
==== Front
Sci Rep
Sci Rep
Scientific Reports
2045-2322
Nature Publishing Group UK London

66553
10.1038/s41598-024-66553-5
Article
A U-shaped association between selenium intake and cancer risk
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7862-492X
Le Ngoan Tran letranngoan@duytan.edu.vn
letngoan@hmu.edu.vn

12
Pham Yen Thi-Hai 34
Le Chung Thi-Kim 5
Le Linh Thuy 6
Le Thanh-Do 7
Dao Hang Viet 8
Ha Toan H. 9
Kuchipudi Suresh V. 9
Luu Hung N. HNL11@pitt.edu

34
1 https://ror.org/05ezss144 grid.444918.4 0000 0004 1794 7022 Institute of Research and Development, Duy Tan University, Da Nang, Vietnam
2 https://ror.org/01n2t3x97 grid.56046.31 0000 0004 0642 8489 Department of Occupational Health, Institute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Hanoi Medical University, 1 Ton That Tung, Hanoi, Vietnam
3 https://ror.org/03bw34a45 grid.478063.e 0000 0004 0456 9819 The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, PA USA
4 https://ror.org/01an3r305 grid.21925.3d 0000 0004 1936 9000 Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA USA
5 https://ror.org/01n2t3x97 grid.56046.31 0000 0004 0642 8489 Laboratory Center, School of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam
6 https://ror.org/05rq3rb55 grid.462336.6 Laboratory of Embryology and Genetics of Human Malformation, Imagine Institute, INSERM UMR, Paris, France
7 https://ror.org/05ezss144 grid.444918.4 0000 0004 1794 7022 Institute for Global Health Innovations, Duy Tan University, Da Nang, Vietnam
8 https://ror.org/01n2t3x97 grid.56046.31 0000 0004 0642 8489 Department of Internal Medicine, Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam
9 https://ror.org/01an3r305 grid.21925.3d 0000 0004 1936 9000 Department of Infectious Disease and Microbiology, School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA USA
13 9 2024
13 9 2024
2024
14 2137825 11 2023
2 7 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
While selenium is a cofactor of several antioxidant enzymes against cancer and is essential for human health, its excess intake may also be harmful. Though a safe intake of selenium has recently been recommended, it is not well understood in the Asian population. We aimed to determine the association between dietary intake of selenium and cancer risk in a case–control study of 3758 incident cancer cases (i.e., stomach, colon, rectum, lung cancers, and other sites) and 2929 control subjects in Vietnam. Daily intake of selenium was derived from a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire. The unconditional logistic regression model was used to calculate the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between selenium intake and cancer risk. We observed a U-shaped association between selenium intake and cancer risk. A safe intake ranged from 110.8 to 124.4 µg/day (mean 117.8 µg/day). Compared to individuals with the safe intake of selenium, individuals with the lowest intake (i.e., 27.8–77.2 µg/day) were associated with an increased risk of cancer (OR = 3.78, 95% CI 2.89–4.95) and those with the highest intake (169.1–331.7 µg/day) also had an increased cancer risk (OR = 1.86, 95% CI 1.45–2.39). A U-shaped pattern of association between selenium intake and cancer risk was stronger among participants with body mass index (BMI) < 23 kg/m2 and never smokers than BMI ≥ 23 kg/m2 and ever smokers (P’sheterogeneity = 0.003 and 0.021, respectively) but found in both never and ever-drinkers of alcohol (Pheterogeneity = 0.001). A U-shaped association between selenium intake and cancer risk was seen in cancer sites of the stomach, colon, rectum, and lung cancers. In summary, we found a U-shaped association between selenium intake and cancer risk and a safe selenium intake (mean: 117.8 µg/day) in the Vietnamese population. Further mechanistic investigation is warranted to understand better a U-shaped association between selenium intake and cancer risk.

Keywords

Selenium intake
Dietary
Cancer risk
Case–control study
Vietnam
Subject terms

Cancer
Chemical biology
Biomarkers
Diseases
Risk factors
issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Selenium is an essential element of selenoproteins, playing an important role in different biological functions, including DNA synthesis, antioxidant defense, fertility and reproduction, and thyroid hormone formation1. Selenium species can be classified into selenium-containing organic compounds (e.g., selenomethionine, selenocysteine) and inorganic forms (selenate, selenite)2. Tissue selenium supply is dependent on the plasma selenium transporter selenoprotein P3. Prior animal model studies showed that loss of motor coordination and viability reduction of whole-body selenoprotein P knockout mice were exhibited 15 days after weaning4. The survival rate and neurological and reproductive impairments are circumvented by supplementing diets with an established nutritional requirement of 0.1 mg/kg selenium4,5.

Food consumption is the main source of selenium exposure, however, selenium exposure in humans can occur through different other routes, including drinking water, air or dietary supplements6–8. While selenium is essential for human health, it is also toxic2,9. It is critical to note that the range between an essential level and a toxic level of selenium is narrow, and the range of safe intake for selenium is still not well-defined10,11. Selenium toxicity results in hair and nail loss, blindness, or changes in the nervous system and skin lesions12. Acute selenium poisoning was recently described in the United States from ingestion of liquid dietary supplements that contained 200 times higher selenium content than labeled13. Toxic signs of selenium excess were observed in subjects with blood selenium levels of 13.3 μmol/L and above. In humans, an intake of up to 500 μg/day can be a tolerable level; yet other studies indicate that the maximum tolerable selenium level in the lumen could be from 1000 to 1500 μg/day14.

The recommended daily allowance of selenium intake differs between regulatory agencies. For example, the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for selenium is 55 μg/day for adults1,15. The US Institute of Medicine has set the tolerable upper intake level to 400 μg/day for adults16. The World Health Organization recommends 25 to 34 µg/day, depending on age and sex17. Vinceti et al. questioned the current upper limit of ‘safe intake’ and proposed a far lower ‘safe level’ for long-term usage (i.e., 20 μg/day for organic selenium) and a differentiation between organic and inorganic selenium sources18. While acute and chronic toxicity of high selenium exposure has been well-studied, the long-term effects (i.e., harmful) of low-dose selenium intake are not fully understood19. Also, because there may be differences in the biological activities of selenium in organic and inorganic forms2,20. Recently, the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) conducted a systematic review and identified the lowest‐observed‐adverse‐effect‐level (LOAEL) of 330 μg/day, a result from the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT), a large randomized controlled trial in human21. Since this trial focused on the Caucasian population, there is still an urgently unmet need to understand better the safe intake of selenium among the Asian population, other than the Chinese22,23.

There has been inconclusive evidence about the role of selenium in cancer prevention. A recent review found that selenium was associated with reduced risk of stomach, colorectal, lung, breast, and bladder24. However, they also pointed out that these studies had significant limitations. No dose–response relation between selenium and cancer risk was observed. More importantly, the same review also showed that data from randomized clinical trials did not support the protective effect of selenium administration against cancers, including colorectal, non‐melanoma, skin, lung, breast, bladder, and prostate cancer24. We aimed to determine the association between dietary intake of selenium, both low- and high-levels, using a safe intake as a reference, and cancer risk in a large case–control study comprising 3758 cancer incidents and 2929 control patients in Vietnam.

Methods

Study population

We used data from a hospital-based case–control study in Vietnam that recruited participants from four leading facility hospitals in Hanoi between 2003 and 2019, breaking into four periods: (1) 2003–2006 period (n = 625 participants), (2) 2006–2007 period (n = 1342 participants), (3) 2008 period (n = 407 participants) and (4) 2018–2019 period (n = 4902 participants). Patients were newly diagnosed by histopathology and underwent surgery for cancer treatment at the Bach Mai Hospital, Viet Duc University Hospital, National Cancer Hospital, and Hanoi Medical University Hospital, four tertiary hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam. Our study was performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations by two Institution Review Boards, including the Institution Review Board (IRB) approved the study protocol for Ethics in Biomedical Research—Hanoi Medical University (Approval number 3918/HMUIRB and the ethics committees of the IRB-International University of Health and Welfare, Japan (Approval number 19-Ig-17). All participants provided written informed consent. Detailed methods and initial results of this case–control study were published elsewhere25–28.

