were statistically significant on its own, likely due to the low consumption of these foods (Table 4).

Table 2.

Baseline characteristics of 1,560 men with prostate cancer by total vegetable intake after diagnosis.

Quartile of total vegetable intake1 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Median servings/d 1.4 2.4 3.6 5.7
Characteristic N % N % N % N % p-value2
Age at Diagnosis <60 y 88 23 102 26 109 28 117 30 0.23
60–69.9 y 184 47 183 47 175 45 157 40
≥70 y 117 30 106 27 106 27 116 30
Race Other 5 1 4 1 8 2 9 2 0.37
African American 7 2 11 3 8 2 15 4
Caucasian 376 97 375 96 372 96 366 94
Education Grade school 27 8 23 6 18 5 19 5 <0.01
High school 176 49 143 40 138 38 132 36
College 73 20 97 27 87 24 88 24
Graduate school 84 23 98 27 118 33 128 35
Income <$20,000 32 10 17 5 20 6 24 7 <0.01
$20–75,000 218 65 210 63 196 58 179 53
≥$75,000 86 26 109 32 120 36 132 39
BMI (kg/m2) <25 102 26 103 26 90 23 126 32 0.06
25–29.9 217 56 207 53 216 56 183 47
≥30 67 17 79 20 83 21 81 21
Smoking Current 31 8 24 6 15 4 24 6 0.44
Former 202 52 206 54 213 55 207 54
Never 152 39 155 40 157 41 155 40
Walking (quartile median MET-hr/wk) Quartile 1 (1) 117 33 85 23 73 20 75 21 <.01
Quartile 2 (4) 88 25 110 30 95 26 86 24
Quartile 3 (10) 92 26 99 27 110 30 102 28
Quartile 4 (26) 62 17 74 20 91 25 102 28
PSA at diagnosis (ng/ml) ≤10 ng/ml 312 83 317 84 327 86 323 86 0.19
10.1–20 ng/ml 50 13 47 13 46 12 34 9
>20 ng/ml 14 4 12 3 7 2 18 5
Biopsy Gleason sum 2–6 266 69 273 71 276 71 270 70 0.99
7 97 25 89 23 94 24 91 24
8–10 21 5 21 5 19 5 22 6
Clinical T-stage T1 194 50 219 56 211 54 220 56 0.61
T2 191 49 169 43 176 45 166 43
T3a 4 1 3 1 3 1 4 1
Treatment Prostatectomy 228 59 261 67 247 63 230 59 0.13
Radiation 106 27 94 24 85 22 102 26
Other 36 9 19 5 34 9 33 8
Hormones 19 5 17 4 24 6 25 6
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; MET, metabolic equivalent task; PSA, prostate specific antigen.

1

Total vegetables included: tofu/soybeans, string beans, peas/lima beans, beans/lentils, raw carrots, cooked carrots, yams/sweet potatoes, broccoli, cabbage/coleslaw, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, kale/mustard/chard greens, cooked spinach, raw spinach, iceberg or head lettuce, romaine or leafy lettuce, celery, yellow/winter squash, eggplant/zucchini, tomato sauce, pizza, fresh tomatoes, tomato juice, red chili sauce, mixed vegetables, beets, alfalfa sprouts, and garlic.

2

P-values estimated using a Pearson chi-square test.

Table 3.

Vegetable intake after diagnosis and risk of prostate cancer progression among 1,560 men with non-metastatic prostate cancer at diagnosis.

