Red and processed meat intake and risk of colorectal adenomas: A meta-analysis of observational studies

Meat consumption and risk of oral cavity and oropharynx cancer: a meta-analysis of observational studies

PURPOSE

High meat consumption, especially red and processed meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of several cancers, however, evidence for oral cavity and oropharynx cancer is limited. Thus, we performed this meta-analysis to determine the association between intakes of total meat, processed meat, red meat, and white meat, and the risk of oral cavity and oropharynx cancer.

METHODS

Electronic search of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library Central database was conducted to select relevant studies. Fixed-effect and random-effect models were used to estimate summary relative risks (RR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Potential sources of heterogeneity were detected by meta-regression. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analysis were also performed.

RESULTS

12 case-control studies and one cohort study were included in the analyses, including 501,730 subjects and 4,104 oral cavity and oropharynx cancer cases. Pooled results indicated that high consumption of total meat, red meat, and white meat were not significantly associated with increased risk of oral cavity and oropharynx cancer (RR = 1.14, 95% CI[0.78-1.68]; RR = 1.05, 95% CI[0.66, 1.66] and RR = 0.81, 95% CI[0.54, 1.22], respectively), while the high consumption of processed meat was significantly associated with a 91% increased risk of oral cavity and oropharynx cancer (RR = 1.91, 95% CI [1.19-3.06]). Sensitivity analysis indicated that no significant variation in combined RR by excluding any of the study, confirming the stability of present results.

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis suggested that high consumption of processed meat was significantly associated with an increased risk of oral cavity and oropharynx cancer, while there was no significantly association between total meat, red meat or white meat and the risk of oral cavity and oropharynx cancer. More prospective cohort studies are warranted to confirm these associations.

Fish intake and ovarian cancer risk: a meta-analysis of 15 case-control and cohort studies

Background

Previous epidemiological studies have shown that fish consumption may modify the risk of ovarian cancer. However, these studies yielded controversial results. The present meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate the relationship between fish intake and ovarian cancer risk.

Methods

A literature search was carried out using Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library Central database for all relevant studies up to August 2013. We pooled the relative risks (RR) from individual studies using fixed-effect or random-effect model, and carried out heterogeneity and publication bias analyses.

Results

A total of 15 (ten case–control, and five cohort) studies were included in the present meta-analysis, representing data for 889,033 female subjects and 6,087 ovarian cancer cases. We found that total fish intake was not significantly associated with the risk of ovarian cancer among cohort studies (RR = 1.04 95% CI [0.89, 1.22]) as well as case–control studies (RR = 0.90, 95% CI [0.73,1.12]). There was no evidence of publication bias as suggested by Begg's test (P = 0.55) and Egger's test(P = 0.29).

Conclusions

The present meta-analysis showed that total fish consumption was not significantly associated with the risk of ovarian cancer. Further analysis on different fish species and food preparation methods should be conducted in future studies.

Adherence to Mediterranean diet and risk of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

The aim of this research study was to meta-analyze the effects of adherence to Mediterranean diet (MD) on overall cancer risk, and different cancer types. Literature search was performed using the electronic databases MEDLINE, SCOPUS and EMBASE until January 10, 2014. Inclusion criteria were cohort or case-control studies. Study specific risk ratios (RRs) were pooled using a random effect model by the Cochrane software package Review Manager 5.2. Twenty-one cohort studies including 1,368,736 subjects and 12 case-control studies with 62,725 subjects met the objectives and were enclosed for meta-analyses. The highest adherence to MD category resulted in a significantly risk reduction for overall cancer mortality/incidence (cohort; RR: 0.90, 95% CI 0.86-0.95, p < 0.0001; I(2) = 55%), colorectal (cohort/case-control; RR: 0.86, 95% CI 0.80-0.93, p < 0.0001; I(2) = 62%], prostate (cohort/case-control; RR: 0.96, 95% CI 0.92-0.99, p = 0.03; I(2) = 0%) and aerodigestive cancer (cohort/case-control; RR: 0.44, 95% CI 0.26-0.77, p = 0.003; I(2) = 83%). Nonsignificant changes could be observed for breast cancer, gastric cancer and pancreatic cancer. The Egger regression tests provided limited evidence of substantial publication bias. High adherence to a MD is associated with a significant reduction in the risk of overall cancer mortality (10%), colorectal cancer (14%), prostate cancer (4%) and aerodigestive cancer (56%).

Meat consumption is associated with esophageal cancer risk in a meat- and cancer-histological-type dependent manner

BACKGROUND

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of meat intake and esophageal cancer risk, with subgroup analyses based on meat type and histological type of cancer.

AIMS

The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between meat intake and risk of esophageal cancer.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library (April 2013) for cohort and case-control studies that assessed meat intake and esophageal cancer risk. Random-effect or fixed-effect models were used to pool relative risks (RRs) from individual studies with heterogeneity and publication bias analyses carried out. Seven cohort and 28 case-control studies were included.

