A Prospective Analysis of Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk of Colorectal Cancer in Women
Mehta SS, Arroyave WD, Lunn RM, Park YM, Boyd WA, Sandler DP
Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 28 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Cohort study (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Clinical events such as disease or death
- Intake measured by
- Food frequency questionnaire
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- Government
- National Institutes of Health
- Government
- Intramural NIH HHS
- Government
- NIH
- Grants
- National Institutes of Health (Z99-ES999999); National Institutes of Health (Z01‐ES044005)
Based on 3 listed funder(s).
Publication
- Published
- 2019-10-01 · Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev · vol. 29 · issue 1 · pp. 141–150
- Publisher
- American Association for Cancer Research
- Cited
- 43 citations · more than 94% of similar papers · 4.1× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 30 works
- Access
- Open access (repository copy)
- Research areas
- Nutritional Studies and Diet · Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling · Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
- Keywords
- Quartile, Medicine, Red meat, Colorectal cancer, Processed meat, Confidence interval, Logistic regression, Cancer, Internal medicine, Food science, Biology, Pathology
- MeSH
- humans, colorectal neoplasms, nutrition surveys, incidence, risk factors, follow-up studies, prospective studies, feeding behavior, adult, aged, middle aged, puerto rico, united states, female, cooking, red meat
6 authors
From US
- Suril S. Mehta · correspondingNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
- Whitney D. ArroyaveIntegrated Laboratory Systems, Inc.
- Ruth M. LunnNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
- Yong‐Moon ParkNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
- Windy A. BoydNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
- Dale P. SandlerNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Abstract
Background
Red 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.
Methods
Data 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.
Results
During a median 8.7 years' follow-up (range adj = 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)].
Conclusions
Higher reported daily intake of processed meats and consumption of barbecued/grilled red meat products were associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer in women.
Impact
Variability in colorectal risk risk by meat type and cooking method should be considered when evaluating meat consumption.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething 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 inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.