| Literature DB >> 25375637 |
Bo Yang1, Feng-Lei Wang2, Xiao-Li Ren3, Duo Li2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several prospective cohort and case-control studies reported the inconsistent association between biospecimen composition of C20 and C22 long-chain (LC) n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) and colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. The aim of the present study was to investigate the association of biospecimen LC n-3 PUFA with CRC risk based on prospective cohort and case-control studies. METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25375637 PMCID: PMC4222788 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110574
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1PRISMA Flow Diagram for included prospective cohort and case-control studies.
Characteristics of included prospective and case-control studies in the meta-analysis of association between biospecimen long-chain n-3 PUFA and the risk of colorectal cancer.
| Author (year) | Design (Nation) | Population (case/participants) | Gender (Age) | Exposure of interest | Outcomes RR/OR (95%CI) | Covariates adjusted | |
| Measurement | Range (H vs. L) | ||||||
| Cottet (2013) | Cohort (France) | Subjects from E3N-EPIC cohort (328/19934) | F 40–65 y | Erythrocyte GLC (% tFC) | EPA:>1.18 vs. <0.89 | 0.88 (0.62–1.25) | BMI, physical activity, energy intake, alcohol consumption, smoking, educational level, menopausal status, and family history |
| DHA:>7.21 vs. <6.10 | 0.83 (0.57–1.22) | ||||||
| Pot (2008) | Case-control (Netherlands) | Subjects from the POLIEP study (498/861) | Both 18–75 y | Serum GLC (% tFC) | EPA:>1.00 vs. <0.70 | 0.79 (0.55–1.15) | Family history, BMI, indication for endoscopy, physical activity, smoking regular use of drugs, hormone replacement therapy, diet change due to gastrointestinal complaints, and daily intake of energy, alcohol, fat, fiber, red meat, vegetables and legumes and cholesterol. |
| DHA:>0.60 vs. <0.50 | 0.71 (0.49–1.02) | ||||||
| Ghadimi (2008) | Case-control (Japan) | Subjects form study on dietary, lifestyle factors and colon cancer (203/382) | F and M 35–75 y | Serum GLC (% tFC) |
| Age, BMI, history of CRC, history of diabetes; smoking, alcohol consumption, vigorous exercise and season of data collection. | |
| EPA:>10.48 vs. <5.50 | 0.62 (0.22–1.80) | ||||||
| DPA:>1.80 vs. <1.00 | 1.60 (0.35–7.31) | ||||||
| DHA:>20.2 vs. <13.8 | 0.43 (0.14–1.38) | ||||||
| LC n-3:>32.8 vs. <21.3 | 0.54 (0.19–1.54) | ||||||
|
| |||||||
| EPA:>9.50 vs. <5.70 | 1.22 (0.48–3.54) | ||||||
| DPA:>1.70 vs. <1.10 | 0.40 (0.15–1.09) | ||||||
| DHA:>19.2 vs. <14.2 | 2.30 (0.675–7.35) | ||||||
| LC n-3:>29.5 vs. <21.8 | 0.86 (0.28–2.21) | ||||||
