Reply to S. Lehrer et al and J.C. Dowdy and R.M. Sayre.

Shaowei Wu,Eunyoung Cho,Abrar A Qureshi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.64.9376

2016-01-01

Abstract:Thank you for thoughtful responses to the paper and editorial in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, July 1, 2015. We all seem to agree that dietary warnings are premature and that it will be important to identify clearly the dose-response for the photocarcinogenic properties of furocoumarins in citrus and other plant foods. It is known that grapefruit in juice or fruit interferes with the metabolism of drugs such as statins, cholesterol-blocking drugs. However, because it also interferes with other drugs, it is important to be aware of the potential interactions of drugs with furocoumarins. Thus, further investigation into the role of furocoumarins is important. Several misunderstandings are noted. Dowdy and Sayre stated that Wu et al stated that furocoumarin levels can increase in response to plant stress, poor handling postharvest, and suboptimal shipping or storage; in fact, Wu et al note a reduction of the contents of furocoumarin with such problems. The relationship between direct handling cross-contamination of edible parts and skin transfer needs to be clarified. According to the Senate Commission on Food Safety, most of the furocoumarins are in the peel. If that is true, then it is unlikely that there is a crosscontamination problem. There is a contradiction between the comment by Dowdy and Sayre that “only minimal UVexposure is required to induce photochemical reactions between furocoumarins and biological macromolecules” and the statement by Wu et al, based on their data, that such foods “may have a stronger photocarcinogenic effect in the presence of higher UV radiation as compared with that in the presence of lower UV radiation.” It is of interest to evaluate a “different UV exposure pattern for citrus-associated melanoma” that “may indicate evidence for action of persistent dietary photocarcinogens.” The potential for selection bias from this particular study population should not be dismissed. Additionally, the direction of any bias from noninclusion of nonmelanoma skin cancer history cannot be estimated without the data. It is interesting that both the editorial and the letter writers, although coming from different angles, are in agreement with the idea that there is a need for more data before any dietary recommendations.