Meta-analysis2015Open access

Processed and Unprocessed Red Meat and Risk of Colorectal Cancer: Analysis by Tumor Location and Modification by Time

Bernstein AM, Song M, Zhang X, Pan A, Wang M, Fuchs CS, Le N, Chan AT, Willett WC, Ogino S, Giovannucci EL, Wu K

PloS one · 97 citations

How it was studied

Design
Meta-analysis (indexed by PubMed)
Studied in
People
Main outcome
Clinical events such as disease or death
Intake measured by
Not stated

Who paid for it

Funding
Independent funding
Nonprofit
American Cancer Society
Nonprofit
Entertainment Industry Foundation
Government
National Cancer Institute
Government
NCI NIH HHS
Grants
National Cancer Institute (P01 CA055075.); National Cancer Institute (P01 CA 55075); National Cancer Institute (P01 CA087969); National Cancer Institute (UM1 CA186107); National Cancer Institute (UM1-CA-167552); American Cancer Society (CA87969); National Cancer Institute ([P01 CA87969)

Based on 4 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.

Publication

Published
2015-08-25 · PLoS One · vol. 10 · issue 8 · p. e0135959
Publisher
Public Library of Science
Cited
145 citations · more than 99% of similar papers · 15.9× the field average
Impact
Top 10% most cited in its field
References
54 works
Access
Open access (journal) · CC-BY
Research areas
Nutritional Studies and Diet · Culinary Culture and Tourism · Tea Polyphenols and Effects
Keywords
Colorectal cancer, Red meat, Oncology, Medicine, Internal medicine, Food science, Biology, Cancer
MeSH
humans, colorectal neoplasms, diet, proportional hazards models, risk factors, motor activity, food handling, aged, middle aged, nurses, female, male, red meat

12 authors

From US, CN, VN

  • Adam Bernstein
  • Mingyang SongHarvard University
  • Xuehong ZhangHarvard University
  • An PanHuazhong University of Science and Technology
  • Molin WangHarvard University
  • Charles S. FuchsHarvard University; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

Abstract

Although the association between red meat consumption and colorectal cancer (CRC) is well established, the association across subsites of the colon and rectum remains uncertain, as does time of consumption in relation to cancer development. As these relationships are key for understanding the pathogenesis of CRC, they were examined in two large cohorts with repeated dietary measures over time, the Nurses' Health Study (n = 87,108 women, 1980-2010) and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (n = 47,389 men, 1986-2010). Cox proportional hazards regression models generated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), which were pooled by random-effects meta-analysis. In combined cohorts, there were 2,731 CRC cases (1,151 proximal colon, 816 distal colon, and 589 rectum). In pooled analyses, processed red meat was positively associated with CRC risk (per 1 serving/day increase: HR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.01-1.32; P for trend 0.03) and particularly with distal colon cancer (per 1 serving/day increase; HR = 1.36; 95% CI: 1.09-1.69; P for trend 0.006). Recent consumption of processed meat (within the past 4 years) was not associated with distal cancer. Unprocessed red meat was inversely associated with risk of distal colon cancer and a weak non-significant positive association between unprocessed red meat and proximal cancer was observed (per 1 serving/day increase: distal HR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.68-0.82; P for trend <0.001; proximal HR = 1.14, 95% CI: 0.92-1.40; P for trend 0.22). Thus, in these two large cohorts of US health professionals, processed meat intake was positively associated with risk of CRC, particularly distal cancer, with little evidence that higher intake of unprocessed red meat substantially increased risk of CRC. Future studies, particularly those with sufficient sample size to assess associations by subsites across the colon are needed to confirm these findings and elucidate potentially distinct mechanisms underlying the relationship between processed meat and subtypes of unprocessed red meat with CRC.

Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).

Community trust

Loading…

How much do you trust this study's findings?

0 · not at all10 · completely

Comments

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Something wrong here?

Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Educational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.