Quartile of intake p-trend
1 2 3 4
Total vegetables1
Median intake2 1.35 2.39 3.63 5.70
HR (95% CI)3 1.0 1.33 (0.84, 2.11) 1.22 (0.76, 1.97) 0.59 (0.33, 1.06) 0.05
HR (95% CI)4 1.0 1.28 (0.78, 2.11) 1.31 (0.79, 2.17) 0.62 (0.33, 1.15) 0.10
HR (95% CI)5 1.0 1.25 (0.76, 2.05) 1.34 (0.80, 2.23) 0.61 (0.33, 1.13) 0.09
Carrots/yams
Median intake2 0.06 0.19 0.35 0.86
HR (95% CI)3 1.0 1.39 (0.88, 2.20) 0.82 (0.51, 1.32) 0.77 (0.47, 1.26) 0.13
HR (95% CI)4 1.0 1.26 (0.77, 2.06) 1.00 (0.61, 1.64) 0.83 (0.48, 1.41) 0.30
HR (95% CI)5 1.0 1.34 (0.82, 2.21) 1.15 (0.68, 1.94) 1.00 (0.56, 1.78) 0.71
Cruciferous
Median intake2 0.06 0.21 0.43 0.92
HR (95% CI)3 1.0 0.90 (0.58, 1.39) 0.78 (0.50, 1.23) 0.45 (0.26, 0.77) 0.003
HR (95% CI)4 1.0 0.96 (0.60, 1.53) 0.82 (0.51, 1.33) 0.46 (0.26, 0.81) 0.005
HR (95% CI)5 1.0 0.95 (0.59, 1.52) 0.77 (0.46, 1.27) 0.41 (0.22, 0.76) 0.003
Green/leafy
Median intake2 0.19 0.49 0.92 1.57
HR (95% CI)3 1.0 1.28 (0.80, 2.04) 1.04 (0.63, 1.71) 0.96 (0.58, 1.60) 0.61
HR (95% CI)4 1.0 1.22 (0.75, 2.00) 1.00 (0.60, 1.68) 0.90 (0.53, 1.55) 0.50
HR (95% CI)5 1.0 1.25 (0.76, 2.07) 1.04 (0.60, 1.78) 0.92 (0.51, 1.67) 0.56
Legumes
Median intake2 0.13 0.27 0.49 0.93
HR (95% CI)3 1.0 0.64 (0.38, 1.10) 0.76 (0.49, 1.17) 0.77 (0.47, 1.25) 0.47
HR (95% CI)4 1.0 0.72 (0.41, 1.27) 0.91 (0.57, 1.45) 0.86 (0.51, 1.46) 0.81
HR (95% CI)5 1.0 0.76 (0.43, 1.36) 1.00 (0.61, 1.61) 0.97 (0.55, 1.68) 0.86
Squash
Median intake2 0.0 0.06 0.13 0.29
HR (95% CI)3 1.0 1.27 (0.82, 1.96) 1.25 (0.77, 2.01) 0.80 (0.48, 1.32) 0.35
HR (95% CI)4 1.0 1.26 (0.80, 1.98) 1.11 (0.67, 1.85) 0.75 (0.44, 1.28) 0.25
HR (95% CI)5 1.0 1.26 (0.80, 1.99) 1.17 (0.69, 2.00) 0.79 (0.44, 1.40) 0.39
Tomato sauce
Median intake2 0.06 0.13 0.21 0.49
HR (95% CI)3 1.0 0.89 (0.54, 1.46) 1.04 (0.66, 1.63) 0.95 (0.57, 1.58) 0.93
HR (95% CI)4 1.0 0.91 (0.54, 1.52) 0.96 (0.60, 1.56) 1.10 (0.65, 1.87) 0.62
HR (95% CI)5 1.0 0.91 (0.54, 1.54) 1.02 (0.63, 1.66) 1.20 (0.70, 2.05) 0.42
Tomatoes (fresh)
Median intake2 0.06 0.14 0.43 0.93
HR (95% CI)3 1.0 1.07 (0.63, 1.81) 1.09 (0.67, 1.78) 1.22 (0.74, 1.99) 0.44
HR (95% CI)4 1.0 1.13 (0.65, 1.96) 1.17 (0.69, 1.98) 1.34 (0.79, 2.27) 0.29
HR (95% CI)5 1.0 1.27 (0.72, 2.22) 1.39 (0.80, 2.39) 1.66 (0.95, 2.90) 0.09
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; FFQ, food frequency questionnaire, BMI, body mass index; MET, metabolic equivalent task.

1

Total vegetables includes all vegetables from the following sub-groups: carrots/yams (raw carrots, cooked carrots, yams/sweet potatoes), cruciferous (broccoli, cabbage/coleslaw, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, kale/mustard/chard greens), green/leafy (cooked spinach, raw spinach, iceberg or head lettuce, romaine or leafy lettuce, celery), legumes (tofu/soybeans, string beans, peas/lima beans, beans/lentils), squash (yellow/winter squash, eggplant/zucchini), tomato sauce (tomato sauce, pizza), tomatoes (fresh) (fresh tomatoes, tomato juice); and red chili sauce, mixed vegetables, beets, alfalfa sprouts, garlic.

2

Median intakes reported in servings/d.

3

Model adjusted for age (yrs), days from diagnosis to FFQ, and daily energy intake (kcal/d).

4

Model adjusted for variables in Model 1 plus BMI (<25, 25–29.9, ≥30 kg/m2), prognostic risk (low, intermediate, high), treatment (radical prostatectomy, radiation, active surveillance/other, hormone), and walking (MET-h/wk; quartile ranks). Men missing one or more covariates were omitted (n = 144, 9%).