RESULTS

The summary RRs for esophageal cancer for the highest versus lowest consumption categories were 1.19 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.98-1.46) for total meat, 1.55 (95 % CI 1.22-1.96) for red meat, 1.33 (95 % CI 1.04-1.69) for processed meat, 0.72 (95 % CI 0.60-0.86) for white meat, 0.83 (95 % CI 0.72-0.96) for poultry, and 0.95 (95 % CI 0.76-1.19) for fish. When striated by histological subtype, positive associations were seen among esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and red meat, white meat and poultry, and esophageal adenocarcinoma with total meat and processed meat.

CONCLUSIONS

Meat consumption is associated with esophageal cancer risk, which depends on meat type and histological type of esophageal cancer. High intake of red meat and low intake of poultry are associated with an increased risk of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. High meat intake, especially processed meat, is likely to increase esophageal adenocarcinoma risk. And fish consumption may not be associated with incidence of esophageal cancer.

Prospective investigation of body mass index, colorectal adenoma, and colorectal cancer in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial

PURPOSE

Obesity has consistently been linked to an increased risk of colorectal cancer, particularly among men. Whether body mass index (BMI) differentially influences the risk across the stages of colorectal cancer development remains unclear. We evaluated the associations of BMI with colorectal adenoma incidence, adenoma recurrence, and cancer in the context of a large screening trial, in which cases and controls had an equal chance for disease detection.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated the association between baseline BMI and the risk of incident distal adenoma (1,213 cases), recurrent adenoma (752 cases), and incident colorectal cancer (966 cases) among men and women, ages 55 to 74 years, randomly assigned to receive flexible sigmoidoscopy screening as part of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for adenoma incidence and recurrence, and hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for colorectal cancer incidence, using multivariable-adjusted models.

RESULTS

Compared with normal-weight men (18.5 to 24.9 kg/m(2)), obese men (≥ 30 kg/m(2)) had significantly higher risk of incident adenoma (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.65) and colorectal cancer (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.89) and a borderline increased risk of recurrent adenoma (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.98 to 2.30). No associations were observed for either adenoma or cancer in women.

CONCLUSION

Data from this large prospective study suggest that obesity is important throughout the natural history of colorectal cancer, at least in men, and colorectal cancer prevention efforts should encourage the achievement and maintenance of a healthy body weight in addition to regular screenings.

Differential response of flat and polypoid colitis-associated colorectal neoplasias to chemopreventive agents and heterocyclic amines

Individuals with ulcerative colitis face an increased risk of developing colorectal cancer and would benefit from early chemopreventive intervention. Results from preclinical studies in the mouse model of dextran sulfate sodium-induced colitis demonstrate that flat and polypoid colitis-associated dysplasias arise via distinct genetic pathways, impacted by the allelic status of p53. Furthermore, flat and polypoid dysplasias vary in their response to induction by the heterocyclic amine 2-amino-3-methylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline (IQ) and inhibition by 5-aminosalicylic acid, a common therapy for the maintenance of colitis patients. These data suggest that use of combination therapy is essential for the optimal inhibition of colitis-associated colorectal cancer.

Red and processed meat intake and risk of colorectal adenomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies

BACKGROUND

Current evidence indicates that red and processed meat intake increases the risk of colorectal cancer; however, the association with colorectal adenomas is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies of red and processed meat intake and risk of colorectal adenomas as part of the Continuous Update Project of the World Cancer Research Fund.

DESIGN

PubMed and several other databases were searched for relevant studies from their inception up to 31 December 2011. Summary relative risks (RRs) were estimated using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Nineteen case-control studies and seven prospective studies were included in the analyses. The summary RR per 100 g/day of red meat was 1.27 (95 % CI 1.16-1.40, I (2) = 5 %, n = 16) for all studies combined, 1.20 (95 % CI 1.06-1.36, I (2) = 0 %, n = 6) for prospective studies, and 1.34 (95 % CI 1.12-1.59, I (2) = 31 %, n = 10) for case-control studies. The summary RR per 50 g/day of processed meat intake was 1.29 (95 % CI 1.10-1.53, I (2) = 27 %, n = 10) for all studies combined, 1.45 (95 % CI 1.10-1.90, I (2) = 0 %, n = 2) for prospective studies, and 1.23 (95 % CI 0.99-1.52, I (2) = 37 %, n = 8) for case-control studies. There was evidence of a nonlinear association between red meat (p nonlinearity < 0.001) and processed meat (p nonlinearity = 0.01) intake and colorectal adenoma risk.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate an elevated risk of colorectal adenomas with intake of red and processed meat, but further prospective studies are warranted.