Meta-analysis2024

Dietary intake and biomarkers of linoleic acid and risk of prostate cancer in men: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies

Yousefi M, Eshaghian N, Heidarzadeh-Esfahani N, Askari G, Rasekhi H, Sadeghi O

Critical reviews in food science and nutrition · 8 citations

Review labels

Funding not disclosed

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
2023-04-19 · Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr · vol. 64 · issue 24 · pp. 8553–8569
Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Cited
10 citations · more than 55% of similar papers · 0.7× the field average
References
64 works
Access
Paywalled
Research areas
Fatty Acid Research and Health · Cancer, Lipids, and Metabolism · Nutritional Studies and Diet
Keywords
Meta-analysis, Prostate cancer, Medicine, Prospective cohort study, Oncology, Systematic review, Biomarker, Cohort study, Internal medicine, Risk assessment, Cancer, MEDLINE, Biology, Biochemistry
MeSH
humans, prostatic neoplasms, linoleic acid, diet, risk factors, prospective studies, male, biomarkers

6 authors

From IR

  • Mojtaba YousefiYasuj University of Medical Sciences
  • Niloofar EshaghianIsfahan University of Medical Sciences
  • Neda Heidarzadeh‐EsfahaniKermanshah University of Medical Sciences
  • Gholamreza AskariIsfahan University of Medical Sciences
  • Hamid Rasekhi · correspondingNational Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute; Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences
  • Omid Sadeghi · correspondingIsfahan University of Medical Sciences

Abstract

Findings on the association of dietary intake and tissue biomarkers of linoleic acid (LA) with the risk of prostate cancer are conflicting. Also, no meta-analysis summarized available findings in this regard. Therefore, the current systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis were done to summarize the findings of prospective cohort studies that assessed dietary intake and tissue biomarkers of LA in relation to prostate cancer risk in adults. We conducted a systematic search using online databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science, to identify eligible articles published up to January 2023. We included prospective cohort studies that examined the associations of dietary intake and tissue biomarkers of LA with the risk of prostate cancer (total, advanced, and fatal prostate cancer). Summary relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the highest versus lowest intakes/tissue levels of LA using a fixed-effects model. Also, linear and non-linear dose-response analyses were conducted. In total, 15 prospective cohort studies were included. These studies recruited a total sample size of 511,622 participants with an age range of ≥18 years. During the follow-up periods ranging from 5 to 21 years, 39,993 cases of prostate cancer, 5,929 cases of advanced prostate cancer, and 1,661 cases of fatal prostate cancer were detected. In the meta-analysis, we found that higher tissue levels of LA were associated with a reduced risk of prostate cancer (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.77-0.96) so that in the dose-response analysis, each 5% increase in levels of LA was associated with a 14% lower risk of prostate cancer. Such a significant association was not seen for advanced prostate cancer (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.65-1.13). Also, we found no significant association between dietary intake of LA and risk of total (RR:1.00, 95% CI: 0.97-1.04), advanced (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.90-1.07), and fatal prostate cancer (RR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.83-1.13). Our findings support the protective association between tissue levels of LA and the risk of prostate cancer in men.

Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.

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.