Red and processed meat consumption and risk of pancreatic cancer: meta-analysis of prospective studies.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Larsson SC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3273353 | biostudies-other | 2012 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND: During the last decade, the epidemiological evidence on consumption of meat and risk of ovarian cancer has accumulated. METHODS: We assessed the relationship between red and processed meat consumption and risk of ovarian cancer with a dose-response meta-analysis. Relevant prospective cohort studies were identified by searching the PubMed and EMBASE databases through 21 January 2011, and by reviewing the reference lists of retrieved articles. Study-specific relative risk (RR) estimates were combined using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Eight cohort studies were included in the meta-analysis. The summary RR for an intake increment of 100 g per week was 1.02 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.99-1.04) for red meat and 1.05 (95% CI, 0.98-1.14) for processed meat. For an intake increment of four servings per week, the summary RR of ovarian cancer was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.97-1.19) for red meat (100 g per serving) and 1.07 (95% CI, 0.97-1.17) for processed meat (30 g per serving). CONCLUSION: Results from this dose-response meta-analysis suggest that red and processed meat consumption is not associated with risk of ovarian cancer. Although a lower consumption of red and processed meat may offer protection against other types of cancer, other interventions are needed to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer.
| S-EPMC3068494 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe relationship between red and processed meat consumption and pancreatic cancer risk is controversial and no study has looked specifically at the correlation for 6 years. We conducted a meta-analysis to summarize the evidence about the association between them.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library for studies of red or processed meat consumption and pancreatic cancer published from December 2016 to July 2022. We performed random-effects models to pool the relative risks from individual studies. Subgroup analyses were used to figure out heterogeneity. We also performed publication bias analysis.ResultsSeven cohort studies and one case-control study that contained a total of 7,158 pancreatic cancer cases from 805,177 participants were eligible for inclusion. The combined RRs (95% CI) comparing highest and lowest categories were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.91-1.26; p = 0.064) for red meat and 1.04 (95% CI: 0.81-1.33; p = 0.006) for processed meat with statistically significant heterogeneity.ConclusionThis meta-analysis suggested that red and processed meat consumption has no relationship with pancreatic cancer risk.
| S-EPMC10565855 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe evidence that red and processed meat influences colorectal carcinogenesis was judged convincing in the 2007 World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute of Cancer Research report. Since then, ten prospective studies have published new results. Here we update the evidence from prospective studies and explore whether there is a non-linear association of red and processed meats with colorectal cancer risk.Methods and findingsRelevant prospective studies were identified in PubMed until March 2011. For each study, relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted and pooled with a random-effects model, weighting for the inverse of the variance, in highest versus lowest intake comparison, and dose-response meta-analyses. Red and processed meats intake was associated with increased colorectal cancer risk. The summary relative risk (RR) of colorectal cancer for the highest versus the lowest intake was 1.22 (95% CI = 1.11-1.34) and the RR for every 100 g/day increase was 1.14 (95% CI = 1.04-1.24). Non-linear dose-response meta-analyses revealed that colorectal cancer risk increases approximately linearly with increasing intake of red and processed meats up to approximately 140 g/day, where the curve approaches its plateau. The associations were similar for colon and rectal cancer risk. When analyzed separately, colorectal cancer risk was related to intake of fresh red meat (RR(for 100 g/day increase) = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.05-1.31) and processed meat (RR (for 50 g/day increase) = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.10-1.28). Similar results were observed for colon cancer, but for rectal cancer, no significant associations were observed.ConclusionsHigh intake of red and processed meat is associated with significant increased risk of colorectal, colon and rectal cancers. The overall evidence of prospective studies supports limiting red and processed meat consumption as one of the dietary recommendations for the prevention of colorectal cancer.
