Anne Grundy1, Abbey E Poirier1, Farah Khandwala1, Alison McFadden1, Christine M Friedenreich1, Darren R Brenner1. 1. Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research (Grundy, Poirier, Khandwala, McFadden, Friedenreich, Brenner), CancerControl Alberta, Alberta Health Services; Department of Oncology (Friedenreich, Brenner), Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary; Department of Community Health Sciences (Friedenreich, Brenner), Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Consumption of red and processed meats has been associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. The purpose of this study was to estimate the proportion and absolute number of cancers in Alberta in 2012 that could be attributed to the consumption of red and processed meat. METHODS: The number and proportion of colorectal cancers in Alberta that were attributable to red and processed meat consumption were estimated using population attributable risk. Relative risks were obtained from the World Cancer Research Fund's 2011 Continuous Update Project on Colorectal Cancer, and the prevalence of red and processed meat consumption was estimated using dietary data from Alberta's Tomorrow Project. Age- and sex-specific colorectal cancer incidence data for 2012 were obtained from the Alberta Cancer Registry. RESULTS: Among participants in Alberta's Tomorrow Project, 41%-61% of men and 14%-25% of women consumed more than 500 g of red and processed meat per week, which exceeds World Cancer Research Fund cancer prevention guidelines. For red meat consumption, population attributable risks for colorectal cancer were substantially higher for men (13.6%-17.9%) than for women (1.6%-2.1%). For processed meat consumption, the population attributable risks were also higher for men (3.2%-4.8%) than for women (1.5%-2.1%). Overall, about 12% of colorectal cancers, or 1.5% of all cancers, in Alberta in 2012 were attributable to the consumption of red and processed meat. INTERPRETATION: Red and processed meat consumption is estimated to acount for about 12% of colorectal cancers in Alberta. Decreasing its consumption has the potential to reduce to Alberta's cancer burden.
BACKGROUND: Consumption of red and processed meats has been associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. The purpose of this study was to estimate the proportion and absolute number of cancers in Alberta in 2012 that could be attributed to the consumption of red and processed meat. METHODS: The number and proportion of colorectal cancers in Alberta that were attributable to red and processed meat consumption were estimated using population attributable risk. Relative risks were obtained from the World Cancer Research Fund's 2011 Continuous Update Project on Colorectal Cancer, and the prevalence of red and processed meat consumption was estimated using dietary data from Alberta's Tomorrow Project. Age- and sex-specific colorectal cancer incidence data for 2012 were obtained from the Alberta Cancer Registry. RESULTS: Among participants in Alberta's Tomorrow Project, 41%-61% of men and 14%-25% of women consumed more than 500 g of red and processed meat per week, which exceeds World Cancer Research Fund cancer prevention guidelines. For red meat consumption, population attributable risks for colorectal cancer were substantially higher for men (13.6%-17.9%) than for women (1.6%-2.1%). For processed meat consumption, the population attributable risks were also higher for men (3.2%-4.8%) than for women (1.5%-2.1%). Overall, about 12% of colorectal cancers, or 1.5% of all cancers, in Alberta in 2012 were attributable to the consumption of red and processed meat. INTERPRETATION: Red and processed meat consumption is estimated to acount for about 12% of colorectal cancers in Alberta. Decreasing its consumption has the potential to reduce to Alberta's cancer burden.
Authors: Nicholas J Ollberding; Lynne R Wilkens; Brian E Henderson; Laurence N Kolonel; Loïc Le Marchand Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2012-04-05 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: A F Subar; F E Thompson; V Kipnis; D Midthune; P Hurwitz; S McNutt; A McIntosh; S Rosenfeld Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2001-12-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: I-Min Lee; Eric J Shiroma; Felipe Lobelo; Pekka Puska; Steven N Blair; Peter T Katzmarzyk Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Christina M Nagle; Louise F Wilson; Maria Celia B Hughes; Torukiri I Ibiebele; Kyoko Miura; Christopher J Bain; David C Whiteman; Penelope M Webb Journal: Aust N Z J Public Health Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 2.939
Authors: Gundula Behrens; Thomas Gredner; Christian Stock; Michael F Leitzmann; Hermann Brenner; Ute Mons Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2018-09-03 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Darren R Brenner; Abbey E Poirier; Stephen D Walter; Will D King; Eduardo L Franco; Paul A Demers; Paul J Villeneuve; Yibing Ruan; Farah Khandwala; Xin Grevers; Robert Nuttall; Leah Smith; Prithwish De; Karena Volesky; Dylan O'Sullivan; Perry Hystad; Christine M Friedenreich Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Mariagrazia Molfetta; Etiele G Morais; Luisa Barreira; Giovanni Luigi Bruno; Francesco Porcelli; Eric Dugat-Bony; Pascal Bonnarme; Fabio Minervini Journal: Foods Date: 2022-07-12