| Hall (2007) | Cohort (USA) | Subjects from the primary prevention of cancer and CVD disease (178/14916) | M 40–84 y | Whole bloodGLC (% tFC) | EPA: 2.21–4.07 vs. 0.89–1.55 | 0.60 (0.29–1.23) | BMI, multivitamin use, history of diabetes, useof drugs, vigorous exercise, alcohol intake, and quartile of red meat intake. |
| DHA: 2.83–6.22 vs. 0.69–1.87 | 0.69 (0.39–1.23) | ||||||
| LC n-3: 6.06–11.41 vs. 2.43–4.43 | 0.60 (0.32–1.11) | ||||||
| Kuriki (2006) | Case-control (Japan) | Subjects form Hospital-based Epidemiologic Research Program; (74/295) | Both 20–80 y | EM; GLC (% tFC) | EPA:>1.70 vs. <1.18 | 0.69 (0.32–1.50) | BMI, habitual exercise, drinking and smoking status, green-yellow vegetable intake, and family history. |
| DPA:>1.50 vs. <1.24 | 0.83 (0.34–2.05) | ||||||
| DHA:>6.10 vs. <5.06 | 0.36 (0.14–0.93) | ||||||
| Kojima (2005) | Cohort (Japan) | Subjects from Collaborative Cohort Study for the Evaluation of Cancer Risk (JACC Study); 169/23863; | F and M 20–81y | Serum; GLC (% tFC) |
| Family history, BMI, education, smoking and alcohol drinking, green leafy vegetable intake, and physical exercise | |
| F-EPA:>3.33 vs. <1.73 | 0.83 (0.39–1.80) | ||||||
| DPA:>0.94 vs. <0.66 | 0.64 (0.30–1.39) | ||||||
| DHA:>5.92 vs. <4.20 | 0.80 (0.33–1.93) | ||||||
|
| |||||||
| EPA:>3.84 vs. <1.91 | 0.44 (0.18–1.08) | ||||||
| DPA:>1.02 vs. <0.68 | 0.30 (0.11–0.80) | ||||||
| DHA:>6.25 vs. <4.23 | 0.23 (0.07–0.76) | ||||||
| Busstra (2003) | Case-control (Netherlands) | Subjects from colorectal adenomas study; 52/109; | Both <75 y | Adipose; GLC (% tFC) | LC n-3:>0.27 vs. <0.20 | 0.30 (0.10–1.10) | Age, family background, energy intake and gender |
Abbreviations: H: the highest category; L: the lowest category; F: females; M: males; GLC: Gas liquid chromatography; tFC: total fatty acid; EPA: eicosapentaenoic acid (C20: 5n-3); DPA: docosapentaenoic acid (C22: 5n-3); DHA: docosahexaenoic acid (C22: 6n-3); LC n-3: long-chain n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (C20: 5n-3+C22: 5n-3+C22: 6n-3).
Characteristics of included case-control studies in the mea-analysis of different long-chain n-3 PUFA compositions between subjects with and without colorectal cancer.
| Author (year) | Design (Nation) | Gender (F or M) | Mean age (years) | No. of subjects | Biospecimen LC n-3 PUFA compositions (% total fatty acids) | ||||
| Cases | Controls | Biospecimen | Subtypes | Case vs. Control (Mean ±SD) |
| ||||
| Okuno (2013) | Case-control (Japan) | Both | 60.5 | 41 | 61 | Plasma | C20:5n-3 | 2.27±1.14 vs 3.04±1.65 | 0.006 |
| Plasma | C22:5n-3 | 0.99±0.26 vs1.00±0.22 | 0.80 | ||||||
| Plasma | C22:6n-3 | 7.63±1.43 vs 7.84±1.59 | 0.49 | ||||||
| Erythrocyte | C20:5n-3 | 1.86±0.71 vs 2.23±0.85 | 0.02 | ||||||
| Erythrocyte | C22:5n-3 | 2.11±0.30 vs 2.12±0.27 | 0.93 | ||||||
| Erythrocyte | C22:6n-3 | 7.81±0.90 vs 7.90±1.06 | 0.64 | ||||||
| Adipose | C20:5n-3 | 0.12±0.19 vs 0.10±0.07 | 0.62 | ||||||
