Consumption of fast foods and ultra-processed foods and breast cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Karimi M, Rabiee R, Hooshmand F, Aghapour B, Ahmadzadeh M, Havaei E, Kazemi K
Global health research and policy · 4 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
- 2025-07-01 · Glob Health Res Policy · vol. 10 · issue 1 · p. 25
- Publisher
- BioMed Central
- Cited
- 11 citations · more than 93% of similar papers · 3.1× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 69 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling · Culinary Culture and Tourism · Dietary Effects on Health
- Keywords
- Meta-analysis, Breast cancer, Medicine, Subgroup analysis, Odds ratio, Confidence interval, Publication bias, Observational study, Environmental health, Cohort study, Oncology, Internal medicine, Cancer
- MeSH
- humans, breast neoplasms, diet, risk factors, food handling, female, fast foods, food, processed
7 authors
From UA, IR
- Mehdi KarimiBogomolets National Medical University
- Reyhaneh RabieeShahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences and Health Services
- Farnaz HooshmandGolestan University
- Baharak AghapourTabriz University of Medical Sciences
- Mina AhmadzadehShahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences
- Elahe HavaeiIslamic Azad University Central Tehran Branch
Abstract
Background
The increasing consumption of fast foods (FFs) and ultra-processed foods (UPFs) worldwide has raised concerns due to their association with carcinogenic compounds and potential links to various cancers. However, this evidence about breast cancer risk remains inconsistent. This study aimed to meta-analyze the association between FFs and UPFs consumption and the risk of breast cancer in females.
Methods
A comprehensive search on online databases was conducted from inception to May 2025, and relevant study data were extracted. The meta-analysis utilized odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) as effect size measures. Subgroup analyses, heterogeneity assessment, publication bias, and sensitivity analyses were performed to ensure robustness. All statistical analyses were conducted using STATA.
Results
The pooled analysis of 17 observational studies showed a significant association between the highest FFs and UPFs consumption and increased breast cancer risk (OR 1.25, 95% CI [1.09-1.43], p = 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed a significant positive association between FFs and UPFs consumption and breast cancer risk in case-control studies, but not in cohort studies or menopausal status and a significant association was observed in studies with sample sizes > 1000 and < 1000. Furthermore, the association was significant in Latin America when BMI adjustment was considered for 'yes' and 'no'.
Conclusions
This meta-analysis identified a significant association between the consumption of FFs and UPFs and an increased risk of breast cancer, with high intake linked to a 25% greater risk. These findings suggest that diets high in UPFs may play a role in breast cancer development. As UPF consumption continues to rise, public health strategies and regulatory policies targeting food processing, marketing, labeling, and accessibility are essential for cancer risk reduction and prevention.
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.