Unveiling the Effects of Cruciferous Vegetable Intake on Different Cancers: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-analysis
Zheng S, Yan J, Wang J, Wang X, Kang YE, Koo BS, Shan Y, Liu L
Nutrition reviews · 8 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
- Government
- National Natural Science Foundation of China
- Government
- Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province
- Government
- NSFC
- Grants
- Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province (LY21H260004); National Natural Science Foundation of China (82304149)
Based on 3 listed funder(s).
Publication
- Published
- 2024-09-30 · Nutr Rev · vol. 83 · issue 5 · pp. 842–858
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Cited
- 9 citations · more than 54% of similar papers · 0.5× the field average
- References
- 257 works
- Access
- Paywalled
- Research areas
- Genomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stress · Phytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities · Glutathione Transferases and Polymorphisms
- Keywords
- Cruciferous vegetables, Medicine, Cancer, Cohort study, Cancer prevention, Meta-analysis, Prostate cancer, Odds ratio, Lung cancer, Internal medicine, Oncology
- MeSH
- humans, brassicaceae, vegetables, neoplasms, diet, female, male
8 authors
From KR, CN
- Sicong ZhengChungnam National University; Wenzhou Medical University
- Jielin YanWenzhou Medical University
- Jiaxin WangWenzhou Medical University
- Xinyi WangWenzhou Medical University
- Yea Eun KangChungnam National University
- Bon Seok KooChungnam National University
Abstract
Context
Epidemiological studies indicated that cruciferous vegetable intake is associated with positive health outcomes. However, the role of cruciferous vegetables may have differential impacts on various cancers.
Objective
This meta-analysis aims to review recent epidemiological studies on the link between cruciferous vegetables and various cancers. It seeks to identify the optimal intake dose and timing of cruciferous vegetables influencing their association with cancer risk.
Data sources
Studies on cruciferous vegetables and cancer were searched in PubMed, NCBI, Web of Science, and Elsevier databases from 1978 to June 2023.
Data extraction
Extracted data from 226 relevant case-control and cohort studies were expressed by standardized mean difference and 95% CI, followed by the subgroup analysis to eliminate heterogeneity.
Results
Intake of cruciferous vegetables can prevent cancers, with an odds ratio of 0.77 and risk ratio (RR) of 0.96. The intake levels of cruciferous vegetables associated with the risk of colorectal cancer, lung cancer, upper gastrointestinal cancer, gynecological cancer (ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer), bladder cancer, renal cancer, and prostate cancer were found to be 5.41 servings/week, 5.41 servings/week, 5.5 servings/week, 7.4 servings/week, 5.5 servings/week, 4.85 servings/week, and 3 servings/week, respectively. In a cohort followed for 2 to 15 years, limited consumption of cruciferous vegetables was correlated with a higher cancer RR. In the Asian population, cruciferous vegetables had a significant relationship with lung cancer, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, and esophageal cancer. Conversely, cruciferous vegetables are predominantly associated with colorectal, renal, gynecological, and prostate cancer in the American population.
Conclusion
This study highlights the complex link between cruciferous vegetables and cancer, influenced by factors such as cancer type, region, intake level, and follow-up duration.
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.