Cases recruitment

New cancer cases were recruited from four tertiary hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam, including the Bach Mai University Hospital, Viet Duc University Hospital, National Cancer Hospital, and Hanoi Medical University Hospital. The recruited cancer sites included stomach (ICD-10: C16, n = 1,182), colon cancer (ICD-10: C18, n = 567), rectal cancer (ICD-10: C20, n = 482), lung (ICD-10: C34, n = 225), breast cancer (ICD-10: C50, n = 287), cervical cancer (ICD-10: C53, n = 45), ovary cancer (ICD-10: C56, n = 50) esophageal cancer (ICD-10: C15, n = 195), liver (ICD-10: C22, n = 68), nasopharynx (ICD-10: C11, n = 119), pancreas (ICD-10: C25, n = 37), bladder (ICD-10: C67, n = 40), thyroid (ICD-10: C73, n = 87), and other 26 cancer sties (n = 374). Consequently, a total of 3,758 new cancer patients were recruited in the current study.

The inclusion criteria were (1) those indicated for surgery when physically healthy enough to endure the surgery; (2) could communicate well by providing exposure data; (3) confirmed histopathology with cancer; and (4) who agreed to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria were (1) those who refused to participate in the study, (2) those who could not communicate in providing exposure data, and (3) those who had a change in diet due to illness. The recruitment process of cases has been published elsewhere27–29.

Controls recruitment

Controls were randomly chosen and matched with cases based on sex- and age (± 5 years). Control subjects were commonly diagnosed with prostate fibroma (n = 91), urinary tract stone (n = 704), biliary tract stone (n = 230), injury, or non-cancer surgery (n = 1970), making a total of 2995 control participants. Inclusion criteria were (1) those who did not have cancer at the time or in the past and (2) those who had good communication in providing exposure data and agreed to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria were (1) those who refused to participate in the study and (2) those who changed their diet due to health conditions or illness. The recruitment process of control was published elsewhere27–29. Due to (i) advanced matching of sex and age to get comparability between cases and controls, and (ii) more cancer patients were admitted to these four hospitals than non-cancer patients, by the end of the projects, we successfully recruited 3758 cancer patients and only 2995 control patients.

Exposure data collection

Using structured and validated questionnaires and face-to-face interviews, trained interviewers performed the interview at the outpatient departments or in-patient beds the day before the surgery. The exposure data of the cases and controls provided were validated and confirmed by the family members who prepared the foods. Information collected in the questionnaire included socio-demographics, body weight and height, lifetime tobacco use, occupational exposure, medical history, family history of cancer, and diet (details below in the Dietary Assessment). Additional information, including test results for HBV, HCV, HIV, and H. pylori (if any), was extracted from the medical records after the interview by the investigators.

Dietary assessment

A semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) was used to collect the average frequency of food intakes and portion sizes during the past 12 months for 85 food items commonly consumed by Vietnamese, based on the results of the dietary survey in general populations. The FFQ was first designed in 2003 and updated in 2017 based on the results of a survey asking to record food consumption in the past 24 h for three consecutive days in 158 households (n = 741 individuals) in 2003 and 298 households (n = 1327 individuals) in 2017. Food selection for the FFQ from a household survey made up to 90% of essential nutrients converted from the natural organic whole food used by the participating households26,30,31.

In the FFQ, study participants were asked how frequently they consumed the food and food group in 6 categories, ranging from “6–11 times/year”, “1–3 times/month”, “1–2 times/week”, “3–4 times/week”, “5–6 times/week”, and “1–3 times/day”, followed by a question on the amount of food consumed from three portion sizes (i.e., small, medium and large). The average daily intake of 95 nutrients and non-nutrient compounds, including selenium, was calculated for each participant using the Vietnamese Food Composition Database32. The FFQ was validated using two 24-h dietary recalls (24-HDRs) from October through December 2017, once every weekday and once every three consecutive other days, among 298 families (n = 1327 individuals). The Pearson correlation coefficients (R2) between the FFQ and 24-HDR ranged from 0.34 (for selenium) to 0.53 (for energy intake)30,33.

Assessment of other covariates

Other covariate information was collected using a structured questionnaire. Such information, which was also included in the multivariable logistic regression models, were age (i.e., 15–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, ≥ 70 years of age), sex (male vs. female), the highest education level (i.e., primary school, secondary school, high school or higher), BMI (kg/m2, including < 18.5, 18.5–< 23, 23–24.9, ≥ 25), alcohol consumption (i.e., never vs. ever), family history of cancer (i.e., yes vs. no), smoking status (i.e., ever vs. never), history of diabetes (i.e., yes vs. no), coffee drinking (i.e., yes vs. no), total energy intake (kcal/day, tertile), and four periods of data collection (i.e., 2003–2006, 2006–2007, 2008, and 2018–2019).

Statistical analysis

For continuous variables, means and standard deviations (SDs) were calculated, and for categorical variables, we computed counts and proportions. To compare the difference in distributions of continuous variables and categorical variables between cancer cases vs. control participants and across different levels of selenium intakes, we calculated the t-test and χ2 test, respectively.

We performed an unconditional logistic regression model to determine the association between selenium intake and risk of cancer by calculating odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) across different levels of dietary selenium intake compared with the reference group. Since there is no preconceived notification of the recommended or safe selenium intake for Vietnamese, mean selenium intake at 117.8 µg/day (range: 110.8–124.4 µg/day) was used as a reference group in the current analysis. Since the second and third quartiles were close to each other in the lower range than the mean level, we decided to collapse them into one category. Finally, there were eight categories of selenium intake used in our analysis, including 67.4 µg/day (range: 27.8–77.2 µg/day), 86.8 µg/day (range: 77.3–95.0 µg/day), and 103.1 µg/day (range: 95.1–110.7 µg/day) as lower intakes of selenium and 130.9 µg/day (124.5–137 µg/day), 143.8 µg/day (137.1–151 µg/day), 159.2 µg/day (151.1–169.0 µg/day), and 186.3 µg/day (169.1–331.7 µg/day) as higher intakes of selenium. To see a U-shape association between selenium intake and cancer risk, we used point estimates (ORs) and their respective CIs, which were not dependent on the P-value and were shown to have different limitations as reported prior34–37. We estimated P for trend (Ptrend) for the estimated quantiles below a reference group and the estimated quantiles above a reference group.

We further conducted stratified analysis by sex, BMI (< 23 kg/m2 vs. ≥ 23 kg/m2), smoking status (ever vs. never), and alcohol drinking status (ever vs. never). The linear trend for cancer risk with selenium intake was tested based on the ordinal values of the lower and upper of the mean intake. The interactions between selected factors, including sex, BMI kg/m2, smoking status, alcohol drinking status, and selenium intake, were determined by including product terms between selenium intake and these factors in the multivariable logistic regression models. For specific cancer sites, we analyzed for cancer of the stomach (ICD-10: C16, n = 1,182), colon cancer (ICD-10: C18, n = 567), rectal cancer (ICD-10: C20, n = 482), and lung (ICD-10: C34, n = 225). All other cancer sites were grouped into “other cancers.” All statistical analysis used the Stata statistical package (Version 14.0—StataCorp LP., College Station, TX). We used 0.05 as a level of statistical significance in the current analysis.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

We confirm that all methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations by two Institution Review Boards, including the Institution Review Board (IRB) approved the study protocol for Ethics in Biomedical Research—Hanoi Medical University (Approval number 3918/HMUIRB dated 25 December 2018 and by the ethics committees of the IRB-International University of Health and Welfare, Japan (Approval number 19-Ig-17) dated 27 May 2019. All participants provided written informed consent. Study participants completed a questionnaire survey that allowed investigators access to data from routine laboratory tests of H. pylori infection and hepatitis viral infection.

Participants were anonymous, and personal information was coded, which cannot identify participants. Each participant was coded with an ID. Data is saved into a USB stick memory with a password.

