Consumption of red meat and processed meat and cancer incidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies
Farvid MS, Sidahmed E, Spence ND, Mante Angua K, Rosner BA, Barnett JB
European journal of epidemiology · 315 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
- 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
- Funding not disclosed
Publication
- Published
- 2021-08-29 · Eur J Epidemiol · vol. 36 · issue 9 · pp. 937–951
- Publisher
- Springer Science+Business Media
- Cited
- 455 citations · more than 100% of similar papers · 16.3× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 256 works
- Access
- Paywalled
- Research areas
- Nutritional Studies and Diet · Nutrition, Genetics, and Disease · Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
- Keywords
- Medicine, Red meat, Relative risk, Colorectal cancer, Breast cancer, Meta-analysis, Cancer, Lung cancer, Internal medicine, Incidence (geometry), Prospective cohort study, Processed meat, Confidence interval, Pathology, Food science
- MeSH
- humans, neoplasms, prospective studies, female, red meat
6 authors
From US, CA
- Maryam Sadat Farvid · correspondingHarvard University
- Elkhansa SidahmedHarvard University
- Nicholas D. SpenceUniversity of Toronto
- Kingsly Mante AnguaMontgomery College
- BERNARD A. ROSNERBrigham and Women's Hospital; Harvard University
- Junaidah Bajrai BarnettHarvard University
Abstract
Red meat and processed meat consumption has been hypothesized to increase risk of cancer, but the evidence is inconsistent. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies to summarize the evidence of associations between consumption of red meat (unprocessed), processed meat, and total red and processed meat with the incidence of various cancer types. We searched in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through December 2020. Using a random-effect meta-analysis, we calculated the pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the highest versus the lowest category of red meat, processed meat, and total red and processed meat consumption in relation to incidence of various cancers. We identified 148 published articles. Red meat consumption was significantly associated with greater risk of breast cancer (RR = 1.09; 95% CI = 1.03-1.15), endometrial cancer (RR = 1.25; 95% CI = 1.01-1.56), colorectal cancer (RR = 1.10; 95% CI = 1.03-1.17), colon cancer (RR = 1.17; 95% CI = 1.09-1.25), rectal cancer (RR = 1.22; 95% CI = 1.01-1.46), lung cancer (RR = 1.26; 95% CI = 1.09-1.44), and hepatocellular carcinoma (RR = 1.22; 95% CI = 1.01-1.46). Processed meat consumption was significantly associated with a 6% greater breast cancer risk, an 18% greater colorectal cancer risk, a 21% greater colon cancer risk, a 22% greater rectal cancer risk, and a 12% greater lung cancer risk. Total red and processed meat consumption was significantly associated with greater risk of colorectal cancer (RR = 1.17; 95% CI = 1.08-1.26), colon cancer (RR = 1.21; 95% CI = 1.09-1.34), rectal cancer (RR = 1.26; 95% CI = 1.09-1.45), lung cancer (RR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.09-1.33), and renal cell cancer (RR = 1.19; 95% CI = 1.04-1.37). This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis study showed that high red meat intake was positively associated with risk of breast cancer, endometrial cancer, colorectal cancer, colon cancer, rectal cancer, lung cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma, and high processed meat intake was positively associated with risk of breast, colorectal, colon, rectal, and lung cancers. Higher risk of colorectal, colon, rectal, lung, and renal cell cancers were also observed with high total red and processed 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.