Dataset Information

Meat intake, meat cooking methods, and meat-derived mutagen exposure and risk of sessile serrated lesions.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Red and processed meat, recognized carcinogens, are risk factors for colorectal neoplasia, including polyps, the precursor for colorectal cancer. The mechanism is unclear. One possible explanation is the mutagenic activity of these foods, perhaps due to generation during cooking [e.g., heterocyclic amine (HCA) intake]. Few studies have evaluated meat intake and sessile serrated lesion (SSL) risk, a recently recognized precursor, and no study has evaluated meat cooking methods and meat-derived mutagens with SSL risk.

Objective

We evaluated intakes of meat, meat cooking methods, and inferred meat mutagens with SSL risk and in comparison to risk of other polyps.

Methods

Meat, well-done meat, and inferred meat mutagen intakes were evaluated. Polytomous logistic regression models were used to estimate ORs and 95% CIs among cases (556 hyperplastic polyp, 1753 adenoma, and 208 SSL) and controls (3804) in the large colonoscopy-based, case-control study, the Tennessee Colorectal Polyp Study.

Results

The highest quartile intakes of red meat (OR: 2.38; 95% CI: 1.44, 3.93), processed meat (OR: 2.03; 95% CI: 1.30, 3.17), well-done red meat (OR: 2.19; 95% CI: 1.34, 3.60), and the HCA 2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline (MeIQX; OR: 2.48; 95% CI: 1.49, 4.16) were associated with increased risk of SSLs in comparison to the lowest quartile intake.

Conclusions

High intakes of red and processed meats are strongly and especially associated with SSL risk and part of the association may be due to HCA intake. Future studies should evaluate other mechanism(s) and the potential for primary prevention.

SUBMITTER: Mosley D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7266682 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND : We aimed to compare the accuracy of the optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps, including sessile serrated lesions (SSLs), between a computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) system and endoscopists during real-time colonoscopy. METHODS : We developed the POLyp Artificial Recognition (POLAR) system, which was capable of performing real-time characterization of diminutive colorectal polyps. For pretraining, the Microsoft-COCO dataset with over 300 000 nonpolyp object images was used. For training, eight hospitals prospectively collected 2637 annotated images from 1339 polyps (i. e. publicly available online POLAR database). For clinical validation, POLAR was tested during colonoscopy in patients with a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and compared with the performance of 20 endoscopists from eight hospitals. Endoscopists were blinded to the POLAR output. Primary outcome was the comparison of accuracy of the optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps between POLAR and endoscopists (neoplastic [adenomas and SSLs] versus non-neoplastic [hyperplastic polyps]). Histopathology served as the reference standard. RESULTS : During clinical validation, 423 diminutive polyps detected in 194 FIT-positive individuals were included for analysis (300 adenomas, 41 SSLs, 82 hyperplastic polyps). POLAR distinguished neoplastic from non-neoplastic lesions with 79 % accuracy, 89 % sensitivity, and 38 % specificity. The endoscopists achieved 83 % accuracy, 92 % sensitivity, and 44 % specificity. The optical diagnosis accuracy between POLAR and endoscopists was not significantly different (P = 0.10). The proportion of polyps in which POLAR was able to provide an optical diagnosis was 98 % (i. e. success rate). CONCLUSIONS : We developed a CADx system that differentiated neoplastic from non-neoplastic diminutive polyps during endoscopy, with an accuracy comparable to that of screening endoscopists and near-perfect success rate.