Results

Compared to cancer patients, controls were younger, had higher levels of education, higher BMI kg/m2, were less likely to be smokers or drinkers but more likely to be coffee drinkers, less likely to have a history of cancer, higher proportion of history of type 2 diabetes, more likely to be with blood groups AB and O, had lower total energy intake and higher levels of selenium intake (All P’s < 0.05). (Table 1). Compared to participants in the lowest intake of selenium (67.4 µg/day), participants in the highest level of selenium intake (188.3 µg/day) were younger, more likely to be male, had higher levels of education, more likely to have a history of cancer, lower BMI kg/m2, more likely to be smoker and coffee drinker but less likely to be alcohol drinker, had a higher proportion of history of type 2 diabetes, more likely to have blood groups of B and O, and had higher level of total energy intake (All P’s < 0.05) (Table 2).Table 1 Distribution of selected characteristics among study participants.

Characteristics	Controls (n = 2995)	Cancer cases (n = 3758)	P-value	
Age, (mean ± SD)	54.5 (± 12.2)	56.5 (± 11.9)	 < 0.001	
 15–29	80 (2.7)	75 (2.0)	 < 0.001	
 30–39	287 (9.6)	262 (7.0)		
 40–49	622 (20.8)	613 (16.3)		
 50–59	916 (30.6)	1189 (31.6)		
 60–69	781 (26.1)	1142 (30.4)		
 ≥ 70	309 (10.3)	477 (12.7)		
Sex	
 Men	1757 (58.7)	2267 (60.3)	0.167	
 Women	1238 (41.3)	1491 (39.7)		
Highest level of education	
 Primary school	442 (14.8)	705 (18.8)	 < 0.001	
 Secondary school	1322 (44.1)	1626 (43.3)		
 High school or higher	1231 (41.1)	1427 (38.0)		
History of cancer	
 No	2764 (92.3)	3416 (90.9)	0.042	
 Yes	231 (7.7)	342 (9.1)		
BMI, (mean ± SD)	21.3 (± 3.0)	20.1 (± 2.8)	 < 0.001	
 < 18.5	557 (18.6)	1348 (35.9)	 < 0.001	
 18.5–22.9	1630 (54.4)	1858 (49.4)		
 23.0–24.9	509 (17.0)	391 (10.4)		
 ≥ 25	299 (10.0)	161 (4.3)		
Smoking status	
 Never smoker	1822 (60.8)	2190 (58.3)	0.033	
 Ever smoker	1173 (39.2)	1568 (41.7)		
Alcohol consumption	
 Never drinker	1706 (57.0)	1969 (52.4)	 < 0.001	
 Ever drinker	1289 (43.0)	1789 (47.6)		
Coffee drinking status	
 Never drinker	2289 (76.4)	3110 (82.8)	 < 0.001	
 Ever drinker	706 (23.6)	648 (17.2)		
History of diabetes	
 Yes	524 (17.5)	447 (11.9)	 < 0.001	
 No	2471 (82.5)	3311 (88.1)		
Blood groupa	
 A	477 (20.8)	838 (30.0)	 < 0.001	
 B	111 (4.8)	172 (6.2)		
 AB	671 (29.2)	758 (27.1)		
 O	1037 (45.2)	1027 (36.7)		
Total energy intake (kcal/day, mean ± SD)	1703.6 (± 441.4)	1485.5 (± 506.8)	 < 0.001	
 Tertile 1	595 (19.9)	1664 (44.3)		
 Tertile 2	1172 (39.1)	1076 (28.6)		
 Tertile 3	1228 (41.0)	1018 (27.1)	 < 0.001	
Selenium intake (µg/day) (mean ± SD)	129 (± 34)	113.6 (± 38.6)	 < 0.001	
 67.4 (27.8–77.2) µg/day	152 (5.1)	599 (15.9)	 < 0.001	
 86.8 (77.3–95.0) µg/day	437 (14.6)	1063 (28.3)		
 103.1 (95.1–110.7) µg/day	345 (11.5)	409 (10.9)		
 117.8 (110.8–124.4) µg/day	424 (14.2)	324 (8.6)		
 130.9 (124.5–137.0) µg/day	435 (14.5)	314 (8.4)		
 143.8 (137.1–151.0) µg/day	419 (14.0)	332 (8.8)		
 159.2 (151.1–169.1) µg/day	405 (13.5)	345 (9.2)		
 188.3 (169.2–331.7) µg/day	378 (12.6)	372 (9.9)		
aBased on available data, SD is standard deviation, BMI is body Mass Index (Asian category).

Table 2 Distribution of selected characteristics among study participants according to mean levels of selenium intake.