5

Model adjusted for variables in Model 2 plus quartile ranks of fruits, eggs, poultry with skin, and vegetables intake other than the exposure of interest. Men missing one or more covariates were omitted (n = 144, 9%).

Table 4.

Intake of cruciferous vegetables after diagnosis and risk of prostate cancer progression among 1,560 men with non-metastatic prostate cancer at diagnosis.

Quantile of intake p-trend
1 2 3 4
Broccoli
Median intake1 0.0 0.06 0.14 0.43
HR (95% CI)2 1.0 1.13 (0.69, 1.84) 1.30 (0.78, 2.17) 0.66 (0.36, 1.21) 0.06
HR (95% CI)3 1.0 1.18 (0.70, 2.02) 1.51 (0.87, 2.61) 0.80 (0.42, 1.51) 0.22
HR (95% CI)4 1.0 1.24 (0.72, 2.12) 1.64 (0.92, 2.93) 0.93 (0.46, 1.88) 0.42
Cabbage/coleslaw
Median intake1 0.0 0.06 0.14
HR (95% CI)2 1.0 1.01 (0.66, 1.55) 0.66 (0.40, 1.09) 0.06
HR (95% CI)3 1.0 0.96 (0.60, 1.52) 0.63 (0.37, 1.08) 0.06
HR (95% CI)4 1.0 0.97 (0.61, 1.55) 0.65 (0.37, 1.12) 0.09
Cauliflower
Median intake1 0.0 0.06 0.14
HR (95% CI)2 1.0 1.00 (0.69, 1.47) 0.65 (0.40, 1.04) 0.08
HR (95% CI)3 1.0 1.02 (0.68, 1.52) 0.64 (0.39, 1.07) 0.10
HR (95% CI)4 1.0 1.03 (0.69, 1.54) 0.68 (0.39, 1.16) 0.18
Brussels sprouts
Median intake1 0.0 0.06
HR (95% CI)2 1.0 0.74 (0.51, 1.10) 0.13
HR (95% CI)3 1.0 0.75 (0.50, 1.12) 0.16
HR (95% CI)4 1.0 0.80 (0.52, 1.21) 0.29
Kale
Median intake1 0.0 0.06
HR (95% CI)2 1.0 0.82 (0.51, 1.32) 0.41
HR (95% CI)3 1.0 0.84 (0.51, 1.38) 0.48
HR (95% CI)4 1.0 0.85 (0.51, 1.42) 0.53
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; FFQ, food frequency questionnaire, BMI, body mass index; MET, metabolic equivalent task.

1

Median intake reported in servings/d.

2

Model adjusted for age (yrs), days from diagnosis to FFQ, and energy (kcal/d).

3

Model adjusted for covariates in Model 1 plus BMI (<25, 25–29.9, ≥30 kg/m2), clinical risk (low, intermediate, high), treatment (radical prostatectomy, radiation, active surveillance/other, androgen deprivation therapy), and walking (MET-h/wk; quartile ranks).

4

Model adjusted for covariates in Model 2 plus quartile ranks of total fruit, eggs, poultry with skin, and other vegetable intake.

Total fruit and fruit groups, with the exception of berries, were also not associated with risk of prostate cancer progression (Table 5). For berries, there was an inverse association in the age- and calorie-adjusted model (HR comparing extreme quartiles: 0.60; 95%CI: 0.37, 0.97), which was somewhat attenuated and not statistically significant after multivariate adjustment (HR comparing extreme quartiles: 0.68; 95%CI: 0.40, 1.15).

Table 5.

Fruit intake after diagnosis and risk of prostate cancer progression among 1,560 men with non-metastatic prostate cancer at diagnosis.

