Vitamin D, calcium and dairy intake, and risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma and its precursor conditions

Evidence is accumulating that vitamin D may be protective against carcinogenesis, although exceptions have been observed for some digestive tract neoplasms. The aim of the present study was to explore the association between dietary vitamin D and related nutrients and the risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma and its precursor conditions, Barrett's oesophagus and reflux oesophagitis. In an all-Ireland case-control study conducted between March 2002 and July 2005, 218 oesophageal adenocarcinoma patients, 212 Barrett's oesophagus patients, 208 reflux oesophagitis patients and 252 population-based controls completed a 101-item FFQ, and provided lifestyle and demographic information. Multiple logistic regression analysis was applied to examine the association between dietary intake and disease risk. Oesophageal adenocarcinoma risk was significantly greater for individuals with the highest compared with the lowest tertile of vitamin D intake (OR 1·99, 95 % CI 1·03, 3·86; P for trend = 0·02). The direct association could not be attributed to a particular vitamin D food source. Vitamin D intake was unrelated to Barrett's oesophagus and reflux oesophagitis risk. No significant associations were observed for Ca or dairy intake and oesophageal adenocarcinoma, Barrett's oesophagus or reflux oesophagitis development. High vitamin D intake may increase oesophageal adenocarcinoma risk but is not related to reflux oesophagitis and Barrett's oesophagus. Ca and dairy product intake did not influence the development of these oesophageal lesions. These findings suggest that there may be population subgroups at an increased risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma if advice to improve vitamin D intake from foods is implemented. Limited work has been conducted in this area, and further research is required.

Accounts of debates in the House of Commons, March– April 1731, supplementary to the diary of the first earl of Egmont

John Perceval (1685–1748), 1st Viscount Perceval and (from 1733) 1st Earl of Egmont, was an assiduous recorder of his own life and times. His diaries, published by the Historical Manuscripts Commission from manuscripts in the British Library, are the best source for parliamentary debates at Westminster in the 1730s. For the years 1730-1733, when Perceval sat in the Commons (as an Irish peer) they are remarkably full. His practice seems to have been to prepare two versions (presumably on the basis of notes taken in the House), the first attributing speeches to individuals, and the second, entered up in the diary, which listed speakers and summarized all arguments on each side. His letterbooks for 1731 contain accounts of five debates that embody his first editing process, with speeches attributed to individuals. They were sent to an Irish correspondent, Marmaduke Coghill, and largely omitted from the diary because Perceval had already transcribed them elsewhere. They are new to historians and cast light on two main issues: the unsuccessful attempts by Perceval and the ‘Irish lobby’ to persuade the British parliament to settle the Irish woollen trade, a question bedevilling Anglo-Irish relations in this period; and an attempt by the opposition to stir up anger against perceived Spanish aggression against Gibraltar. One of the most interesting features is the insight afforded into the Commons performances of Sir Robert Walpole: his management of debates, his own style of speaking, and his sharp exchanges with opponents like William Pulteney.