| Adipose | C22:5n-3 | 0.28±0.18 vs 0.25±0.22 | 0.37 | ||||||
| Adipose | C22:6n-3 | 0.58±0.32 vs 0.66±0.39 | 0.28 | ||||||
| Giuliani (2013) | Case-control (Italy) | Both | 60.0 | 52 | 50 | Adipose | C20:5n-3 | 0.02 ± 0.03 vs 0.02±0.03 | NS |
| Adipose | C22:5n-3 | 0.16±0.10 vs 0.15±0.12 | NS | ||||||
| Adipose | C22:6n-3 | 0.16±0.12 vs 0.14±0.12 | NS | ||||||
| Pot (2008) | Case-control (Netherlands) | Both | 46.5 | 363 | 498 | Serum | C22:5n-3 | 0.80±0.50 vs 0.80±0.60 | NS |
| Serum | C22:6n-3 | 0.60±0.30 vs 0.60±0.30 | NS | ||||||
| Ghadimi (2008) | Case-control (Japan) | F | 58.0 | 55 | 112 | Serum | C20:5n-3 | 0.24±0.13 vs 0.27±0.15 | 0.12 |
| Serum | C22:5n-3 | 0.07±0.03 vs 0.05±0.04 | 0.001 | ||||||
| Serum | C22:6n-3 | 0.48±0.16 vs 0.56±0.31 | 0.02 | ||||||
| Serum | LC n-3 | 0.79±0.27 vs 0.88±0.54 | 0.18 | ||||||
| M | 60.0 | 148 | 67 | Serum | C20:5n-3 | 0.24±0.10 vs 0.26±0.12 | 0.220. | ||
| Serum | 22:5n-3 | 0.07±0.04 vs 0.06±0.05 | 001 | ||||||
| Serum | C22:6n-3 | 0.50±0.25 vs 0.57±0.20 | 0.06 | ||||||
| Serum | LC n-3 | 0.80±0.34 vs 0.89±0.37 | 0.53 | ||||||
| Kuriki (2006) | Case-control (Japan) | Both | 50.0 | 74 | 221 | Erythrocyte | C20:5n-3 | 1.40±0.50 vs 1.50±0.60 | NS |
| Erythrocyte | C22:5n-3 | 1.40±0.40 vs 1.40±0.30 | NS | ||||||
| Erythrocyte | C22:6n-3 | 5.30±1.00 vs 5.50±1.30 | NS | ||||||
| Erythrocyte | LC n-3 | 8.10±1.60 vs 8.40±2.00 | NS | ||||||
| Busstra (2003) | Case-control (Netherlands) | F | 46.5 | 52 | 57 | Adipose | LC n-3 | 1.10±0.09 vs 1.14±0.10 | NS |
| Baro (1998) | Case-control (Spain) | Both | 58.5 | 17 | 29 | Plasma | C20:5n-3 | 0.96±0.19 vs 0.79±0.21 | NS |
| Plasma | C22:5n-3 | 0.70±0.05 vs 0.65±0.09 | NS | ||||||
| Plasma | C22:6n-3 | 3.02±0.18 vs 2.91±0.28 | NS | ||||||
| Erythrocyte | C22:6n-3 | 6.25±0.20 vs 6.34±0.33 | NS | ||||||
| Fernandez-Banares (1996) | Case-control (Spain) | Both | 62.0 | 22 | 12 | Plasma | C20:5n-3 | 0.46± 0.03 vs 0.70±0.07 | 0.001 |
| Plasma | C22:5n-3 | 0.58± 0.06 vs 0.47±0.05 | NS | ||||||
| Plasma | C22:6n-3 | 3.42± 0.19 vs 3.45±0.15 | NS | ||||||
Abbreviations: F: females; M: males; NO.: Number; NS: no significance; LC n-3: long-chain n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (C20: 5n-3+C22: 5n-3+C22: 6n-3).
P value for different LC n-3 PUFA compositions between cases and controls.
Figure 2Forest plot corresponding to the random-effects meta-analysis quantifying the relationship between LC n-3 PUFA composition and CRC risk for the highest vs. lowest category.
Relative risks (RRs) or odds ratios (ORs) compared the highest vs. lowest category of biospecimen LC n-3 PUFA composition and were grouped by study designs. The size of the gray box representing each risk estimate was proportional to the weight that the risk estimate contributed to the summary risk estimate. The diamonds denoted summary risk estimate.