| S-EPMC3108955 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Prior studies on red and processed meat consumption with breast cancer risk have generated inconsistent results. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies to summarize the evidence regarding the relation of red meat and processed meat consumption with breast cancer incidence. We searched in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through January 2018 for prospective studies that reported the association between red meat and processed meat consumption with incident breast cancer. The multivariable-adjusted relative risk (RR) was combined comparing the highest with the lowest category of red meat (unprocessed) and processed meat consumption using a random-effect meta-analysis. We identified 13 cohort, 3 nested case-control and two clinical trial studies. Comparing the highest to the lowest category, red meat (unprocessed) consumption was associated with a 6% higher breast cancer risk (pooled RR,1.06; 95% confidence intervals (95%CI):0.99-1.14; I2 = 56.3%), and processed meat consumption was associated with a 9% higher breast cancer risk (pooled RR, 1.09; 95%CI, 1.03-1.16; I2 = 44.4%). In addition, we identified two nested case-control studies evaluating the association between red meat and breast cancer stratified by N-acetyltransferase 2 acetylator genotype. We did not observe any association among those with either fast (per 25 g/day pooled odds ratio (OR), 1.18; 95%CI, 0.93-1.50) or slow N-acetyltransferase 2 acetylators (per 25 g/day pooled OR, 0.99; 95%CI, 0.91-1.08). In the prospective observational studies, high processed meat consumption was associated with increased breast cancer risk.
| S-EPMC8985652 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Several epidemiological studies have analyzed the associations between red and processed meat and bladder cancer risk but the shape and strength of the associations are still unclear. Therefore, we conducted a dose-response meta-analysis to quantify the potential association between red and processed meat and bladder cancer risk.Relevant studies were identified by searching the PubMed database through January 2016 and reviewing the reference lists of the retrieved articles. Results were combined using random-effects models.Five cohort studies with 3262 cases and 1,038,787 participants and 8 cases-control studies with 7009 cases and 27,240 participants met the inclusion criteria. Red meat was linearly associated with bladder cancer risk in case-control studies, with a pooled RR of 1.51 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13, 2.02) for every 100 g increase per day, while no association was observed among cohort studies (P heterogeneity across study design = 0.02). Based on both case-control and cohort studies, the pooled relative risk (RR) for every 50 g increase of processed meat per day was 1.20 (95% CI 1.06, 1.37) (P heterogeneity across study design = 0.22).This meta-analysis suggests that processed meat may be positively associated with bladder cancer risk. A positive association between red meat and risk of bladder cancer was observed only in case-control studies, while no association was observe in prospective studies.
| S-EPMC5845591 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The associations between red and processed meat consumption and the risk of colorectal cancer types have not been conclusively defined. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze these associations. We searched PubMed and EMBASE to identify studies published from inception through September 2016. Dose-response, subgroup and subtype analyses of colorectal cancer (colon cancer, proximal colon cancer, distal colon cancer and rectal cancer) were performed. We ultimately selected 60 eligible studies. Positive associations were observed for colorectal cancer in case-control studies (red meat, P<0.01; processed meat, P<0.01) and cohort studies (red meat, P<0.01; processed meat, P<0.01). However, subtype analyses yielded null results for distal colon cancer in case-control studies (P=0.41) and cohort studies (P=0.18) for red meat and null results for proximal colon cancer in case-control studies (P=0.13) and cohort studies (P=0.39) for processed meat. Additionally, although the results of case-control studies were positive (red meat, P<0.01; processed meat, P=0.04) for rectal cancer, there were no positive associations between red (P=0.34) and processed meat (P=0.06) consumption and the risk in cohort studies. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found consumption of red and processed meat was associated with the risk of overall colorectal cancer but not rectal cancer. Additionally, there were no associations between the consumption of red meat and distal colon cancer risk and between the consumption of processed meat and proximal colon cancer risk.
| S-EPMC5669970 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Depression is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide, with more than 264 million people affected. On average, depression first appears during the late teens to mid-20s as result of a complex interaction of social, psychological and biological factors. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to assess the association between red and processed meat intake and depression (both incident and prevalent). This systematic review was conducted according to the methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Relevant papers published through March 2020 were identified by searching the electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus. All analyses were conducted using ProMeta3 software. A critical appraisal was conducted. Finally, 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. The overall effect size (ES) of depression for red and processed meat intake was 1.08 [(95% CI = 1.04; 1.12), p-value < 0.001], based on 241,738 participants. The results from our meta-analysis showed a significant association between red and processed meat intake and risk of depression. The presented synthesis will be useful for health professionals and policy makers to better consider the effect of diet on mental health status.