Selenium intake, µg/day, mean	67.4 µg/day	86.8 µg/day	103.1 µg/day	117.8 µg/day	130.9 µg/day	143.8 µg/day	159.2 µg/day	188.3 µg/day	P-value	
Range (min–max), µg/day	27.8–77.2 µg/day	77.3–95.0 µg/day	95.1–110.7 µg/day	110.8–124.4 µg/day	124.5–137.0 µg/day	137.1–151.0 µg/day	151.1–169.0 µg/day	169.1–331.7 µg/day		
Control, n (%) a	152 (20.2)	437 (29.1)	345 (45.8)	424 (56.7)	435 (58.1)	419 (55.8)	405 (54.0)	378 (50.4)	 < 0.001	
Cancer, n (%)	599 (79.8)	1,063 (70.9)	409 (54.2)	324 (43.3)	314 (41.9)	332 (44.2)	345 (46.0)	372 (49.6)		
Age, mean(± SD)	57 (± 12)	56.1 (± 12.1)	56.6 (± 12.3)	57.4 (± 12.5)	56.4 (± 12)	55 (± 12)	53.9 (± 11)	52 (± 11.9)		
 15–29, n (%)	10 (1.3)	35 (2.3)	14 (1.9)	18 (2.4)	14 (1.9)	21 (2.8)	17 (2.3)	26 (3.5)	 < 0.001	
 30–39, n (%)	46 (6.1)	128 (8.5)	68 (9.9)	53 (7.1)	62 (8.3)	57 (7.6)	58 (7.7)	77 (10.3)		
 40–49, n (%)	126 (16.8)	236 (15.7)	111 (14.7)	110 (14.7)	122 (16.3)	154 (20.5)	172 (22.9)	204 (27.2)		
 50–59, n (%)	250 (33.3)	454 (30.3)	233 (30.9)	207 (27.7)	208 (27.8)	243 (32.4)	268 (35.7)	242 (32.3)		
 60–69, n (%)	213 (28.4)	467 (31.1)	228 (30.2)	241 (32.2)	246 (32.8)	190 (25.3)	185 (24.7)	153 (20.4)		
 ≥ 70, n (%)	106 (14.1)	180 (12.0)	100 (13.3)	119 (15.9)	97 (13.0)	86 (11.5)	50 (6.7)	48 (6.4)		
Sex	
 Men, n (%)	392 (52.2)	830 (55.3)	417 (55.3)	417 (55.7)	443 (59.1)	459 (61.1)	518 (69.1)	548 (73.1)	 < 0.001	
 Women, n (%)	359 (47.8)	670 (44.7)	337 (44.7)	331 (44.3)	306 (40.9)	292 (38.9)	232 (30.9)	202 (26.9)		
Highest level of education	
 Primary school, n (%)	209 (27.8)	211 (14.1)	138 (18.3)	127 (17.0)	113 (15.1)	119 (15.8)	106 (14.1)	124 (16.5)	 < 0.001	
 Secondary school, n (%)	322 (42.9)	605 (40.3)	327 (43.4)	326 (43.6)	337 (45.0)	326 (43.4)	348 (46.4)	357 (47.6)		
 High school or higher, n (%)	220 (29.3)	684 (45.6)	289 (38.3)	295 (39.4)	299 (39.9)	306 (40.7)	296 (39.5)	269 (35.9)		
History of cancer	
 No, n (%)	693 (92.3)	1,407 (93.8)	681 (90.3)	685 (91.6)	681 (90.9)	678 (90.3)	675 (90.0)	680 (90.7)	0.019	
 Yes, n (%)	58 (7.7)	93 (6.2)	73 (9.7)	63 (8.4)	68 (9.1)	73 (9.7)	75 (10.0)	70 (9.3)		
BMI, mean (SD)	21.1 (± 2.8)	20.6 (± 2.8)	21.0 (± 3.1)	20.9 (± 2.9)	20.5 (± 3.1)	20.4 (± 3.0)	20.6 (± 2.9)	20.5 (± 3.0)		
 < 18.5, n (%)	198 (26.4)	500 (33.3)	187 (24.8)	174 (23.3)	213 (28.4)	218 (29.0)	206 (27.5)	209 (27.9)	 < 0.001	
 18.5–22.9, n (%)	388 (51.7)	760 (50.7)	379 (50.3)	411 (54.9)	365 (48.7)	401 (53.4)	393 (52.4)	391 (52.1)		
 23.0–24.9, n (%)	116 (15.4)	150 (10.0)	118 (15.6)	112 (15.0)	125 (16.7)	81 (10.8)	96 (12.8)	102 (13.6)		
 ≥ 25, n (%)	49 (6.5)	90 (6.0)	70 (9.3)	51 (6.8)	46 (6.1)	51 (6.8)	55 (7.3)	48 (6.4)		
Smoking status	
 Never smoker, n (%)	470 (62.6)	955 (63.7)	457 (60.6)	451 (60.3)	452 (60.3)	448 (59.7)	388 (51.7)	391 (52.1)	 < 0.001	
 Ever smoker, n (%)	281 (37.4)	545 (36.3)	297 (39.4)	297 (39.7)	297 (39.7)	303 (40.3)	362 (48.3)	359 (47.9)		
Alcohol consumption	
 Never drinker, n (%)	342 (45.5)	843 (56.2)	458 (60.7)	440 (58.8)	428 (57.1)	407 (54.2)	364 (48.5)	393 (52.4)	 < 0.001	
 Ever drinker, n (%)	409 (54.5)	657 (43.8)	296 (39.3)	308 (41.2)	321 (42.9)	344 (45.8)	386 (51.5)	357 (47.6)		
Coffee drinking status	
 Never drinker, n (%)	649 (86.4)	1,279 (85.3)	632 (83.8)	609 (81.4)	578 (77.2)	571 (76.0)	535 (71.3)	546 (72.8)	 < 0.001	
 Ever drinker, n (%)	102 (13.6)	221 (14.7)	122 (16.2)	139 (18.6)	171 (22.8)	180 (24.0)	215 (28.7)	204 (27.2)		
History of diabetes	
 Yes, n (%)	69 (9.2)	103 (6.9)	55 (7.3)	79 (10.6)	137 (18.3)	152 (20.2)	180 (24.0)	196 (26.1)	 < 0.001	
 No, n (%)	682 (90.8)	1,397 (93.1)	699 (92.7)	669 (89.4)	612 (81.7)	599 (79.8)	570 (76.0)	554 (73.9)		
ABO blood groupb	
 A, n (%)	236 (37.8)	318 (28.7)	168 (27.5)	131 (21.7)	117 (20.7)	119 (21.7)	126 (23.7)	100 (20.1)	 < 0.001	
 AB, n (%)	44 (7.0)	63 (5.7)	30 (4.9)	29 (4.8)	34 (6.0)	25 (4.6)	31 (5.8)	27 (5.4)		
 B, n (%)	162 (25.9)	312 (28.1)	165 (27.0)	171 (28.4)	179 (31.6)	155 (28.3)	138 (25.9)	147 (29.6)		
 O, n (%)	183 (29.3)	416 (37.5)	248 (40.6)	272 (45.1)	236 (41.7)	249 (45.4)	237 (44.5)	223 (44.9)		
Total energy intake (kcal/day), mean (± SD)	950.5 (± 174.7)	1171.3 (± 210)	1407.4 (± 219.9)	1581 (± 259.6)	1714 (± 233.3)	1870.3 (± 232.9)	2030.5 (± 254.4)	2345.7 (± 332.5)		
 Tertile 1, n (%)	728 (96.9)	1,210 (80.7)	269 (35.7)	51 (6.8)	1 (0.1)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	 < 0.001	
 Tertile 2, n (%)	20 (2.7)	259 (17.3)	447 (59.3)	589 (78.7)	533 (71.2)	319 (42.5)	81 (10.8)	0 (0.0)		
 Tertile 3, n (%)	3 (0.4)	31 (2.1)	38 (5.0)	108 (14.4)	215 (28.7)	432 (57.5)	669 (89.2)	750 (100.0)		
an(column %), bBased on available data, SD is standard deviation, BMI is body Mass Index (Asian category), min is minimum, max is maximum.

A U-shaped association between selenium intake and cancer risk was observed in the current analysis. A safe intake ranged from 110.8 to 124.4 µg/day (mean 117.8 µg/day). Compared to individuals with the safe intake of selenium, individuals with the lowest intake (i.e., 27.8–77.2 µg/day) were associated with an increased risk of cancer (OR = 3.78, 95% CI 2.89–4.95), Ptrend < 0.001, and those with the highest intake (i.e., 169.1–331.7 µg/day) also had an increased cancer risk (OR = 1.86, 95% CI 1.45–2.39), Ptrend = 0.003. We observed a similar U-shaped pattern in both men and women (Table 3).Table 3 Association between selenium intake and risk of cancer overall and stratified by sex.

Selenium intake, µg/day, mean (min–max)	Overall	Men	Women	
Case	Control	OR (95% CI)a	Case	Control	OR (95% CI)a	Case	Control	OR (95% CI)a	
Ptrendb			 < 0.001			0.002			0.022	
67.4 (27.8–77.2) µg/day	599	152	3.78 (2.89, 4.95)	316	76	3.95 (2.73, 5.72)	283	76	3.10 (2.07, 4.66)	
86.8 (77.3–95.0) µg/day	1063	437	2.41 (1.94, 3.00)	609	221	2.73 (2.03, 3.66)	454	216	1.98 (1.42, 2.76)	
103.1 (95.1–110.7) µg/day	409	345	1.37 (1.10, 1.70)	235	182	1.42 (1.06, 1.89)	174	163	1.25 (0.90, 1.74)	
117.8 (110.8–124.4) µg/day	324	424	1.00	191	226	1.00	133	198	1.00	
130.9 (124.5–137.0) µg/day	314	435	1.01 (0.81, 1.25)	189	254	0.90 (0.68, 1.19)	125	181	1.23 (0.88, 1.72)	
143.8 (137.1–151.0) µg/day	332	419	1.24 (0.99, 1.55)	202	257	1.04 (0.78, 1.40)	130	162	1.63 (1.15, 2.31)	
159.2 (151.1–169.0) µg/day	345	405	1.50 (1.18, 1.91)	245	273	1.29 (0.95, 1.75)	100	132	1.91 (1.29, 2.85)	
188.3 (169.1–331.7) µg/day	372	378	1.86 (1.45, 2.39)	280	268	1.58 (1.15, 2.16)	92	110	2.30 (1.50, 3.52)	
Ptrendc			0.003			0.028			0.050	
Pheterogeneity						0.005			
Using an estimated mean intake of 117.8 µg/day (Range: 110.8–124.4 µg/day) as a Reference Group. Min is minimum; max is maximum, OR (95% CI): odds ratio (95% confidence interval).

aModel adjusted age groups (15–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, 70+), sex (if applicable), highest education level (primary, secondary, high school or higher), BMI (kg/m2, < 18.5, 18.5–< 23, 23–24.9, 25+), alcohol consumption (yes/no), family history of cancer (yes/no), smoking status (ever/never), history of diabetes (yes/no), coffee drinking (yes/no). and total energy intake (kcal/day, tertile), and four data collection periods.

bPtrend for estimates below mean intake (reference).

cPtrend for estimates above mean intake (reference).

In stratified analysis, a U-shaped pattern of association between selenium intake and cancer risk was stronger among participants with BMI < 23 kg/m2 and never smokers than BMI ≥ 23 kg/m2 and ever smokers (P’sheterogeneity = 0.003 and 0.021, respectively). A U-shaped association between selenium intake and increased risk of cancer was observed in both never and ever-drinkers of alcohol (Pheterogeneity < 0.001) (Table 4).Table 4 Association between selenium intake and risk of cancer, stratified by BMI, smoking status, and drinking status.

