Dataset Information

Case-control and prospective studies of dietary ?-linolenic acid intake and prostate cancer risk: a meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

?-Linolenic acid (ALA) is considered to be a cardioprotective nutrient; however, some epidemiological studies have suggested that dietary ALA intake increases the risk of prostate cancer. The main objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control and prospective studies investigating the association between dietary ALA intake and prostate cancer risk.

Design

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE for relevant prospective and case-control studies.

Included studies

We included all prospective cohort, case-control, nested case-cohort and nested case-control studies that investigated the effect of dietary ALA intake on the incidence (or diagnosis) of prostate cancer and provided relative risk (RR), HR or OR estimates.

Primary outcome measure

Data were pooled using the generic inverse variance method with a random effects model from studies that compared the highest ALA quantile with the lowest ALA quantile. Risk estimates were expressed as RR with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed by ?(2) and quantified by I(2).

Results

Data from five prospective and seven case-control studies were pooled. The overall RR estimate showed ALA intake to be positively but non-significantly associated with prostate cancer risk (1.08 (0.90 to 1.29), p=0.40; I(2)=85%), but the interpretation was complicated by evidence of heterogeneity not explained by study design. A weak, non-significant protective effect of ALA intake on prostate cancer risk in the prospective studies became significant (0.91 (0.83 to 0.99), p=0.02) without evidence of heterogeneity (I(2)=8%, p=0.35) on removal of one study during sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

This analysis failed to confirm an association between dietary ALA intake and prostate cancer risk. Larger and longer observational and interventional studies are needed to define the role of ALA and prostate cancer.

SUBMITTER: Carleton AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3657642 | biostudies-literature | 2013 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Case-control and prospective studies of dietary α-linolenic acid intake and prostate cancer risk: a meta-analysis.

Carleton Amanda J AJ Sievenpiper John L JL de Souza Russell R McKeown-Eyssen Gail G Jenkins David J A DJ

BMJ open 20130514 5

<h4>Objective</h4>α-Linolenic acid (ALA) is considered to be a cardioprotective nutrient; however, some epidemiological studies have suggested that dietary ALA intake increases the risk of prostate cancer. The main objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control and prospective studies investigating the association between dietary ALA intake and prostate cancer risk.<h4>Design</h4>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE ...[more]

PMID: 23674441

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The association between α-linolenic acid (ALA) and mortality is inconsistent and has not been summarized systematically. Objective: The purpose was to conduct a meta-analysis that synthesized the results of prospective cohort studies to investigate associations between ALA intake and mortality. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search on PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases on May 1, 2021, for relevant prospective cohort studies which reported associations of ALA (assessed by dietary surveys and/or ALA concentrations in body tissues) with mortality from all-cause, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and other diseases. Multivariable-adjusted relative risks (RRs) were pooled by a random or fixed-effects model. Results: A total of 34 prospective cohort studies, of which 17 reported dietary ALA intake, 14 for ALA biomarkers, and the remaining 3 reported both of intake and biomarkers. The studies included 6,58,634 participants, and deaths were classified into all-cause mortality (56,898), CVD mortality (19,123), and other diseases mortality (19,061). Pooled RRs of ALA intake were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.86, 1.01, I 2 = 71.2%) for all-cause mortality, 0.90 (95% CI: 0.83, 0.98, I 2 = 22.1%) for CVD mortality, and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.83, 1.06, I 2 = 73.3%) for other diseases mortality. The two-stage random-effects dose-response analysis showed a linear relationship between dietary ALA intake and CVD-mortality and each 0.5% energy increment of ALA intake was associated with a 5% lower risk of CVD-mortality (RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.00). Pooled RRs per SD increment of ALA biomarkers were 0.99 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.01, I 2 = 27%) for all-cause mortality, 1.00 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.03, I 2 = 0%) for CVD mortality and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.95, 1.01, I 2 = 0%) for other diseases mortality. Conclusions: This meta-analysis summarizing the available prospective cohort studies indicated that ALA intake was associated with reduced risk of mortality, especially CVD mortality. Our findings suggest that ALA consumption may be beneficial for death prevention. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO; identifier: CRD42021264532.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent evidence on associations between intakes of linoleic acid (LA), the predominant n-6 (ω-6) fatty acid, and mortality is inconsistent and has not been summarized by a systematic review and meta-analysis.ObjectiveThe aim was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies to examine associations between LA intake and mortality.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through 31 July 2019 for prospective cohort studies reporting associations of LA (assessed by dietary surveys and/or LA concentrations in adipose tissue or blood compartments) with mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer. Multivariable-adjusted RRs were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.ResultsThirty-eight studies reporting 44 prospective cohorts were identified; these included 811,069 participants with dietary intake assessment (170,076 all-cause, 50,786 CVD, and 59,684 cancer deaths) and 65,411 participants with biomarker measurements (9758 all-cause, 6492 CVD, and 1719 cancer deaths). Pooled RRs comparing extreme categories of dietary LA intake (high vs low) were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.81, 0.94; I2 = 67.9%) for total mortality, 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82, 0.92; I2 = 3.7%) for CVD mortality, and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.93; I2 = 0%) for cancer mortality. Pooled RRs for each SD increment in LA concentrations in adipose tissue/blood compartments were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87, 0.95; I2 = 64.1%) for total mortality, 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.94; I2 = 28.9%) for CVD mortality, and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.84, 0.98; I2 = 26.3%) for cancer mortality. Meta-regressions suggested baseline age and dietary assessment methods as potential sources of heterogeneity for the association between LA and total mortality.ConclusionsIn prospective cohort studies, higher LA intake, assessed by dietary surveys or biomarkers, was associated with a modestly lower risk of mortality from all causes, CVD, and cancer. These data support the potential long-term benefits of PUFA intake in lowering the risk of CVD and premature death.

Project description:Zinc is an essential dietary element that has been implicated in the pathogenesis of prostate cancer, a cancer that disproportionately affects men of African descent. Studies assessing the association of zinc intake and prostate cancer have yielded inconsistent results. Furthermore, very little is known about the relationship between zinc intake and prostate cancer among African Americans. We examined the association between self-reported zinc intake and prostate cancer in a hospital-based case-control study of African Americans. We then compared our results with previous studies by performing a meta-analysis to summarize the evidence regarding the association between zinc and prostate cancer. Newly diagnosed African American men with histologically confirmed prostate cancer (n = 127) and controls (n = 81) were recruited from an urban academic urology clinic in Washington, DC. Controls had higher zinc intake, with a mean of 14 mg/day versus 11 mg/day for cases. We observed a non-significant, non-linear increase in prostate cancer when comparing tertiles of zinc intake (OR <6.5 vs 6.5-12.5mg/day 1.8, 95% CI: 0.6,5.6; OR <6.5 vs >12.5mg/day 1.3, 95% CI: 0.2,6.5). The pooled estimate from 17 studies (including 3 cohorts, 2 nested case-control, 11 case-control studies, and 1 randomized clinical trial, with a total of 111,199 participants and 11,689 cases of prostate cancer) was 1.07hi vs lo 95% CI: 0.98-1.16. Using a dose-response meta-analysis, we observed a non-linear trend in the relationship between zinc intake and prostate cancer (p for nonlinearity = 0.0022). This is the first study to examine the relationship between zinc intake in black men and risk of prostate cancer and systematically evaluate available epidemiologic evidence about the magnitude of the relationship between zinc intake and prostate cancer. Despite of the lower intake of zinc by prostate cancer patients, our meta-analysis indicated that there is no evidence for an association between zinc intake and prostate cancer.