Evidence Hub

Food frequency questionnaire is a valid assessment tool of quercetin and kaempferol intake in Iranian breast cancer patients according to plasma biomarkers

Sadeghi S, Montazeri V, Zamora-Ros R, Biparva P, Sabour S, Pirouzpanah S

Nutrition research (New York, N.Y.), 2021

140 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

In epidemiological and clinical studies, the most common nutritional tool to assess dietary flavonol intake is the food frequency questionnaire (FFQ), which needs to contain a detailed list of plant-based foods and be previously validated. Our study aimed to assess the accuracy of dietary flavonol (quercetin, kaempferol, and isorhamnetin) intake from a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) compared to fasting plasma flavonol concentrations, as biomarkers of exposure, in breast cancer patients. In a consecutive case series, newly diagnosed patients with breast cancer (n = 140) were recruited at Nour-Nejat Hospital, Tabriz, Iran. Flavonol intake was assessed using a validated FFQ. Plasma flavonol concentrations were measured using high-performance liquid chromatography-ultraviolet detection. The accuracy of dietary status was evaluated using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and area under the ROC curve (AUC). Dietary status was shown in dichotomous using ROC-cutoff point. The plasma concentrations of quercetin were moderately correlated with dietary intake of quercetin (Spearman's correlation coefficient (rs) = 0.188, P < .05; rpartial= 0.330, P < .01) and plasma concentrations of isorhamnetin (rs = 0.337, P < .001). A linear correlation between dietary levels and plasma concentrations of kaempferol was attained (rpartial = 0.240, P < .05). Using a ROC-cutoff of 61.9 nmol/L for plasma quercetin (test reference), we were able to differentiate between lower and higher…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 140 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free