Diet and nutrition information on nine national cancer organisation websites: A critical review.

INTRODUCTION: National Cancer Organisations (NCO) provide web-based diet and nutrition information for patients with all types and stages of cancer. We examined diet and nutrition information provided by nine NCO in English-speaking countries. METHODS: Diet and nutrition information was examined under four headings: disease phases, treatment modalities, nutrition impact symptoms and cancer primary sites. We also examined the degree of concordance between NCO websites and appraised the readability of materials. RESULTS: Nine NCO websites from six English-speaking countries were included: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. All provided general healthy eating advice. Information at diagnosis and pre-treatment was inadequate, but well-addressed for survivorship. Specific treatment modalities such as biological and hormone therapy were largely ignored. Symptom management was well-addressed, with some exceptions. Cancer site-specific advice was readily available. All recommended consultation with a dietitian/healthcare professional for personalised guidance. Only one met the universal health literacy standard. CONCLUSIONS: NCO websites provided important general diet and nutrition information for cancer patients. The information was reliable and safe, but more in-depth, evidence-based and health-literate information is required. There is an urgent need for an international consensus for consistent cancer diet and nutrition advice.

Current use of unopposed estrogen and estrogen plus progestin and the risk of acute myocardial infarction among women with diabetes: the Northern California Kaiser Permanente Diabetes Registry, 1995-1998.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and risk for myocardial infarction (MI) in diabetic women. We examined associations of current HRT, estrogen dosage, and time since HRT initiation with risk of acute MI in diabetic women. METHODS AND RESULTS: Cox proportional hazards models, with current HRT modeled as a time-dependent covariate, were used to assess the 3-year risk of MI. Among 24 420 women without a recent MI (mean age 64.9 years), 1110 incident MIs were identified. After adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors, current HRT was associated with reduced MI risk (relative hazard [RH] 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98). The RH for MI associated with current estrogen plus progestin use was 0.77 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.97), and the RH for MI associated with current unopposed estrogen use was 0.88 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.05). Women were at reduced MI risk if they were taking a low or medium dose of estrogen (equivalent to <0.625 or 0.625 mg of conjugated estrogen, respectively) but not a high dose (>0.625 mg of conjugated estrogen or its equivalent). Among those whose current use of HRT was <1 year, the RH for MI was 1.03 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.44), whereas among users for > or =1 year, the RH was 0.81 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.00). Among 580 women with a recent MI (mean age 69.2 years), 89 recurrent MIs were identified. An increased risk of recurrent MI was observed among current HRT users (RH 1.78, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.98), which was higher among those with current use for <1 year (RH 3.84, 95% CI 1.60 to 9.20). CONCLUSIONS: In women without a recent MI, use of estrogen plus progestin was associated with decreased risk of MI. However, HRT was associated with increased risk of MI in women with history of a recent MI. Data from clinical trials in diabetic women are needed.