TABLE 2.
ORs and 95% CIs of NPC associated with Chinese-style salted fish intake during adulthood and adolescence, adjusted for total energy intake using the residual method1
| Intake range per level (g/d)2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level3 | Male | Female | n cases/controls | OR (95% CI) |
| Adult dietary intake4 | ||||
| Total5 Chinese-style salted fish | ||||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 846/797 | 1.00 (ref) |
| 2 | >0.00 to ≤0.41 | >0.00 to ≤0.34 | 489/585 | 0.81 (0.68, 0.96) |
| 3 | >0.41 to ≤1.64 | >0.34 to <1.36 | 489/582 | 0.73 (0.62, 0.87) |
| 4 | >1.64 | ≥1.36 | 678/596 | 0.93 (0.78, 1.10) |
| P-trend | 0.16 | |||
| Hard salted fish | ||||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1049/1121 | 1.00 (ref) |
| 2 | >0.00 to ≤0.68 | >0.00 to ≤0.45 | 667/723 | 1.02 (0.88, 1.19) |
| 3 | >0.68 | >0.45 | 786/715 | 1.05 (0.91, 1.22) |
| P-trend | 0.90 | |||
| Soft salted fish | ||||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1705/1658 | 1.00 (ref) |
| 2 | >0.00 to <0.54 | >0.00 to ≤0.34 | 336/452 | 0.68 (0.57, 0.81) |
| 3 | ≥0.54 | >0.34 | 461/449 | 0.88 (0.74, 1.04) |
| P-trend | 0.45 | |||
| Adolescent dietary intake6 | ||||
| Total5 Chinese-style salted fish | ||||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 834/876 | 1.00 (ref) |
| 2 | >0.00 to ≤0.54 | >0.00 to ≤0.41 | 437/471 | 0.99 (0.83, 1.17) |
| 3 | >0.54 to ≤2.19 | >0.41 to ≤1.72 | 426/473 | 0.89 (0.75, 1.06) |
| 4 | >2.19 | >1.72 | 547/488 | 1.10 (0.93, 1.31) |
| P-trend | 0.55 | |||
| Hard salted fish | ||||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1017/1133 | 1.00 (ref) |
| 2 | >0.00 to ≤0.82 | >0.00 to <0.68 | 561/588 | 1.07 (0.92, 1.22) |
| 3 | >0.82 | ≥0.68 | 666/588 | 1.19 (1.03, 1.39) |
| P-trend | 0.01 | |||
| Soft salted fish | ||||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1522/1531 | 1.00 (ref) |
| 2 | >0.00 to ≤0.82 | >0.00 to ≤0.68 | 289/390 | 0.71 (0.59, 0.85) |
| 3 | >0.82 | >0.68 | 403/388 | 0.97 (0.82, 1.15) |
| P-trend | 0.27 | |||
NPC, nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
Intake range per food level (grams per day) based on controls’ intake for males and females separately. Although intake cutoffs are presented in general to 2 decimal places, intake ranges do not overlap for different food levels.
Level 1 was the reference group, which consisted of individuals who did not consume the food item. Levels 2 and above consisted of individuals with increasing intakes of the food item (residually adjusted for total energy intake).
We used unconditional logistic regression to estimate ORs with 95% CIs. ORs were adjusted for sex, age, residential area, education level, current housing type, current occupation, first-degree family history of NPC, cigarette smoking, adult daily energy intake (log transformed), energy-adjusted intake of other foods (adult fruit and vegetable intake, adult intake of non–salted fish preserved foods, adolescent total preserved food intake), and childhood frequency of intake of total preserved foods.
Hard and soft salted fish combined.
We used unconditional logistic regression to estimate ORs with 95% CIs. ORs were adjusted for sex, age, residential area, education level, current housing type, current occupation, first-degree family history of NPC, cigarette smoking, adolescent daily energy intake (log transformed), energy-adjusted intake of other foods (adolescent fruit and vegetable intake and adolescent intake of non–salted fish preserved foods), and childhood frequency of intake of total preserved foods.