| S-EPMC7559491 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRed and processed meats have been implicated as risk factors in the development of colorectal cancer in U.S. women, but associations with cooking practices are less well established.MethodsData are from the Sister Study, a cohort of women ages 35 to 74 years from the United States and Puerto Rico who have a sister diagnosed with breast cancer. Red and processed meat consumption, meat cooking practices, and intake of common meat products were collected at baseline using self-administered questionnaires (N = 48,704). Multivariable HRs (HRadj) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated.ResultsDuring a median 8.7 years' follow-up (range <1-12.7 years), 216 colorectal cancer cases were diagnosed. In categorical analyses, an increased risk of colorectal cancer was seen in the highest quartile of processed meat consumption compared with the lowest [HRadj = 1.52 (95% CI, 1.01-2.30); P trend = 0.02], and for specific meat products, including breakfast sausages [HRadj = 1.85 (95% CI, 1.30-2.64)] and bacon [HRadj = 1.46 (95% CI, 1.01-2.11)]. The HRadj for the highest quartile of red meat consumption was 1.04 (95% CI, 0.68-1.60), and little evidence of association was observed for cooking practices or doneness of red meat. We observed positive associations with specific red meat products when cooking methods were considered, for example, grilled/barbequed steaks [HRadj = 2.23 (95% CI, 1.20-4.14)] and hamburgers [HRadj = 1.98 (95% CI, 1.00-3.91)].ConclusionsHigher reported daily intake of processed meats and consumption of barbecued/grilled red meat products were associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer in women.ImpactVariability in colorectal risk risk by meat type and cooking method should be considered when evaluating meat consumption.
| S-EPMC6954313 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrevious meta-analyses on meat intake and risk of stroke did not report the effect of white meat (poultry meat, excluding fish) and did not examine stroke incidence and mortality separately. We aimed to investigate the relationship of total (red and processed meat), red (unprocessed or fresh red meat), and processed (processed red meat) consumption along with white meat on risk of stroke incidence and mortality.Methods and resultsArticles were identified from databases and reference lists of relevant studies up to October 28, 2016. We selected prospective cohort studies on meat consumption specified by types of meat and stroke incidence and mortality reporting relative risks and 95% confidence intervals. The pooled relative risk was estimated using the random-effects model. Based on the inclusion criteria, 10 articles containing 15 studies (5 articles with 7 studies including 9522 cases of stroke incidence and 254 742 participants and 5 articles with 8 studies containing 12 999 cases of stroke mortality and 487 150 participants) were selected for quantitative synthesis. The pooled relative risks (95% confidence intervals) for total, red, processed and white meat consumption and total stroke incidence were 1.18 (1.09-1.28), 1.11 (1.03-1.20), 1.17 (1.08-1.25), and 0.87 (0.78-0.97), respectively. Total meat consumption (0.97 [0.85-1.11]) and red meat consumption 0.87 (0.64-1.18) were not significantly associated with stroke-related death.ConclusionsThe relationship between meat intake and risk of stroke may differ by type of meat. Recommendations for replacing proportions of red and processed meats to white meat for the prevention of stroke may be considered in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC5634267 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDebate on the potential carcinogenic effects of meat intake is open and the relationship between meat consumption and risk of prostate cancer remains uncertain. This meta-analysis was conducted to summarize earlier prospective studies on the association of meat consumption with risk of prostate cancer.MethodsRelevant studies were identified by exploring PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases up to December 2020. Fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analyses were used for pooling the relative risks (RRs). Heterogeneity across studies was evaluated using the Q-statistic and I-square (I 2). A funnel plot and Egger's test was used to detect publication bias. Linear and non-linear dose-response analyses were performed to estimate the dose-response relations between meat intake and risk of prostate cancer.ResultsTwenty-five prospective studies were included in this meta-analysis. Totally, 1,900,910 participants with 35,326 incident cases of prostate cancer were investigated. Pooling the eligible effect sizes, we observed that high consumption of processed meat might be associated with an increased risk of "total prostate cancer" (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.10; I 2 = 1.5%, P = 0.43) and "advanced prostate cancer" (1.17; 1.09, 1.26; I 2 = 58.8%, P = 0.01). However, the association between processed meat and "advanced prostate cancer" was not significant in the random-effects model: 1.12 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.29). A linear dose-response analysis indicated that an increment of 50 grams per day of processed meat intake might be related to a 4% greater risk of "total prostate cancer" (1.04; 1.00, 1.08; I 2 = 0.0%, P = 0.51). "Total meat intake" was marginally associated with all outcomes of prostate cancer risk (1.04; 1.01, 1.07; I 2 = 58.4%, P < 0.001).ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies indicated that increased consumption of "total meat" and "processed meat" might be associated with a higher risk of prostate cancer.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=230824, identifier: CRD42021230824.
| S-EPMC8859108 | biostudies-literature