Meta-analysis2025Open access

Systematic Analysis of the Differential Effects of Red Meat on Colorectal Cancer Risks: A Meta-Analytic Approach

Woon JY, Vidanapathirana G, Lam AK, Gopalan V

Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 0 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
University or hospital
Griffith University

Based on 1 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.

Publication

Published
2025-08-07 · J Gastrointest Cancer · vol. 56 · issue 1 · p. 170
Publisher
Springer Science+Business Media
Cited
2 citations · more than 75% of similar papers · 0.8× the field average
References
69 works
Access
Open access (hybrid journal) · CC-BY
Research areas
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection · Nutritional Studies and Diet · Cancer Risks and Factors
Keywords
Medicine, Colorectal cancer, Meta-analysis, Red meat, Radiation therapy, Differential (mechanical device), Oncology, Internal medicine, Cancer, Pathology
MeSH
animals, cattle, sheep, swine, humans, colorectal neoplasms, rectal neoplasms, diet, risk factors, red meat

4 authors

From AU, LK

  • Jun Yu WoonGriffith University; Gold Coast Health
  • Gihani Udeshika VidanapathiranaUniversity of Peradeniya; Griffith University; Gold Coast Health
  • Alfred King-yin Lam · correspondingGriffith University; Gold Coast Hospital
  • Vinod Gopalan · correspondingGriffith University

Abstract

Objectives

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide, with rising incidence in younger populations. Red meat consumption has been proposed as a risk factor for CRC, though the evidence remains inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the associations between the consumption of beef, pork, and lamb with CRC, colon cancer (CC), and rectal cancer (RC) risk.

Methods

The findings from 27 studies published between 1993 and 2024 were included, involving over 1 million participants from diverse geographical regions. Relative risks were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis, with subgroup and meta-regression analyses performed to assess potential sources of heterogeneity.

Results

Beef consumption was significantly associated with increased CRC risk, with a 30% overall risk increase (95% CI: 1.10-1.54). The association with colon cancer (CC) was marginally significant (RR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.99-1.43, p = 0.0585), while the link to rectal cancer (RC) was not statistically significant. Pork consumption was associated with a 17% increased CRC risk (95% CI: 1.09-1.25), with similar, nonsignificant trends for CC and RC. Lamb consumption was weakly associated with an 11% increase in CRC risk (95% CI: 1.02-1.21), though this was based on limited studies (n = 6), and no significant associations emerged for cancer subtypes. Study design and confounding factors influenced these associations, with case-control studies reporting stronger associations than cohort studies. Physical activity adjustments were pivotal, as studies without this adjustment consistently reported higher-risk estimates.

Conclusion

These findings emphasise the importance of accounting several lifestyle factors in future research and public health guidance. While these results support current dietary guidelines recommending limited red meat consumption, they also underscore the complexity of diet-cancer relationships and the need for comprehensive, lifestyle-inclusive cancer prevention strategies.

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?

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.