	Ptrend b	67.4 µg/day	86.8 µg/day	103.1 µg/day	117.8 µg/day	130.9 µg/day	143.8 µg/day	159.2 µg/day	188.3 µg/day	Ptrendc	Pinteraction	
Range (min–max), µg/day		27.8–77.2 µg/day	77.3–95.0 µg/day	95.1–110.7 µg/day	110.8–124.4 µg/day	124.5–137.0 µg/day	137.1–151.0 µg/day	151.1–169.0 µg/day	169.1–331.7 µg/day			
By BMI status	
 BMI < 23 kg/m2	
  Case (n = 2945)		430	808	311	261	256	281	280	318			
  Control (n = 2121)		97	303	232	303	313	315	297	261			
  OR (95% CI)a	 < 0.001	3.72 (2.71, 5.11)	2.44 (1.90, 3.14)	1.38 (1.08, 1.77)	1.00	1.03 (0.81, 1.30)	1.25 (0.97, 1.60)	1.48 (1.13, 1.95)	2.01 (1.51, 2.67)	 < 0.001		
 BMI ≥ 23 kg/m2											0.003	
  Case (n = 813)		169	255	98	63	58	51	65	54			
  Control (n = 874)		55	134	113	121	122	104	108	117			
  OR (95% CI)a	 < 0.001	3.63 (2.16, 6.11)	2.45 (1.58, 3.80)	1.45 (0.95, 2.23)	1.00	1.12 (0.71, 1.76)	1.35 (0.83, 2.21)	1.76 (1.06, 2.92)	1.61 (0.94, 2.74)	0.146		
By smoking status	
 Never smokers	
  Case (n = 2190)		373	675	227	177	182	198	176	182			
  Control (1822)		97	280	230	274	270	250	212	209			
  OR (95% CI)a	 < 0.001	3.72 (2.63, 5.27)	2.49 (1.88, 3.30)	1.26 (0.95, 1.67)	1.00	1.17 (0.89, 1.55)	1.59 (1.19, 2.13)	2.10 (1.52, 2.91)	2.49 (1.77, 3.49)	0.008	0.021	
 Ever smokers	
  Case (n = 1568)		226	388	182	147	132	134	169	190			
  Control (n = 1173)		55	157	115	150	165	169	193	169			
  OR (95% CI)a	 < 0.001	3.69 (2.39, 5.70)	2.27 (1.60, 3.22)	1.52 (1.08, 2.13)	1.00	0.79 (0.56, 1.11)	0.85 (0.59, 1.20)	0.95 (0.66, 1.37)	1.25 (0.86, 1.82)	0.089		
By alcohol drinking status	
 Never drinker	
  Case (n = 1969)		246	566	232	185	181	195	169	195			
  Control (n = 1706)		96	277	226	255	247	212	195	198			
  OR (95% CI)a	 < 0.001	2.71 (1.91, 3.85)	2.13 (1.61, 2.83)	1.24 (0.94, 1.64)	1.00	1.07 (0.81, 1.42)	1.48 (1.10, 1.99)	1.64 (1.18, 2.27)	1.95 (1.39, 2.74)	0.028	 < 0.001	
 Ever drinker	
  Case (n = 1789)		353	497	177	139	133	137	176	177			
  Control (n = 1289)		56	160	119	169	188	207	210	180			
  OR (95% CI) a	 < 0.001	4.99 (3.23, 7.71)	2.76 (1.95, 3.92)	1.57 (1.12, 2.21)	1.00	0.93 (0.67, 1.29)	1.01 (0.71, 1.42)	1.39 (0.97, 2.00)	1.75 (1.20, 2.54)	0.020		
Using an estimated mean intake of 117.8 µg/day (Range: 110.8–124.4 µg/day) as a Reference Group. Min is minimum; max is maximum, OR (95% CI): odds ratio (95% confidence interval).

a Model adjusted for age groups (15–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, 70+), sex (if applicable), highest education level (primary, secondary, high school or higher), BMI (kg/m2, < 18.5, 18.5–< 23, 23–24.9, 25+), alcohol consumption (yes/no), family history of cancer (yes/no), smoking status (ever/never), history of diabetes (yes/no), coffee drinking (yes/no). and total energy intake (kcal/day, tertile), and four data collection periods.

bPtrend for estimates below mean intake (Reference).

cPtrend for estimates above mean intake (Reference).

In an analysis of cancer-specific sites, a U-shaped association between selenium intake and cancer risk was seen in cancer sites of the stomach, colon, rectum, and lung cancers (Supplementary Table 1).

Discussion

The new findings were that we found a U-shaped association between selenium intake and cancer risk. A safe intake ranged from 110.8 to 124.4 µg/day. A similar U-shaped association was also seen among men and women, ever and never-smokers, BMI < 23 kg/m2 and BMI ≥ 23 kg/m2, ever and never drinkers, cancer sites of the stomach, colon, rectum, and lung cancers.

We observed a safe intake of the micronutrient selenium, which protects against cancer, at a narrow range of 110.8–124.4 µg/day. People who eat less than this safe intake level increase their cancer risk gradually as their intake level decreases. People who eat higher than this level also have a continuous increase in cancer risk with increasing selenium intake, and the increase has the most robust statistical significance at the highest selenium intake from 169.1 to 331.7 µg/day. A U-shaped pattern of association between selenium intake and cancer risk was stronger among participants with BMI < 23 kg/m2 and never smokers than among those with BMI ≥ 23 kg/m2 and ever smokers would be explained by the differed sample size. The number of cancer patients was 2945 (BMI < 23 kg/m2) versus 813 (BMI ≥ 23 kg/m2) and 2190 (never smokers) versus 1586 (ever smokers).

The Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for selenium is 55 μg/day for adults1,15. The other study also suggested that humans selenium intake levels of 60 μg/day to prevent type 2 diabetes38. This range from 55 to 60 μg/day is lower than a safe selenium intake in the present Vietnamese study population. The estimated lowest mean intake was 67.4 μg/day, ranging from 27.8 to 77.2 μg/day (The first quantile). Compared to individuals with the safe intake of selenium, individuals with the lowest mean intake were associated with an increased risk of cancer. A safe selenium intake might be associated with specific populations because the lowest quantile might be related to food deficiency of protein, amino acids, vitamins, minerals, and other essential micronutrients.

The present findings were consistent with previous studies. In a nested-case control study of 97 incident cancer cases and 184 controls in Poland, Narod et al.36 reported that individuals with serum selenium levels ≤ 70 µg/L (OR = 2.60, 95% CI 1.26, 5.35), 70.01–80 µg/L (OR = 1.13, 95% CI (0.59, 2.16), and > 90 µg/L (OR = 1.63, 95% CI 0.63, 4.19), compared to those with serum selenium level at 80.01–90 µg/L were suggestively increased risk of cancer; a similar U-shaped association to ours. Serum selenium concentration showed a U-shaped association with all-cause mortality, including cancer37.

A comprehensive review from the Cochrane Library on randomized clinical trials showed no protective effect of selenium against different types of cancers, including colorectal cancer, breast cancer, non‐melanoma skin cancer, bladder cancer, and lung cancer24. These findings might be limited because there was no data on a safe intake.

Different animal models have shown that selenium protects against cancer through various mechanisms, including effects on DNA stability, cell proliferation, necrosis, and apoptosis in both normal and malignant cells, as well as immune system and oxidative stress regulation39,40. However, other studies also reported that selenium might promote cancer cell transformation and progression41–43. For instance, in an experimental study by Chen et al.43 showed that vitamin E supplementation inhibited carcinogenesis through antioxidative properties. At the same time, a high dose of inorganic selenium might promote carcinogenesis by enhancing oxidative stress. This evidence of beneficial protection against cancer and cancer risk related to selenium intake might be explained by a U-sharp association in the present study. Prior studies showed that the primary sources of selenium are trace elements in crops, seafood, fish, animal products, or supplements7,8. Our study's primary sources of dietary selenium are rice and rice noodles, fish, pork, poultry, tofu, soy products, eggs, white radish, and cabbage (data not shown).

