Wen Huang1, Yujing Han, Jiping Xu, Wei Zhu, Zhaoshen Li. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital of Second Military Medical University, 168 Changhai Road, Shanghai, China.
Abstract
AIMS: Inconsistent results relating dietary red and processed meat intake and risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) have been reported. This article summarizes and quantifies the current evidence in a meta-analysis of observational studies. METHODS: Electronic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed to identify peer-reviewed manuscripts up to 31 May 2012. Random-effects models were used to pool study results. RESULTS: Ten manuscripts from 3 cohort studies and 7 case-control studies were identified. The summary relative risks (SRRs) of EAC for highest versus lowest intake categories were 1.31 (95 % confidence intervals [CIs]: 1.05-1.64) for red meat consumption, and 1.41 (95 % CIs 1.09-1.83) for processed meat consumption. Subgroup analyses indicated that these positive relations were seen in case-control studies, but not in cohort studies. Based on dose-response analysis, similar results were found; the SRRs were 1.45(95 % CIs 1.09-1.93) per 100 g/day of red meat intake and 1.37 (95 % CIs 1.03-1.81) per 50 g/day of processed meat intake. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis indicate that consumption of red and processed meat may be associated with increased risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma. More studies, particularly prospective studies, are needed.
AIMS: Inconsistent results relating dietary red and processed meat intake and risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) have been reported. This article summarizes and quantifies the current evidence in a meta-analysis of observational studies. METHODS: Electronic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed to identify peer-reviewed manuscripts up to 31 May 2012. Random-effects models were used to pool study results. RESULTS: Ten manuscripts from 3 cohort studies and 7 case-control studies were identified. The summary relative risks (SRRs) of EAC for highest versus lowest intake categories were 1.31 (95 % confidence intervals [CIs]: 1.05-1.64) for red meat consumption, and 1.41 (95 % CIs 1.09-1.83) for processed meat consumption. Subgroup analyses indicated that these positive relations were seen in case-control studies, but not in cohort studies. Based on dose-response analysis, similar results were found; the SRRs were 1.45(95 % CIs 1.09-1.93) per 100 g/day of red meat intake and 1.37 (95 % CIs 1.03-1.81) per 50 g/day of processed meat intake. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis indicate that consumption of red and processed meat may be associated with increased risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma. More studies, particularly prospective studies, are needed.
Authors: Sanford M Dawsey; Renato B Fagundes; Brian C Jacobson; Laura A Kresty; Susan R Mallery; Shirley Paski; Piet A van den Brandt Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: M Q Chan; A E Blum; A K Chandar; A M L Kieber Emmons; Y Shindo; W Brock; G W Falk; M I Canto; J S Wang; P G Iyer; N J Shaheen; W M Grady; J A Abrams; P N Thota; K K Guda; A Chak Journal: Dis Esophagus Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 3.429
Authors: S Vingeliene; D S M Chan; A R Vieira; E Polemiti; C Stevens; L Abar; D Navarro Rosenblatt; D C Greenwood; T Norat Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 32.976