An Empirical Dietary Pattern Associated With the Gut Microbial Features in Relation to Colorectal Cancer Risk
Kai Wang,Chun-Han Lo,Raaj S Mehta,Long H Nguyen,Yiqing Wang,Wenjie Ma,Tomotaka Ugai,Hidetaka Kawamura,Satoko Ugai,Yasutoshi Takashima,Kosuke Mima,Kota Arima,Kazuo Okadome,Marios Giannakis,Cynthia L Sears,Jeffrey A Meyerhardt,Kimmie Ng,Nicola Segata,Jacques Izard,Eric B Rimm,Wendy S Garrett,Curtis Huttenhower,Edward L Giovannucci,Andrew T Chan,Shuji Ogino,Mingyang Song
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2024.07.040
IF: 29.4
2024-08-06
Gastroenterology
Abstract:Background & aims: Epidemiologic evidence for dietary influence on colorectal cancer (CRC) risk through the gut microbiome remains limited. Methods: Leveraging 307 men and 212 women with stool metagenomes and dietary data, we characterized and validated a sex-specific dietary pattern associated with the CRC-related gut microbial signature (CRC Microbial Dietary Score [CMDS]). We evaluated the associations of CMDS with CRC risk according to Fusobacterium nucleatum, pks+Escherichia coli, and enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis status in tumor tissue using Cox proportional hazards regression in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (1986-2018), Nurses' Health Study (1984-2020), and Nurses' Health Study II (1991-2019). Results: The CMDS was characterized by high industrially processed food and low unprocessed fiber-rich food intakes. In 259,200 participants, we documented 3854 incident CRC cases over 6,467,378 person-years of follow-up. CMDS was associated with a higher risk of CRC (Ptrend < .001), with a multivariable hazard ratio (HRQ5 vs Q1) of 1.25 (95% CI, 1.13-1.39). The association remained after adjusting for previously established dietary patterns, for example, the Western and prudent diets. Notably, the association was stronger for tumoral F nucleatum-positive (HRQ5 vs Q1, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.68-3.75; Ptrend < .001; Pheterogeneity = .03, positivity vs negativity), pks+E coli-positive (HRQ5 vs Q1, 1.68; 95% CI, 0.84-3.38; Ptrend = .005; Pheterogeneity = .01, positivity vs negativity), and enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis-positive CRC (HRQ5 vs Q1, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.10-3.88; Ptrend = .016; Pheterogeneity = .06, positivity vs negativity), compared with their negative counterparts. Conclusions: CMDS was associated with increased CRC risk, especially for tumors with detectable F nucleatum, pks+E coli, and enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis in tissue. Our findings support a potential role of the gut microbiome underlying the dietary effects on CRC.