The current study has several limitations. Information bias and recall bias can be present in the case–control study design, mainly when participants had to place food they consumed 12 months before cancer diagnosis. However, our validation study of the FFQ showed that the Pearson correlation coefficients (R2) between the FFQ and 24-HDR ranged from 0.34 (for selenium) to 0.53 (for energy intake)30,33. Cancer patients might have changed their dietary habits during pre-clinical onset, leading to underestimating the association between selenium intake and cancer risk, an effect of latent disease in modifying metabolism (absorption, metabolism, and catabolism) of trace elements and their circulating levels, including selenium. A cautious interpretation of this association is thus warranted. Also, our findings might not be applied to the general population because cancer cases and control subjects were recruited in a hospital-based setting. Another concern is that our study exclusively focused on dietary selenium intake. However, previous studies found a moderate correlation between dietary intake of selenium, obtained from self-reported consumption of supplements, FFQ or nutritional records, and selenium levels in peripheral biomarkers, including blood, toenails, and hair44–47. Lastly, residual confounding might exist due to unmeasured confounding factors that could not be considered in the multivariable regression models. This study includes fewer controls than cases for the entire study population, which is another limitation of the study. However, by specific cancer sites of the stomach, colon, rectum, and lung cancers, the findings are consistent with the overall results.

Our study has several strengths. This study used data from a case–control design with a large sample size. From our household survey, we selected foods for FFQ that provided more than 90% of essential micronutrients, including selenium. All cancer cases were newly diagnosed patients with pathologic confirmed at the four leading tertiary hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam. Also, a structured questionnaire allowed us to collect important information that could be used in the multivariable models to adjust for confounding factors.

In summary, a large case–control study in Vietnam found a U-shaped association between selenium intake and cancer risk. We observed a safe intake ranging from 110.8 to 124.4 µg/day. Further studies are warranted to replicate our findings in other populations to provide a comprehensive understanding of the role of selenium in cancer development.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Table 1.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-024-66553-5.

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the staff members of Hanoi Medical University Hospital, Bach Mai, Viet Duc, and National Cancer Hospitals for their valuable support in conducting the study. We sincerely thank patients and their family members for participating in the present research and providing information on their dietary habits and lifestyles.

Author contributions

All authors reviewed the manuscript and contributed revisions. N.T.L., Y.T.H.P., and H.N.L. were mainly responsible for drafting, revision, and analysis. N.T.L., L.T.L., and H.V.D. were principally responsible for data collection. N.T.L., Y.T.H.P., and H.N.L. extracted data and were mainly responsible for managing and analyzing data. Major manuscript writing contributors were N.T.L., Y.T.H.P., C.T.K.L., L.T.L., T.D.L., H.V.D., T.H.H., S.V.K., and H.N.L. All authors approved the version for publication.

Funding

Y.T-H. P. is supported by the NIH T32CA186873 (PI: J-M Yuan) training grant in cancer epidemiology and prevention. HN Luu is partially supported by the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hillman Cancer Center start-up grant. The study was partly supported by Duy Tan University and Hanoi Medical University (NTL). N.T.L was the PI for The Grant Agreement No.: 18/FIRST/1a/HMU, Under the Project: “Fostering Innovation through Research, Science, and Technology,” during 2017–2019; Viet Nam Ministry of Science and Technology. This work has also been supported by a UICC 2013 American Cancer Society Beginning Investigators Fellowship funded by the American Cancer Society, a UICC 2015 Yamagiwa -Yoshida Memorial International Cancer Study Grant, and a UICC technical fellowship 2023 to Ngoan Tran Le.

