Literature DB >> 21110906

A review and meta-analysis of red and processed meat consumption and breast cancer.

Dominik D Alexander1, Libby M Morimoto, Pamela J Mink, Colleen A Cushing.   

Abstract

The relationship between meat consumption and breast cancer has been the focus of several epidemiological investigations, yet there has been no clear scientific consensus as to whether red or processed meat intake increases the risk of breast cancer. We conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis incorporating data from several recently published prospective studies of red or processed meat intake and breast cancer. In the meta-analysis utilising data from the Pooling Project publication (includes data from eight cohorts) combined with data from nine studies published between 2004 and 2009 and one study published in 1996, the fixed-effect summary relative risk estimate (SRRE) for red meat intake (high v. low) and breast cancer was 1·02 (95 % CI 0·98, 1·07; P value for heterogeneity = 0·001) and the random-effects SRRE was 1·07 (95 % CI 0·98, 1·17). The SRRE for each 100 g increment of red meat was 1·04 (95 % CI 1·00, 1·07), based on a fixed-effects model, and 1·12 (95 % CI 1·03, 1·23) based on a random-effects model. No association was observed for each 100 g increment of red meat among premenopausal women (SRRE 1·01; 95 % CI 0·92, 1·11) but a statistically significant SRRE of 1·22 (95 % CI 1·04, 1·44) was observed among postmenopausal women using a random-effects model. However, the association for postmenopausal women was attenuated and non-significant when using a fixed-effects model (SRRE 1·03; 95 % CI 0·98, 1·08). The fixed- and random-effect SRRE for high (v. low) processed meat intake and breast cancer were 1·00 (95 % CI 0·98, 1·01; P value for heterogeneity = 0·005) and 1·08 (95 % CI 1·01, 1·16), respectively. The fixed- and random-effect SRRE for each 30 g increment of processed meat were 1·03 (95 % CI 1·00, 1·06) and 1·06 (95 % CI 0·99, 1·14), respectively. Overall, weak positive summary associations were observed across all meta-analysis models, with the majority being non-statistically significant. Heterogeneity was evident in most analyses, summary associations were sensitive to the choice of analytical model (fixed v. random effects), and publication bias appeared to have produced slightly elevated summary associations. On the basis of this quantitative assessment, red meat and processed meat intake does not appear to be independently associated with increasing the risk of breast cancer, although further investigations of potential effect modifiers, such as analyses by hormone receptor status, may provide valuable insight to potential patterns of associations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21110906     DOI: 10.1017/S0954422410000235

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nutr Res Rev        ISSN: 0954-4224            Impact factor:   7.800


  32 in total

1.  Dietary fat and breast cancer in postmenopausal women according to ethnicity and hormone receptor status: the Multiethnic Cohort Study.

Authors:  Song-Yi Park; Laurence N Kolonel; Brian E Henderson; Lynne R Wilkens
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2011-12-13

2.  Traditional dietary pattern of South America is linked to breast cancer: an ongoing case-control study in Argentina.

Authors:  Natalia Tumas; Camila Niclis; Laura R Aballay; Alberto R Osella; María del Pilar Díaz
Journal:  Eur J Nutr       Date:  2013-08-02       Impact factor: 5.614

3.  A summary of meat intakes and health burdens.

Authors:  C S C Yip; W Lam; R Fielding
Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr       Date:  2017-08-09       Impact factor: 4.016

Review 4.  Meat, dairy, and cancer.

Authors:  Zaynah Abid; Amanda J Cross; Rashmi Sinha
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 7.045

Review 5.  Iron and Cancer.

Authors:  Suzy V Torti; David H Manz; Bibbin T Paul; Nicole Blanchette-Farra; Frank M Torti
Journal:  Annu Rev Nutr       Date:  2018-08-21       Impact factor: 11.848

Review 6.  Influence of lifestyle factors on breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Max Dieterich; Johannes Stubert; Toralf Reimer; Nicole Erickson; Anika Berling
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.860

7.  Premenopausal plasma ferritin levels, HFE polymorphisms, and risk of breast cancer in the nurses' health study II.

Authors:  Rebecca E Graff; Eunyoung Cho; Sara Lindström; Peter Kraft; Walter C Willett; A Heather Eliassen
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-01-17       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  Oestrogen levels in serum and urine of premenopausal women eating low and high amounts of meat.

Authors:  Brook E Harmon; Yukiko Morimoto; Fanchon Beckford; Adrian A Franke; Frank Z Stanczyk; Gertraud Maskarinec
Journal:  Public Health Nutr       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 4.022

9.  Racial disparities in red meat and poultry intake and breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Urmila Chandran; Gary Zirpoli; Gregory Ciupak; Susan E McCann; Zhihong Gong; Karen Pawlish; Yong Lin; Kitaw Demissie; Christine B Ambrosone; Elisa V Bandera
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2013-10-05       Impact factor: 2.506

Review 10.  Dietary fats and health: dietary recommendations in the context of scientific evidence.

Authors:  Glen D Lawrence
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 8.701

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.