Quartile of intake p-trend
1 2 3 4
Total fruit1
Median intake2 0.75 1.75 2.70 4.40
HR (95% CI)3 1.0 1.13 (0.70, 1.80) 0.71 (0.42, 1.19) 0.85 (0.50, 1.44) 0.32
HR (95% CI)4 1.0 1.37 (0.82, 2.27) 0.97 (0.56, 1.66) 0.90 (0.50, 1.60) 0.42
HR (95% CI)5 1.0 1.41 (0.85, 2.34) 1.04 (0.60, 1.81) 1.01 (0.56, 1.81) 0.73
Apples/pears1
Median intake2 0.06 0.14 0.43 0.79
HR (95% CI)3 1.0 0.83 (0.49, 1.42) 0.93 (0.59, 1.47) 1.05 (0.67, 1.65) 0.64
HR (95% CI)4 1.0 0.82 (0.47, 1.43) 0.96 (0.59, 1.57) 1.16 (0.73, 1.87) 0.36
HR (95% CI)5 1.0 0.86 (0.49, 1.51) 1.01 (0.62, 1.64) 1.27 (0.79, 2.04) 0.23
Berries1
Median intake2 0.0 0.06 0.13 0.49
HR (95% CI)3 1.0 0.68 (0.41, 1.12) 0.75 (0.49, 1.17) 0.60 (0.37, 0.97) 0.10
HR (95% CI)4 1.0 0.71 (0.42, 1.22) 0.82 (0.52, 1.29) 0.65 (0.39, 1.09) 0.18
HR (95% CI)5 1.0 0.70 (0.41, 1.19) 0.84 (0.53, 1.33) 0.68 (0.40, 1.15) 0.27
Citrus1
Median intake2 0.06 0.43 0.99 1.46
HR (95% CI)3 1.0 1.25 (0.76, 2.05) 1.10 (0.66, 1.83) 1.14 (0.68, 1.91) 0.85
HR (95% CI)4 1.0 1.11 (0.66, 1.86) 1.13 (0.66, 1.93) 1.11 (0.65, 1.90) 0.74
HR (95% CI)5 1.0 1.15 (0.68, 1.94) 1.17 (0.68, 2.00) 1.25 (0.72, 2.15) 0.46
Fruit juice1
Median intake2 0.0 0.35 0.99 1.43
HR (95% CI)3 1.0 1.39 (0.84, 2.32) 1.07 (0.64, 1.80) 1.41 (0.85, 2.34) 0.45
HR (95% CI)4 1.0 1.58 (0.93, 2.71) 1.17 (0.67, 2.03) 1.39 (0.81, 2.40) 0.58
HR (95% CI)5 1.0 1.61 (0.94, 2.75) 1.23 (0.71, 2.14) 1.48 (0.86, 2.56) 0.41
Fruit excluding juice
Median intake2 0.40 1.10 1.84 3.13
HR (95% CI)3 1.0 1.12 (0.70, 1.78) 0.86 (0.53, 1.39) 0.66 (0.39, 1.12) 0.07
HR (95% CI)4 1.0 1.19 (0.72, 1.95) 0.97 (0.58, 1.61) 0.69 (0.39, 1.22) 0.13
HR (95% CI)5 1.0 1.25 (0.76, 2.05) 1.05 (0.63, 1.76) 0.79 (0.44, 1.41) 0.30
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; FFQ, food frequency questionnaire, BMI, body mass index; MET, metabolic equivalent task.

1

Total fruit included all fruits from the following sub-groups: apples/pears (fresh apples or pears, apple juice or cider), berries (strawberries, blueberries), citrus (oranges, orange juice, grapefruit, grapefruit juice), fruit juice (orange juice, grapefruit juice, apple juice or cider, other juice), and raisins or grapes, prunes, bananas, cantaloupe, watermelon, peaches/apricots/plums.

2

Median intakes reported in servings/d.

3

Model adjusted for age (yrs), days from diagnosis to FFQ, and energy (kcal/d).

4

Model adjusted for covariates in Model 1 plus BMI (<25, 25–29.9, ≥30 kg/m2), clinical risk category (low, intermediate, high), treatment (radical prostatectomy, radiation, active surveillance/other, androgen deprivation therapy), and walking (MET-h/wk; quartile ranks).

5

Model adjusted for covariates in Model 2 plus quartile ranks of eggs, poultry with skin, and total vegetables.

There was no evidence of effect modification by biopsy Gleason sum, BMI, age at diagnosis, or smoking. However, there was an interaction between walking and total vegetable intake (p-interaction = 0.02). Among the 732 men who walked ≥7.5 MET-h/wk after diagnosis (approximately 150 min/wk), total vegetable intake after diagnosis was inversely associated with risk of prostate cancer progression (HR comparing extreme quartiles: 0.35; 95%CI: 0.15, 0.79). There was no association among the 729 men who walked <7.5 MET-h/wk (HR comparing extreme quartiles: 0.91; 95%CI: 0.36, 2.31).

Our results remained unchanged when excluding events defined by secondary treatment without evidence of a preceding PSA rise. Additionally, few men reported any change in tomato intake compared to before diagnosis (≤15%) and there was no association between self-reported change in any tomato item and prognostic risk at diagnosis (data not shown).

