Postdiagnostic Red Meat, Poultry, and Egg Intake and Risk of Prostate Cancer Progression and Mortality: A Systematic Review
Sandhu S, Teshome H, Van Blarigan EL, Chan JM, Kenfield SA, Graff RE
The Journal of urology · 0 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
- Systematic review (classified by our AI screen)
- 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
- 2026-08-17 · J Urol · p. 101097JU0000000000005263
- Publisher
- Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
- Cited
- 0 citations · more than 78% of similar papers · 0.0× the field average
- References
- 0 works
- Access
- Paywalled
- Research areas
- Nutritional Studies and Diet · Meat and Animal Product Quality · Antioxidant Activity and Oxidative Stress
- Keywords
- Prostate cancer, MEDLINE, Risk assessment, Prostate, Prostate-specific antigen
6 authors
From US
- Simran SandhuUniversity of California, San Francisco
- Haile TeshomeUniversity of California, San Francisco
- Erin Lynn Van BlariganUniversity of California, San Francisco
- June M. ChanUniversity of California, San Francisco
- Stacey A. KenfieldUniversity of California, San Francisco
- Rebecca E. GraffUniversity of California, San Francisco
Abstract
Objective
The purpose of this study was to systematically review evidence on associations of postdiagnostic consumption of red meat, poultry, and eggs with prostate cancer outcomes among men diagnosed with prostate cancer.
Methods
We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Embase through July 17, 2025, with no date restrictions. Eligible studies included prospective cohorts examining postdiagnostic consumption of red meat, poultry, and eggs in relation to prostate cancer progression (eg, biochemical recurrence, initiation of secondary treatment, metastases, and prostate cancer-specific mortality) and/or all-cause mortality (ACM) in men with prostate cancer. Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.
Results
Six cohort studies including > 10,000 men with prostate cancer met inclusion criteria. Across 5 studies, total red meat consumption was not associated with progression outcomes, while 1 of 2 studies evaluating ACM reported a positive relationship. However, 2 studies indicated that replacement of red meat with poultry or fish was associated with lower risk of progression or ACM. One study reported a positive association between processed red meat intake and both prostate cancer-specific mortality and ACM, although 4 other studies reported no significant association. Total poultry intake was not significantly associated with progression. By contrast, poultry with skin was linked to higher risk in 2 studies (1 significant), whereas poultry without skin was not associated with progression. Poultry intake was associated with lower ACM risk in the only study evaluating this relationship. Evidence for egg consumption was inconsistent; a positive association with progression was observed in 1 study with especially high intake in the highest category (∼5.5 servings/week), whereas no associations were found in 4 studies where intakes were lower in the highest categories (≥ 2.5-3 servings/week). One out of 2 studies demonstrated a positive relationship with ACM.
Conclusions
Evidence linking postdiagnostic intake of red meat, poultry, and eggs with prostate cancer progression remain limited and inconsistent, although stronger statistical evidence was observed for ACM. Prostate cancer progression risk may be specific to preparation methods (eg, poultry with skin) and higher egg intake (> 3-5 servings/week), while replacing red meat with skinless poultry or fish may offer clinical benefit. Additional well-designed prospective studies are needed.
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.