Data availability

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Zwolak I Zaporowska H Selenium interactions and toxicity: A review Cell Biol. Toxicol. 2012 28 31 46 10.1007/s10565-011-9203-9 21913064
Zwolak, I. & Zaporowska, H. Selenium interactions and toxicity: A review. Cell Biol. Toxicol. 28, 31–46 (2012).21913064 10.1007/s10565-011-9203-9
2. Rayman MP Infante HG Sargent M Food-chain selenium and human health: Spotlight on speciation Br. J. Nutr. 2008 100 238 253 10.1017/S0007114508922522 18346307
Rayman, M. P., Infante, H. G. & Sargent, M. Food-chain selenium and human health: Spotlight on speciation. Br. J. Nutr. 100, 238–253 (2008).18346307 10.1017/S0007114508922522
3. Ha HY Alfulaij N Berry MJ Seale LA From selenium absorption to selenoprotein degradation Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2019 192 26 37 10.1007/s12011-019-01771-x 31222623
Ha, H. Y., Alfulaij, N., Berry, M. J. & Seale, L. A. From selenium absorption to selenoprotein degradation. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 192, 26–37 (2019).31222623 10.1007/s12011-019-01771-x
4. Hill KE Zhou J McMahan WJ Motley AK Atkins JF Gesteland RF Burk RF Deletion of selenoprotein P alters distribution of selenium in the mouse J. Biol. Chem. 2003 278 13640 13646 10.1074/jbc.M300755200 12574155
Hill, K. E. et al. Deletion of selenoprotein P alters distribution of selenium in the mouse. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 13640–13646 (2003).12574155 10.1074/jbc.M300755200
5. Weiss Sachdev S Sunde RA Selenium regulation of transcript abundance and translational efficiency of glutathione peroxidase-1 and -4 in rat liver Biochem. J. 2001 357 851 858 10.1042/bj3570851 11463357
Weiss Sachdev, S. & Sunde, R. A. Selenium regulation of transcript abundance and translational efficiency of glutathione peroxidase-1 and -4 in rat liver. Biochem. J. 357, 851–858 (2001).11463357 10.1042/bj3570851
6. Kieliszek M Selenium fascinating microelement, properties and sources in food Molecules 2019 24 1298 10.3390/molecules24071298 30987088
Kieliszek, M. Selenium fascinating microelement, properties and sources in food. Molecules 24, 1298 (2019).30987088 10.3390/molecules24071298
7. Hurst R Siyame EWP Young SD Chilimba ADC Joy EJM Black CR Ander EL Watts MJ Chilima B Gondwe J Kang’ombe D Stein AJ Soil-type influences human selenium status and underlies widespread selenium deficiency risks in Malawi Sci. Rep. 2013 3 1425 10.1038/srep01425 23478344
Hurst, R. et al. Soil-type influences human selenium status and underlies widespread selenium deficiency risks in Malawi. Sci. Rep. 3, 1425 (2013).23478344 10.1038/srep01425
8. Vinceti M Filippini T Cilloni S Bargellini A Vergoni AV Tsatsakis A Ferrante M Health risk assessment of environmental selenium: Emerging evidence and challenges (Review) Mol. Med. Rep 2017 15 3323 3335 10.3892/mmr.2017.6377 28339083
Vinceti, M. et al. Health risk assessment of environmental selenium: Emerging evidence and challenges (Review). Mol. Med. Rep 15, 3323–3335 (2017).28339083 10.3892/mmr.2017.6377
9. Drake EN Cancer chemoprevention: Selenium as a prooxidant, not an antioxidant Med. Hypotheses 2006 67 318 322 10.1016/j.mehy.2006.01.058 16574336
Drake, E. N. Cancer chemoprevention: Selenium as a prooxidant, not an antioxidant. Med. Hypotheses 67, 318–322 (2006).16574336 10.1016/j.mehy.2006.01.058
10. Burk RF Norsworthy BK Hill KE Motley AK Byrne DW Effects of chemical form of selenium on plasma biomarkers in a high-dose human supplementation trial Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2006 15 804 810 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0950 16614127
Burk, R. F., Norsworthy, B. K., Hill, K. E., Motley, A. K. & Byrne, D. W. Effects of chemical form of selenium on plasma biomarkers in a high-dose human supplementation trial. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 15, 804–810 (2006).16614127 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0950
11. Jablonska E Gromadzinska J Peplonska B Fendler W Reszka E Krol MB Wieczorek E Bukowska A Gresner P Galicki M Zambrano Quispe O Morawiec Z Lipid peroxidation and glutathione peroxidase activity relationship in breast cancer depends on functional polymorphism of GPX1 BMC Cancer 2015 15 657 10.1186/s12885-015-1680-4 26446998
Jablonska, E. et al. Lipid peroxidation and glutathione peroxidase activity relationship in breast cancer depends on functional polymorphism of GPX1. BMC Cancer 15, 657 (2015).26446998 10.1186/s12885-015-1680-4
12. Fan AM Kizer KW Selenium. Nutritional, toxicologic, and clinical aspects West J. Med. 1990 153 160 167 2219873
Fan, A. M. & Kizer, K. W. Selenium. Nutritional, toxicologic, and clinical aspects. West J. Med. 153, 160–167 (1990).2219873
13. MacFarquhar JK Broussard DL Melstrom P Hutchinson R Wolkin A Martin C Burk RF Dunn JR Green AL Hammond R Schaffner W Jones TF Acute selenium toxicity associated with a dietary supplement Arch. Intern. Med. 2010 170 256 261 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.495 20142570
MacFarquhar, J. K. et al. Acute selenium toxicity associated with a dietary supplement. Arch. Intern. Med. 170, 256–261 (2010).20142570 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.495
14. Sauberlich HE Dowdy RP Skala JH Laboratory tests for the assessment of nutritional status CRC Crit. Rev. Clin. Lab. Sci. 1973 4 215 340 4217238
Sauberlich, H. E., Dowdy, R. P. & Skala, J. H. Laboratory tests for the assessment of nutritional status. CRC Crit. Rev. Clin. Lab. Sci. 4, 215–340 (1973).4217238
15. Dodig S Cepelak I The facts and controversies about selenium Acta Pharm. 2004 54 261 276 15634611
Dodig, S. & Cepelak, I. The facts and controversies about selenium. Acta Pharm. 54, 261–276 (2004).15634611
16. Office of Dietary Supplements - Selenium. (Accessed 26 Sep 2023) https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Selenium-HealthProfessional/.
17. World Health Organization-WHO. Cancer Fact Sheet - 2022. (Accessed 30 Sep 2023) https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer.
18. Vinceti M Maraldi T Bergomi M Malagoli C Risk of chronic low-dose selenium overexposure in humans: Insights from epidemiology and biochemistry Rev. Environ. Health 2009 24 231 248 10.1515/REVEH.2009.24.3.231 19891121
Vinceti, M., Maraldi, T., Bergomi, M. & Malagoli, C. Risk of chronic low-dose selenium overexposure in humans: Insights from epidemiology and biochemistry. Rev. Environ. Health 24, 231–248 (2009).19891121 10.1515/REVEH.2009.24.3.231
19. Vinceti M Wei ET Malagoli C Bergomi M Vivoli G Adverse health effects of selenium in humans Rev. Environ. Health 2001 16 233 251 10.1515/REVEH.2001.16.4.233 12041880
Vinceti, M., Wei, E. T., Malagoli, C., Bergomi, M. & Vivoli, G. Adverse health effects of selenium in humans. Rev. Environ. Health 16, 233–251 (2001).12041880 10.1515/REVEH.2001.16.4.233
20. Mandrioli J Michalke B Solovyev N Grill P Violi F Lunetta C Conte A Sansone VA Sabatelli M Vinceti M Elevated levels of selenium species in cerebrospinal fluid of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients with disease-associated gene mutations Neurodegener. Dis. 2017 17 171 180 10.1159/000460253 28478440
Mandrioli, J. et al. Elevated levels of selenium species in cerebrospinal fluid of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients with disease-associated gene mutations. Neurodegener. Dis. 17, 171–180 (2017).28478440 10.1159/000460253
21. EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA)Turck D Bohn T Castenmiller J de Henauw S Hirsch-Ernst K-I Knutsen HK Maciuk A Mangelsdorf I McArdle HJ Peláez C Pentieva K Scientific opinion on the tolerable upper intake level for selenium EFSA J. 2023 21 e07704 36698500
EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) et al. Scientific opinion on the tolerable upper intake level for selenium. EFSA J. 21, e07704 (2023).36698500
22. Yang G Zhou R Further observations on the human maximum safe dietary selenium intake in a seleniferous area of China J. Trace Elem. Electrolytes Health Dis. 1994 8 159 165 7599506
Yang, G. & Zhou, R. Further observations on the human maximum safe dietary selenium intake in a seleniferous area of China. J. Trace Elem. Electrolytes Health Dis. 8, 159–165 (1994).7599506
23. Yang G Yin S Zhou R Gu L Yan B Liu Y Liu Y Studies of safe maximal daily dietary Se-intake in a seleniferous area in China. Part II: Relation between Se-intake and the manifestation of clinical signs and certain biochemical alterations in blood and urine J. Trace Elem. Electrolytes Health Dis. 1989 3 123 130 2535331
Yang, G. et al. Studies of safe maximal daily dietary Se-intake in a seleniferous area in China. Part II: Relation between Se-intake and the manifestation of clinical signs and certain biochemical alterations in blood and urine. J. Trace Elem. Electrolytes Health Dis. 3, 123–130 (1989).2535331
24. Vinceti M Filippini T Del Giovane C Dennert G Zwahlen M Brinkman M Zeegers MP Horneber M D’Amico R Crespi CM Selenium for preventing cancer Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018 2018 CD005195
Vinceti, M. et al. Selenium for preventing cancer. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018, CD005195 (2018).
25. Ko K-P Yeo Y Yoon J-H Kim C-S Tokudome S Ngoan LT Koriyama C Lim Y-K Chang S-H Shin H-R Kang D Park SK Plasma phytoestrogens concentration and risk of colorectal cancer in two different Asian populations Clin. Nutr. 2018 37 1675 1682 10.1016/j.clnu.2017.07.014 28778370
Ko, K.-P. et al. Plasma phytoestrogens concentration and risk of colorectal cancer in two different Asian populations. Clin. Nutr. 37, 1675–1682 (2018).28778370 10.1016/j.clnu.2017.07.014