Subgroup analysis for association between biospecimen long-chain n-3 PUFA and risk of colorectal cancer.
| Factors stratified | C20:5n-3 | C22:6n-3 | LC n-3 PUFA | ||||||||||||
|
| SRR (95% CI) | Heterogeneity |
|
| SRR (95% CI) | Heterogeneity |
|
| SRR (95% CI) | Heterogeneity |
| ||||
| I2 (%) |
| I2 (%) |
| I2 (%) |
| ||||||||||
| Overall analysis | 6 | 0.78 (0.64, 0.96) | 0.00 | 0.89 | 6 | 0.68 (0.54, 0.84) | 0.00 | 0.42 | 7 | 0.74 (0.63, 0.87) | 0.00 | 0.50 | |||
| Study design | 0.93 | 0.37 | 0.63 | ||||||||||||
| PC | 3 | 0.77 (0.58, 1.00) | 0.00 | 0.49 | 3 | 0.76 (0.56, 1.01) | 0.00 | 0.30 | 3 | 0.76 (0.59, 0.97) | 10.00 | 0.33 | |||
| CC | 3 | 0.79 (0.58, 1.05) | 0.00 | 0.89 | 3 | 0.55 (0.36, 0.85) | 30.60 | 0.00 | 4 | 0.70 (0.55, 0.88) | 0.00 | 0.45 | |||
| Regions | 0.65 | 0.10 | 0.30 | ||||||||||||
| West (USA and Europe) | 4 | 0.81 (0.63, 1.02) | 0.00 | 0.64 | 3 | 0.75 (0.59, 0.96) | 0.00 | 0.80 | 4 | 0.76 (0.61, 0.93) | 19.70 | 0.29 | |||
| Asia | 2 | 0.72 (0.48, 1.07) | 0.00 | 0.77 | 3 | 0.34 (0.13, 0.85) | 43.00 | 0.17 | 3 | 0.60 (0.40, 0.89) | 0.00 | 0.88 | |||
| Gender | 0.42 | 0.24 | 0.14 | ||||||||||||
| Female | 3 | 0.85 (0.62, 1.15) | 0.00 | 0.82 | 2 | 0.78 (0.56, 1.09) | 0.00 | 0.56 | 3 | 0.83 (0.66, 1.05) | 0.00 | 0.70 | |||
| Male | 3 | 0.65 (0.19,1.11) | 13.00 | 0.32 | 5 | 0.47 (0.26, 0.88) | 33.00 | 0.22 | 3 | 0.53 (0.33, 0.84) | 13.70 | 0.32 | |||
| Biospecimens | 0.68 | 0.58 | 0.73 | ||||||||||||
| Serum | 3 | 0.77 (0.57, 1.02) | 0.00 | 0.57 | 3 | 0.63 (0.45, 0.86) | 0.00 | 0.38 | 3 | 0.71 (0.57, 0.89) | 0.00 | 0.73 | |||
| Erythrocytes | 2 | 0.80 (0.60, 1.06) | 0.00 | 0.74 | 2 | 0.70 (0.48, 1.01) | 23.50 | 0.27 | 2 | 0.79 (0.55, 1.15) | 17.80 | 0.27 | |||
| Whole blood | 1 | 0.80 (0.60, 1.06) | . | . | 1 | 0.69 (0.39, 1.23) | . | . | 1 | 0.60 (0.32, 1.12) | . | . | |||
Abbreviations: LC n-3: long-chain n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (C20: 5n-3+C22: 5n-3+C22: 6n-3); SRR: summary risk ratio; PC: prospective cohort study; CC: case-control study.
N, number of included studies.
P value for heterogeneity within subgroup.
P value for heterogeneity between subgroups with meta-regression analysis.
