Silibinin Differentially Decreases the Aggressive Cancer Phenotype in an In Vitro Model of Obesity and Prostate Cancer.

Aim: Obesity increases the risk for aggressive and fatal prostate cancer (PCa). The bioactive compound silibinin has been researched for its chemopreventative properties and may benefit obese or overweight individuals with PCa.Methods: This study used an in vitro model of obesity exposing prostate cancer cells to sera from obese, overweight, or normal weight males with or without the addition of silibinin. Molecular activity was assayed as well as the phenotype of PCa cells with various treatments.Results: Obesity increased the expression of proliferative signaling including COX-2, IL-6, AKT, ERK, and AR, which was attenuated with silibinin. Cell growth, and invasive capacity of prostate cancer cells was increased with obese and overweight sera, and silibinin was able to mitigate this affect. However, there are limitations to this study in that an in vivo model was not used to validate these in vitro results nor a co-culture model, which may better recapitulate the tumor microenvironment.Conclusions: Silibinin may be a safe intervention for those with or at risk for prostate cancer, and it may be the most beneficial for obese or overweight males.

Influences on Catered Event Ordering in a University Workplace: Development and Validation of the Understanding Food Ordering Survey.

PURPOSE: To develop and validate an instrument to identify factors that influence what is ordered for catered events for employees at a large university. DESIGN: Themes derived from focus groups were used to develop a survey. SETTING: A large public university in central Texas. SUBJECTS: Twenty-seven administrative assistants who order food participated in focus groups, 138 completed the survey, and 31 completed the survey a second time. MEASURES: One hundred fourteen-question, 5-point Likert scale survey. ANALYSIS: Principal component analyses explored constructs. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed structure validity. Test -retest analyses assessed reliability. RESULTS: The final survey, the Understanding Food Ordering Survey (UFO), included 19 items within 3 factors; all factor loadings were above 0.3, with no cross-loadings. Three factors explained 55.5% of the variance. Cronbach α values of .846 for social influences from supervisors/coworkers, .838 for restrictions on ordering due to policies/vendors/attendee feedback, .893 for personal views about nutrition, and .831 for the total affirmed reliability. Test-retest reliability was acceptable ( r = 0.780), and paired samples t test indicated no differences between assessments, mean difference = -0.062, standard deviation = 0.29, t (30) = -1.18, P = .247. Structure equation modeling indicated a good fit between the proposed 3-factor model and observed data, with comparative fit index = 0.921 and root means square error of approximation = 0.074. CONCLUSION: Interventions to improve the nutritional quality of foods selected for catering may benefit from addressing contributory factors while considering a top-down approach to changing the workplace culture.