Youdong Wei1, Dezhi Zou2, Du Cao2, Peng Xie3. 1. Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China; Institute of Neuroscience, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China; Chongqing Key Laboratory of Neurobiology, Chongqing, China. 2. Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China; Chongqing Key Laboratory of Neurobiology, Chongqing, China. 3. Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China; Institute of Neuroscience, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China; Chongqing Key Laboratory of Neurobiology, Chongqing, China. Electronic address: xiepeng@cqmu.edu.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Epidemiologic studies evaluating the association between processed meat and red meat consumption and glioma risk have produced inconsistent results. Thus, the aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to test the hypothesis that high levels of processed meat consumption could increase the risk for glioma. METHODS: Pertinent studies were identified by a search of PubMed and Web of Knowledge up to February 2014. Random-effects model was used to combine the results. Publication bias was estimated using Egger's regression asymmetry test. RESULTS: Fourteen studies involving 3641 cases about processed meat consumption and 3 studies involving 1156 cases about red meat consumption with risk for glioma were included in this meta-analysis. The combined relative risk (RR) of glioma associated with processed meat consumption was 1.25 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-1.45) overall, and 1.28 (95% CI, 1.09-1.50) in the United States. For subgroup of study design, significant association was also found in case-control studies (RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.09-1.62), but not in the cohort studies. The association was not significant between red meat consumption and glioma risk (summary RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71-1.12). No publication biases were found. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis indicated that high levels of processed meat consumption might increase the risk for glioma, and findings are consistent with the hypothesis. No association was found between red meat consumption and glioma risk.
OBJECTIVE: Epidemiologic studies evaluating the association between processed meat and red meat consumption and glioma risk have produced inconsistent results. Thus, the aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to test the hypothesis that high levels of processed meat consumption could increase the risk for glioma. METHODS: Pertinent studies were identified by a search of PubMed and Web of Knowledge up to February 2014. Random-effects model was used to combine the results. Publication bias was estimated using Egger's regression asymmetry test. RESULTS: Fourteen studies involving 3641 cases about processed meat consumption and 3 studies involving 1156 cases about red meat consumption with risk for glioma were included in this meta-analysis. The combined relative risk (RR) of glioma associated with processed meat consumption was 1.25 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-1.45) overall, and 1.28 (95% CI, 1.09-1.50) in the United States. For subgroup of study design, significant association was also found in case-control studies (RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.09-1.62), but not in the cohort studies. The association was not significant between red meat consumption and glioma risk (summary RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71-1.12). No publication biases were found. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis indicated that high levels of processed meat consumption might increase the risk for glioma, and findings are consistent with the hypothesis. No association was found between red meat consumption and glioma risk.
Authors: Heather A Ward; Alicia Gayle; Paula Jakszyn; Melissa Merritt; Beatrice Melin; Heinz Freisling; Elisabete Weiderpass; Anne Tjonneland; Anja Olsen; Christina C Dahm; Kim Overvad; Verena Katzke; Tilman Kühn; Heiner Boeing; Antonia Trichopoulou; Pagona Lagiou; Andreas Kyrozis; Domenico Palli; Vittorio Krogh; Rosario Tumino; Fulvio Ricceri; Amalia Mattiello; Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita; Petra H Peeters; José Ramón Quirós; Antonio Agudo; Miguel Rodriguez-Barranco; Nerea Larrañaga; José M Huerta; Aurelio Barricarte; Emily Sonestedt; Isabel Drake; Maria Sandström; Ruth C Travis; Pietro Ferrari; Elio Riboli; Amanda J Cross Journal: Eur J Cancer Prev Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 2.497