DISCUSSION

In this novel analysis of post-diagnostic vegetable and fruit intake and clinical outcomes among men with prostate cancer, we observed a strong inverse association between cruciferous vegetable intake after diagnosis and prostate cancer progression. No other vegetable or fruit group after diagnosis was statistically significantly associated with risk of prostate cancer progression.

This is the first study to examine cruciferous vegetable intake after diagnosis in relation to clinical outcomes among men with prostate cancer. However, two recent prospective studies reported inverse associations between cruciferous vegetables or glucosinolate, a metabolite of cruciferous vegetables, and risk of incident prostate cancer. Kirsh et al. reported a 40% reduced risk of incident extra-prostatic prostate cancer comparing men with high and low cruciferous vegetable intake (HR: 0.60, 95%CI: 0.36, 0.98; p-trend: 0.02).26 In the EPIC-Heidelberg cohort, high glucosinolate consumption was associated with a 32% decreased risk of incident prostate cancer (HR Q4 versus Q1: 0.68; 95%CI: 0.48, 0.97; p-trend: 0.03).27

Glucosinolates are hydrolyzed to form isothiocyanates and indoles, which have anti-carcinogenic effects in vitro and in vivo.28–31 The isothiocyanate, sulforaphane, promotes apoptosis and cell cycle arrest in prostate cancer cells.32–34 Phenethyl isothiocyanate inhibits prostate cancer cell growth and migration, reduces androgen receptor levels, impairs mRNA translation, and promotes transcription of p21.35–38 Additionally, indole-3-carbinol promotes cell cycle arrest, growth inhibition, and apoptosis, and has been shown to inhibit components of oncogenic cell signaling pathways.39–41 In humans, consumption of broccoli sprouts inhibited histone deacetylase in blood42 and a broccoli-rich diet altered global gene expression in the prostate.43

Furthermore, Joseph et al. observed a stronger inverse relation between broccoli consumption and prostate cancer risk among men with the glutathione S-transferase mu 1 (GSTM1)-present genotype compared to men with null deletions in this gene.44 Glutathione S-transferase enzymes are induced by metabolites of cruciferous vegetables and may reduce risk of prostate cancer progression through detoxification of carcinogens and elimination of reactive oxidative species.45

We observed evidence of an interaction between total vegetable intake after diagnosis and walking, similar to results from the control arm of the Women’s Healthy Eating and Living trial among women with breast cancer.46 In that study, women who consumed ≥5 servings/d of vegetables and fruits and engaged in physical activity equivalent to walking 30 min/d 6 d/wk had a 44% reduced risk of mortality compared to women who consumed <5 servings/d of vegetables and fruits and engaged in <30 min/d 6 d/wk of activity (HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.31, 0.98). Future studies should consider the possible synergy between plant-based diets and physical activity in reducing risk of prostate cancer progression.

The null association for tomato sauce was contrary to our hypothesis and the previously observed inverse association.7 We considered whether the lack of an inverse association for tomato sauce was due to reverse causation (e.g. men with higher prognostic risk at diagnosis increased their tomato sauce intake more than men with low prognostic risk), but there was no association between change in any tomato item and prognostic risk at diagnosis. Overall, the results of intervention studies on tomato sauce and/or lycopene supplementation after prostate cancer diagnosis in relation to intermediate endpoints have been inconsistent,11, 47 and further research on the role of tomatoes after prostate cancer diagnosis is needed.

No other study has examined post-diagnostic intake of legumes in relation to clinical outcomes in men with prostate cancer. However, our observation of no association between post-diagnostic legume intake and prostate cancer progression is consistent with many prospective studies on incident prostate cancer in Western populations, although two reported inverse associations.6, 48–50 In the Multi-Ethnic Cohort Study, greater legume consumption was associated with small to moderate reductions in risk of total and aggressive incident prostate cancer (HR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.89, 0.99 for total; HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.61, 0.91 for aggressive).48 However, this association was only significant among Latinos, who had much higher legume consumption than any other ethnic group. A recent meta-analysis reported similar variation across ethnic groups, with evidence of a protective association in Asian populations, but no association in Western populations.50 Associations between dietary factors and risk of incident prostate cancer versus post-diagnostic intake and prostate cancer progression likely differ, and more research is needed before firm conclusions may be drawn. Yet, based on the available data, if there is an effect of legumes on prostate cancer progression, it appears to be modest and likely varies across populations depending on their level of legume intake.

