Association Between Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Nouri-Majd S, Salari-Moghaddam A, Aminianfar A, Larijani B, Esmaillzadeh A
Frontiers in nutrition · 28 citations
How it was studied
- Design
- Systematic review (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
Based on full-text disclosure statement.
Publication
- Published
- 2022-02-07 · Front Nutr · vol. 9 · p. 801722
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media
- Cited
- 49 citations · more than 91% of similar papers · 2.7× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 64 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Nutritional Studies and Diet · Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment · Antioxidant Activity and Oxidative Stress
- Keywords
- Prostate cancer, Meta-analysis, Funnel plot, Medicine, Publication bias, Relative risk, Random effects model, Prospective cohort study, Prostate, Cancer, Oncology, Internal medicine, Confidence interval
5 authors
From IR
- Saeedeh Nouri-MajdTehran University of Medical Sciences
- Asma Salari-MoghaddamTehran University of Medical Sciences
- Azadeh AminianfarKashan University of Medical Sciences
- Bagher A. LarijaniObesity and Eating Habits Research Center; Tehran University of Medical Sciences
- Ahmad Esmaillzadeh · correspondingIsfahan University of Medical Sciences; Obesity and Eating Habits Research Center; Tehran University of Medical Sciences
Abstract
Background
Debate 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.
Methods
Relevant 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.
Results
Twenty-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).
Conclusions
This 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 registration
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=230824, identifier: CRD42021230824.
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?
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.