Figure 3Forest plot corresponding to the random-effects meta-analysis analysis on difference in biospecimen compositions of LC n-3 PUFA between cases and noncases.
Case-control studies are referred to by first author, year of publication, gender and biospecimen types. The combined standardized mean difference (SMD) was achieved using random-effects model. Grey square represents SMD in each study, with square size reflecting the study-specific weight and the 95% CI represented by horizontal bars. SMD from individual study were pooled by random effect model. The diamond indicates summary SMD.
Subgroup analysis for different biospecimen long-chain n-3 PUFA compositions between subjects with and without CRC.
| Factors stratified | C20:5n-3 | C22:5n-3 | C22:6n-3 | ||||||||||||
|
| SMD (95% CI) | Heterogeneity |
|
| SMD (95% CI) | Heterogeneity |
|
| SMD (95% CI) | Heterogeneity |
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
| Overall analysis | 7 | 0.27 (0.13, 0.41) | 36.20 | 0.18 | 6 | −0.08 (−0.22, 0.06) | 17.60 | 0.17 | 7 | 0.23 (0.11, 0.34) | 0.00 | 0.38 | |||
| Region | 0.74 | 0.12 | 0.45 | ||||||||||||
| West | 4 | 0.29 (−0.10, 0.67) | 56.00 | 0.07 | 3 | −0.33 (−0.64, 0.00) | 0.00 | 0.43 | 4 | 0.30 (−0.06, 0.67) | 51.00 | 0.08 | |||
| East | 3 | 0.24 (0.08, 0.40) | 27.90 | 0.23 | 3 | −0.02 (−0.16, 0.11) | 0.00 | 0.44 | 3 | 0.24 (0.11, 0.38) | 0.00 | 0.94 | |||
| Gender | 0.90 | 0.22 | 0.25 | ||||||||||||
| Female | 1 | 0.22 (−0.10, 0.55) | . | . | 1 | −0.28 (−0.61, 0.04) | . | . | 1 | 0.29 (−0.04, 0.61) | . | . | |||
| Male | 1 | 0.34 (0.14, 0.55) | . | . | 1 | 0.05 (−0.15, 0.25) | . | . | 1 | 0.37 (0.21, 0.52) | . | . | |||
| Both | 5 | 0.26 (0.05, 0.46) | 50.10 | 0.05 | 5 | −0.03 (−0.28, 0.05) | 12.60 | 0.33 | 5 | 0.18 (0.03, 0.33) | 10.80 | 0.34 | |||
| Biospecimens | 0.05 | 0.54 | 0.55 | ||||||||||||
| Blood | 5 | 0.30 (0.15, 0.44) | 17.60 | 0.27 | 4 | −0.04 (−0.20, 0.11) | 26.70 | 0.12 | 5 | 0.24 (0.10, 0.40) | 18.0 | 0.25 | |||
| Adipose | 2 | −0.07 (−0.35, 0.20) | 0.00 | 0.59 | 2 | −0.02 (−0.35, 0.30) | 28.10 | 0.24 | 2 | 0.19 (−0.09, 0.47) | 0.00 | 0.84 | |||
Abbreviations: CRC, colorectal cancer; N: number of included case-control studies; PC: prospective cohort study; CC: case-control study; SMD: standard mean difference compared with colorectal cancer subjects.
N, number of included studies.
P value for heterogeneity within each subgroup.
P value for heterogeneity between subgroups with meta-regression analysis.
Figure 4Nonlinear dose-response trend analysis assessed by restricted cubic spline model with three knots.
Adjusted ORs (RRs) from all category of biospecimen C20:5n-3, C22:5n-3, C22:6n-3 and total LC n-3 PUFA in each study were separately represented by the small gray circle in the figure A, B, C and D, and corresponding nonlinear dose-response relationship was represented by the black solid line shown in figure A, B, C, and D by using restricted cubic splines functional model with three knots at percentiles 25%, 50%, and 75% of the distribution, respectively.