Limitations of this study include our lack of pre-diagnostic diet, loss to follow-up, and few events. Our lack of pre-diagnostic diet prevents us from concluding the association we observed between post-diagnostic cruciferous vegetable intake was independent of what the men consumed prior to diagnosis. In addition, 14% of participants did not participate in CaPSURE follow-up after the FFQ, and thus were considered lost to follow-up immediately after completing the FFQ. Fortunately, these men did not differ from the remaining men in terms of their vegetable intake or clinical prognostic factors, and therefore it is unlikely that loss of these men biased our results. Lastly, we acknowledge that this is a small study and caution is warranted in interpreting the strong inverse relation we observed between post-diagnostic cruciferous vegetables and risk of prostate cancer progression. While suggestive, further study of cruciferous vegetables in men with prostate cancer is needed from randomized controlled trials before translating these results to clinical practice.

In conclusion, cruciferous vegetable consumption after diagnosis was strongly associated with reduced risk of prostate cancer progression among men initially diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer. These data strengthen the rationale to investigate the phytochemicals of cruciferous vegetables in men with prostate cancer, and if confirmed, provide dietary guidance for men with prostate cancer.

Acknowledgments

We thank the participants and staff of CaPSURE for their invaluable contributions, and Asher Schranz for his review of the literature on isothiocyanates and indoles.

CaPSURE is supported by an unrestricted educational gift from Abbott Laboratories (Chicago, IL), by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute (5RC1CA146596), and by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (1U01CA88160). Richman was supported by the National Institutes of Health training grant (R25 CA098566). June Chan was supported by the Department of Defense (W81XWH-04-1-0850) and Prostate Cancer Foundation.

Footnotes

None of the authors have conflicts of interest.