26. Tran HH Sengngam K Pham PV Le NT Case-control study of alcohol usage and fruit intake and stomach cancer in North Viet Nam Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2021 22 2903 2908 10.31557/APJCP.2021.22.9.2903 34582660
Tran, H. H., Sengngam, K., Pham, P. V. & Le, N. T. Case-control study of alcohol usage and fruit intake and stomach cancer in North Viet Nam. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 22, 2903–2908 (2021).34582660 10.31557/APJCP.2021.22.9.2903
27. Sengngam K Hoc TH Hang DV Tran NL Trans-lycopene and β-cryptoxanthin intake and stomach cancer in Vietnamese men: A pilot case-control study Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2022 23 861 865 10.31557/APJCP.2022.23.3.861 35345357
Sengngam, K., Hoc, T. H., Hang, D. V. & Tran, N. L. Trans-lycopene and β-cryptoxanthin intake and stomach cancer in Vietnamese men: A pilot case-control study. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 23, 861–865 (2022).35345357 10.31557/APJCP.2022.23.3.861
28. Nguyen MT Huynh NNY Nguyen DD Ta NH Van Nguyen T Dang HT Le NT Vitamin D intake and gastric cancer in Viet Nam: A case-control study BMC Cancer 2022 22 838 10.1186/s12885-022-09933-2 35915393
Nguyen, M. T. et al. Vitamin D intake and gastric cancer in Viet Nam: A case-control study. BMC Cancer 22, 838 (2022).35915393 10.1186/s12885-022-09933-2
29. Nguyen TG Truong DTT Le PH Kim Vo TC Ikeda S Tran LN Calcium intake contributed by whole foods and gastric cancer in Viet Nam: A case-control study Nutr. Cancer 2023 75 1243 1253 10.1080/01635581.2023.2187721 36927374
Nguyen, T. G. et al. Calcium intake contributed by whole foods and gastric cancer in Viet Nam: A case-control study. Nutr. Cancer 75, 1243–1253 (2023).36927374 10.1080/01635581.2023.2187721
30. Le NT Le HX Pham PV Nguyen DQ Tran HH Pham OT Nguyen BT Dinh MT Nguyen HT Pham PT Trinh HT Lam CV Reproducibility of a designed semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire in general populations in North Vietnam Southeast Asia J. Sci. 2018 6 188 197
Le, N. T. et al. Reproducibility of a designed semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire in general populations in North Vietnam. Southeast Asia J. Sci. 6, 188–197 (2018).
31. Nguyen CL Sengngam K Hoc TH Le PH Hang LTM Dao HV Tran NL Waterpipe tobacco smoking and risk of stomach cancer: A case-control study in Vietnamese men Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2022 23 1587 1593 10.31557/APJCP.2022.23.5.1587 35633542
Nguyen, C. L. et al. Waterpipe tobacco smoking and risk of stomach cancer: A case-control study in Vietnamese men. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 23, 1587–1593 (2022).35633542 10.31557/APJCP.2022.23.5.1587
32. Nguyen, K. C. et al. Vietnamese Food Composition Table. (2007) https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/food_composition/documents/pdf/VTN_FCT_2007.pdf.
33. Dao LV Tran HH Tran DT Dinh MT Le NT Development of a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire based on a household nutritional survey in communities in North Viet Nam Biomed. J. Sci. Tech. Res. 2022 40 32561 32569
Dao, L. V., Tran, H. H., Tran, D. T., Dinh, M. T. & Le, N. T. Development of a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire based on a household nutritional survey in communities in North Viet Nam. Biomed. J. Sci. Tech. Res. 40, 32561–32569 (2022).
34. Greenland S Senn SJ Rothman KJ Carlin JB Poole C Goodman SN Altman DG Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: A guide to misinterpretations Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2016 31 337 350 10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3 27209009
Greenland, S. et al. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: A guide to misinterpretations. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 31, 337–350 (2016).27209009 10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3
35. Ciapponi A Belizán JM Piaggio G Yaya S There is life beyond the statistical significance Reprod. Health 2021 18 80 10.1186/s12978-021-01131-w 33865412
Ciapponi, A., Belizán, J. M., Piaggio, G. & Yaya, S. There is life beyond the statistical significance. Reprod. Health 18, 80 (2021).33865412 10.1186/s12978-021-01131-w
36. Narod SA Huzarski T Jakubowska A Gronwald J Cybulski C Oszurek O Dębniak T Jaworska-Bieniek K Lener M Białkowska K Sukiennicki G Muszyńska M Serum selenium level and cancer risk: A nested case-control study Hered. Cancer Clin. Pract. 2019 17 33 10.1186/s13053-019-0131-7 31890061
Narod, S. A. et al. Serum selenium level and cancer risk: A nested case-control study. Hered. Cancer Clin. Pract. 17, 33 (2019).31890061 10.1186/s13053-019-0131-7
37. Tan Q-H Huang Y-Q Liu X-C Liu L Lo K Chen J-Y Feng Y-Q A U-shaped relationship between selenium concentrations and all-cause or cardiovascular mortality in patients with hypertension Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2021 8 671618 10.3389/fcvm.2021.671618 34395551
Tan, Q.-H. et al. A U-shaped relationship between selenium concentrations and all-cause or cardiovascular mortality in patients with hypertension. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 8, 671618 (2021).34395551 10.3389/fcvm.2021.671618
38. Vinceti M Filippini T Jablonska E Saito Y Wise LA Safety of selenium exposure and limitations of selenoprotein maximization: Molecular and epidemiologic perspectives Environ. Res. 2022 211 113092 10.1016/j.envres.2022.113092 35259406
Vinceti, M., Filippini, T., Jablonska, E., Saito, Y. & Wise, L. A. Safety of selenium exposure and limitations of selenoprotein maximization: Molecular and epidemiologic perspectives. Environ. Res. 211, 113092 (2022).35259406 10.1016/j.envres.2022.113092
39. Fernandes AP Gandin V Selenium compounds as therapeutic agents in cancer Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2015 1850 1642 1660 10.1016/j.bbagen.2014.10.008 25459512
Fernandes, A. P. & Gandin, V. Selenium compounds as therapeutic agents in cancer. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1850, 1642–1660 (2015).25459512 10.1016/j.bbagen.2014.10.008
40. Misra S Boylan M Selvam A Spallholz JE Björnstedt M Redox-active selenium compounds—from toxicity and cell death to cancer treatment Nutrients 2015 7 3536 3556 10.3390/nu7053536 25984742
Misra, S., Boylan, M., Selvam, A., Spallholz, J. E. & Björnstedt, M. Redox-active selenium compounds—from toxicity and cell death to cancer treatment. Nutrients 7, 3536–3556 (2015).25984742 10.3390/nu7053536
41. Kasaikina MV Turanov AA Avanesov A Schweizer U Seeher S Bronson RT Novoselov SN Carlson BA Hatfield DL Gladyshev VN Contrasting roles of dietary selenium and selenoproteins in chemically induced hepatocarcinogenesis Carcinogenesis 2013 34 1089 1095 10.1093/carcin/bgt011 23389288
Kasaikina, M. V. et al. Contrasting roles of dietary selenium and selenoproteins in chemically induced hepatocarcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis 34, 1089–1095 (2013).23389288 10.1093/carcin/bgt011
42. Harsha HC Kandasamy K Ranganathan P Rani S Ramabadran S Gollapudi S Balakrishnan L Dwivedi SB Telikicherla D Selvan LDN Goel R Mathivanan S A compendium of potential biomarkers of pancreatic cancer PLoS Med. 2009 6 e1000046 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000046 19360088
Harsha, H. C. et al. A compendium of potential biomarkers of pancreatic cancer. PLoS Med. 6, e1000046 (2009).19360088 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000046
43. Chen X Mikhail SS Ding YW Yang GY Bondoc F Yang CS Effects of vitamin E and selenium supplementation on esophageal adenocarcinogenesis in a surgical model with rats Carcinogenesis 2000 21 1531 1536 10.1093/carcin/21.8.1531 10910955
Chen, X. et al. Effects of vitamin E and selenium supplementation on esophageal adenocarcinogenesis in a surgical model with rats. Carcinogenesis 21, 1531–1536 (2000).10910955 10.1093/carcin/21.8.1531
44. Hurst R Collings R Harvey LJ King M Hooper L Bouwman J Gurinovic M Fairweather-Tait SJ EURRECA—estimating selenium requirements for deriving dietary reference values Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2013 53 1077 1096 10.1080/10408398.2012.742861 23952089
Hurst, R. et al. EURRECA—estimating selenium requirements for deriving dietary reference values. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 53, 1077–1096 (2013).23952089 10.1080/10408398.2012.742861
45. Longnecker MP Stram DO Taylor PR Levander OA Howe M Veillon C McAdam PA Patterson KY Holden JM Morris JS Swanson CA Willett WC Use of selenium concentration in whole blood, serum, toenails, or urine as a surrogate measure of selenium intake Epidemiology 1996 7 384 390 10.1097/00001648-199607000-00008 8793364
Longnecker, M. P. et al. Use of selenium concentration in whole blood, serum, toenails, or urine as a surrogate measure of selenium intake. Epidemiology 7, 384–390 (1996).8793364 10.1097/00001648-199607000-00008
46. Ovaskainen ML Virtamo J Alfthan G Haukka J Pietinen P Taylor PR Huttunen JK Toenail selenium as an indicator of selenium intake among middle-aged men in an area with low soil selenium Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1993 57 662 665 10.1093/ajcn/57.5.662 8480683
Ovaskainen, M. L. et al. Toenail selenium as an indicator of selenium intake among middle-aged men in an area with low soil selenium. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 57, 662–665 (1993).8480683 10.1093/ajcn/57.5.662
47. Pestitschek M Sonneck-Koenne C Zakavi SR Li S Knoll P Mirzaei S Selenium intake and selenium blood levels: A novel food frequency questionnaire Wien Klin Wochenschr 2013 125 160 164 10.1007/s00508-013-0334-2 23508871
Pestitschek, M. et al. Selenium intake and selenium blood levels: A novel food frequency questionnaire. Wien Klin Wochenschr 125, 160–164 (2013).23508871 10.1007/s00508-013-0334-2