References

  • 1.Results SEaE. SEER Stat Fact Sheets. Vol. 2011. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute; 2010. Prostate. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Giovannucci E, Liu Y, Platz EA, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC. Risk factors for prostate cancer incidence and progression in the health professionals follow-up study. Int J Cancer. 2007;121:1571–8. doi: 10.1002/ijc.22788. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Dagnelie PC, Schuurman AG, Goldbohm RA, Van den Brandt PA. Diet, anthropometric measures and prostate cancer risk: a review of prospective cohort and intervention studies. BJU Int. 2004;93:1139–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2004.04795.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Chan JM, Gann PH, Giovannucci EL. Role of diet in prostate cancer development and progression. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8152–60. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.1492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Platz E, Giovannucci E. Prostate Cancer. In: Schottenfeld D, JFF, editors. Cancer epidemiology and prevention. 3. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006. pp. 1128–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective. World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Chan JM, Holick CN, Leitzmann MF, Rimm EB, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Giovannucci EL. Diet after diagnosis and the risk of prostate cancer progression, recurrence, and death (United States) Cancer Causes Control. 2006;17:199–208. doi: 10.1007/s10552-005-0413-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Richman EL, Stampfer MJ, Paciorek A, Broering JM, Carroll PR, Chan JM. Intakes of meat, fish, poultry, and eggs and risk of prostate cancer progression. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;91:712–21. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.28474. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Strom SS, Yamamura Y, Forman MR, Pettaway CA, Barrera SL, DiGiovanni J. Saturated fat intake predicts biochemical failure after prostatectomy. Int J Cancer. 2008;122:2581–5. doi: 10.1002/ijc.23414. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Meyer F, Bairati I, Shadmani R, Fradet Y, Moore L. Dietary fat and prostate cancer survival. Cancer Causes Control. 1999;10:245–51. doi: 10.1023/a:1008913307947. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Van Patten CL, de Boer JG, Tomlinson Guns ES. Diet and dietary supplement intervention trials for the prevention of prostate cancer recurrence: a review of the randomized controlled trial evidence. J Urol. 2008;180:2314–21. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.08.078. discussion 721–2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Schroder FH, Roobol MJ, Boeve ER, de Mutsert R, Zuijdgeest-van Leeuwen SD, Kersten I, Wildhagen MF, van Helvoort A. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study in men with prostate cancer and rising PSA: effectiveness of a dietary supplement. Eur Urol. 2005;48:922–30. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.08.005. discussion 30–1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ornish D, Magbanua MJ, Weidner G, Weinberg V, Kemp C, Green C, Mattie MD, Marlin R, Simko J, Shinohara K, Haqq CM, Carroll PR. Changes in prostate gene expression in men undergoing an intensive nutrition and lifestyle intervention. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105:8369–74. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0803080105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Chen L, Stacewicz-Sapuntzakis M, Duncan C, Sharifi R, Ghosh L, van Breemen R, Ashton D, Bowen PE. Oxidative DNA damage in prostate cancer patients consuming tomato sauce-based entrees as a whole-food intervention. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:1872–9. doi: 10.1093/jnci/93.24.1872. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Litwin MS, Lubeck DP, Mehta SS, Henning JM, Carroll PR. The contemporary management of prostate cancer in the United States: lessons from the cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavor (CapSURE), a national disease registry. J Urol. 2004;171:1393–401. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000107247.81471.06. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lubeck DP, Litwin MS, Henning JM, Stier DM, Mazonson P, Fisk R, Carroll PR. The CaPSURE database: a methodology for clinical practice and research in prostate cancer. CaPSURE Research Panel. Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor. Urology. 1996;48:773–7. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(96)00226-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Longnecker MP, Lissner L, Holden JM, Flack VF, Taylor PR, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC. The reproducibility and validity of a self-administered semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire in subjects from South Dakota and Wyoming. Epidemiology. 1993;4:356–65. doi: 10.1097/00001648-199307000-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Subar AF, Thompson FE, Kipnis V, Midthune D, Hurwitz P, McNutt S, McIntosh A, Rosenfeld S. Comparative validation of the Block, Willett, and National Cancer Institute food frequency questionnaires: the Eating at America’s Table Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2001;154:1089–99. doi: 10.1093/aje/154.12.1089. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Feskanich D, Rimm EB, Giovannucci EL, Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ, Litin LB, Willett WC. Reproducibility and validity of food intake measurements from a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire. J Am Diet Assoc. 1993;93:790–6. doi: 10.1016/0002-8223(93)91754-e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Greene KL, Albertsen PC, Babaian RJ, Carter HB, Gann PH, Han M, Kuban DA, Sartor AO, Stanford JL, Zietman A, Carroll P. Prostate specific antigen best practice statement: 2009 update. J Urol. 2009;182:2232–41. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.07.093. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Grossfeld GD, Li YP, DP PL, Carroll PR. Patterns of failure after primary local therapy for prostate cancer and rationale for secondary therapy. Urology. 2002;60:57–62. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(02)01574-1. discussion -3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Agarwal PK, Sadetsky N, Konety BR, Resnick MI, Carroll PR. Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urological Research E. Treatment failure after primary and salvage therapy for prostate cancer: likelihood, patterns of care, and outcomes. Cancer. 2008;112:307–14. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Richman EL, Kenfield SA, Stampfer MJ, Paciorek A, Carroll PR, Chan JM. Physical Activity after Diagnosis and Risk of Prostate Cancer Progression: Data from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor. Cancer Res. 2011 doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-3932. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, Tomaszewski JE, Renshaw AA, Kaplan I, Beard CJ, Wein A. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280:969–74. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.11.969. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML. Mayo Clinic validation of the D’amico risk group classification for predicting survival following radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2008;179:1354–60. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.11.061. discussion 60–1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kirsh VA, Peters U, Mayne ST, Subar AF, Chatterjee N, Johnson CC, Hayes RB. Prospective study of fruit and vegetable intake and risk of prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:1200–9. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djm065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Steinbrecher A, Nimptsch K, Husing A, Rohrmann S, Linseisen J. Dietary glucosinolate intake and risk of prostate cancer in the EPIC-Heidelberg cohort study. Int J Cancer. 2009;125:2179–86. doi: 10.1002/ijc.24555. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hayes JD, Kelleher MO, Eggleston IM. The cancer chemopreventive actions of phytochemicals derived from glucosinolates. Eur J Nutr. 2008;47 (Suppl 2):73–88. doi: 10.1007/s00394-008-2009-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hecht SS. Chemoprevention by isothiocyanates. J Cell Biochem Suppl. 1995;22:195–209. doi: 10.1002/jcb.240590825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Higdon JV, Delage B, Williams DE, Dashwood RH. Cruciferous vegetables and human cancer risk: epidemiologic evidence and mechanistic basis. Pharmacol Res. 2007;55:224–36. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2007.01.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Shertzer HG, Senft AP. The micronutrient indole-3-carbinol: implications for disease and chemoprevention. Drug Metabol Drug Interact. 2000;17:159–88. doi: 10.1515/dmdi.2000.17.1-4.159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Clarke JD, Dashwood RH, Ho E. Multi-targeted prevention of cancer by sulforaphane. Cancer Lett. 2008;269:291–304. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2008.04.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Singh AV, Xiao D, Lew KL, Dhir R, Singh SV. Sulforaphane induces caspase-mediated apoptosis in cultured PC-3 human prostate cancer cells and retards growth of PC-3 xenografts in vivo. Carcinogenesis. 2004;25:83–90. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgg178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Singh SV, Herman-Antosiewicz A, Singh AV, Lew KL, Srivastava SK, Kamath R, Brown KD, Zhang L, Baskaran R. Sulforaphane-induced G2/M phase cell cycle arrest involves checkpoint kinase 2-mediated phosphorylation of cell division cycle 25C. J Biol Chem. 2004;279:25813–22. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M313538200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Wang LG, Liu XM, Fang Y, Dai W, Chiao FB, Puccio GM, Feng J, Liu D, Chiao JW. De-repression of the p21 promoter in prostate cancer cells by an isothiocyanate via inhibition of HDACs and c-Myc. Int J Oncol. 2008;33:375–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Wang LG, Liu XM, Chiao JW. Repression of androgen receptor in prostate cancer cells by phenethyl isothiocyanate. Carcinogenesis. 2006;27:2124–32. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgl075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Xiao D, Singh SV. Phenethyl isothiocyanate inhibits angiogenesis in vitro and ex vivo. Cancer Res. 2007;67:2239–46. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-3645. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Hu J, Straub J, Xiao D, Singh SV, Yang HS, Sonenberg N, Vatsyayan J. Phenethyl isothiocyanate, a cancer chemopreventive constituent of cruciferous vegetables, inhibits cap-dependent translation by regulating the level and phosphorylation of 4E-BP1. Cancer Res. 2007;67:3569–73. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-0392. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Sarkar FH, Li Y. Indole-3-carbinol and prostate cancer. J Nutr. 2004;134:3493S–8S. doi: 10.1093/jn/134.12.3493S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Chinni SR, Sarkar FH. Akt inactivation is a key event in indole-3-carbinol-induced apoptosis in PC-3 cells. Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8:1228–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Chinni SR, Li Y, Upadhyay S, Koppolu PK, Sarkar FH. Indole-3-carbinol (I3C) induced cell growth inhibition, G1 cell cycle arrest and apoptosis in prostate cancer cells. Oncogene. 2001;20:2927–36. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1204365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Myzak MC, Tong P, Dashwood WM, Dashwood RH, Ho E. Sulforaphane retards the growth of human PC-3 xenografts and inhibits HDAC activity in human subjects. Exp Biol Med (Maywood) 2007;232:227–34. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Traka M, Gasper AV, Melchini A, Bacon JR, Needs PW, Frost V, Chantry A, Jones AM, Ortori CA, Barrett DA, Ball RY, Mills RD, et al. Broccoli consumption interacts with GSTM1 to perturb oncogenic signalling pathways in the prostate. PLoS ONE. 2008;3:e2568. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002568. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Joseph MA, Moysich KB, Freudenheim JL, Shields PG, Bowman ED, Zhang Y, Marshall JR, Ambrosone CB. Cruciferous vegetables, genetic polymorphisms in glutathione S-transferases M1 and T1, and prostate cancer risk. Nutr Cancer. 2004;50:206–13. doi: 10.1207/s15327914nc5002_11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Herr I, Buchler MW. Dietary constituents of broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables: Implications for prevention and therapy of cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2010 doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2010.01.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Pierce JP, Stefanick ML, Flatt SW, Natarajan L, Sternfeld B, Madlensky L, Al-Delaimy WK, Thomson CA, Kealey S, Hajek R, Parker BA, Newman VA, et al. Greater survival after breast cancer in physically active women with high vegetable-fruit intake regardless of obesity. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:2345–51. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.6819. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Chan JM, Weinberg V, Magbanua MJ, Sosa E, Simko J, Shinohara K, Federman S, Mattie M, Hughes-Fulford M, Haqq C, Carroll PR. Nutritional supplements, COX-2 and IGF-1 expression in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Cancer Causes Control. 2011;22:141–50. doi: 10.1007/s10552-010-9684-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Park SY, Murphy SP, Wilkens LR, Henderson BE, Kolonel LN. Legume and isoflavone intake and prostate cancer risk: The Multiethnic Cohort Study. Int J Cancer. 2008;123:927–32. doi: 10.1002/ijc.23594. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Schuurman AG, Goldbohm RA, Dorant E, van den Brandt PA. Vegetable and fruit consumption and prostate cancer risk: a cohort study in The Netherlands. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1998;7:673–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Yan L, Spitznagel EL. Soy consumption and prostate cancer risk in men: a revisit of a meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;89:1155–63. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2008.27029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES