| Literature DB >> 29021640 |
Esther de Vries1, Doris C Quintero2, Giana Henríquez-Mendoza3, Oscar Fernando Herrán4.
Abstract
AIM: to estimate the population attributable risk of consumption of red and processed meat for colorectal cancer in Colombia.Entities:
Keywords: Colombia; Red meat; carcinogens; colorectal neoplasms; diet; meat; processed meat; risk; software
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29021640 PMCID: PMC5625559
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Colomb Med (Cali) ISSN: 0120-8322
Calculation of the risk functions
| Relation between colorectal cancer risk and consumption of | Relative Risk | Intercept (lnRR) | Unit of change g/day | Change in risk with each unit change in Prevent | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Males | Females | Males | Females | Males | Females | Males | Females | |
| Red meat | 1.17 | 1.17 | -0.157 | -0.157 | 20 | 20 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Processed meat | 1.35* | 1.35* | -0.300 | -0.300 | 20 | 20 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
*1.17 is the figure from the literature, corresponding to a consumption of 50 g per day of processed meat, transforming this risk to 100 g per day corresponds to 1.35.
Age groups by sex and average amounts of consumption of red meats and processed meats.
| Age group | Red meat | Processed meats | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | Women | Men | Women | |||||||||
| N (gr) | Mean (gr) | Sd (gr) | N (gr) | Mean (gr) | Sd (gr) | N(gr) | Mean (gr) | Sd (gr) | N (gr) | Mean (gr) | Sd (gr) | |
| 2-4 | 1,181 | 41.63 | 25.74 | 1,151 | 40.34 | 27.69 | 279 | 44.52 | 37.11 | 285 | 42.02 | 34.97 |
| 5-9 | 2,090 | 49.57 | 33.72 | 2,137 | 47.87 | 31.66 | 755 | 51.31 | 46.97 | 667 | 49.10 | 46.13 |
| 10-14 | 2,358 | 57.98 | 43.35 | 2,271 | 57.38 | 39.96 | 802 | 61.97 | 59.22 | 779 | 56.21 | 49.42 |
| 15-19 | 2,018 | 69.13 | 53.45 | 1,966 | 60.75 | 42.25 | 619 | 70.17 | 64.19 | 644 | 53.43 | 46.07 |
| 20-24 | 800 | 77.03 | 58.27 | 853 | 62.62 | 44.19 | 261 | 54.52 | 46.25 | 248 | 50.61 | 42.00 |
| 25-29 | 520 | 76.77 | 61.81 | 580 | 64.74 | 47.82 | 137 | 66.24 | 58.87 | 138 | 48.99 | 41.85 |
| 30-34 | 444 | 79.79 | 67.22 | 476 | 60.16 | 44.09 | 108 | 63.45 | 68.75 | 103 | 46.09 | 46.47 |
| 35-39 | 423 | 78.02 | 55.70 | 461 | 56.56 | 37.71 | 102 | 54.98 | 60.58 | 110 | 47.24 | 40.41 |
| 40-44 | 384 | 77.86 | 58.97 | 415 | 58.35 | 42.25 | 79 | 49.07 | 40.34 | 87 | 46.07 | 38.40 |
| 45-49 | 365 | 71.53 | 53.74 | 339 | 52.86 | 34.62 | 56 | 55.82 | 47.90 | 64 | 48.56 | 49.83 |
| 50-54 | 259 | 71.12 | 60.20 | 278 | 54.20 | 36.42 | 40 | 53.15 | 44.50 | 49 | 40.33 | 39.53 |
| 55-59 | 176 | 75.22 | 58.72 | 201 | 53.48 | 34.26 | 22 | 47.27 | 34.20 | 21 | 38.29 | 25.83 |
| 60-64 | 162 | 65.18 | 48.70 | 146 | 51.03 | 36.58 | 27 | 46.72 | 37.28 | 27 | 46.31 | 48.29 |
Results of sensitivity analysis assuming the confidence intervals for the attributable fraction.
| Relation between colorectal cancer risk and consumption of | Relative Risk | Intercept (lnRR) | Unit of change g/day | Change in risk with each unit change in Prevent | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Males | Females | Males | Females | Males | Females | Males | Females | |
| Lower limit | ||||||||
| Red meat | 1.05 | 1.05 | -0.048 | -0.048 | 20 | 20 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Processed meat | 1.27* | 1.27* | -0.239 | -0.239 | 20 | 20 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Upper limit | ||||||||
| Red meat | 1.31 | 1.31 | -0.270 | -0.270 | 20 | 20 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Processed meat | 1.45† | 1.45† | -0.371 | -0.371 | 20 | 20 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
*1.10 and † 1.28 are the figures from the literature, corresponding to a consumption of 50 g per day of processed meat in its lower and upper limits, transforming this risk to 100 g per day corresponds to 1.27 and 1.45.
Figure 1Age-standardized (SEGI standard population) colorectal cancer incidence rates estimated for Colombia, 2010, under the reference (real) and intervention scenarios
Population attributable fraction in absolute numbers and proportion of avoidable colorectal cancers by eliminating red and processed meat consumption
| Risk factor | Sex | Colorectal cancer incidence 2010 (reference) | Colorectal cancer incidence 2010 under simulation* (intervention) | 95% CI of optimal incidence in absolute numbers† | Proportion avoidable colorectal cancers* | 95% CI of proportion avoidable colorectal cancers† | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Numbers | Numbers | Lower limit | Upper limit | % | Lower limit % | Upper limit % | ||
| Red meat | Men | 2,480 | 2,149 | 1,992 | 2,312 | 13 | 7 | 20 |
| Women | 2,878 | 2,581 | 2,439 | 2,727 | 10 | 5 | 15 | |
| Processed meat | Men | 2,480 | 2,118 | 2,003 | 2,236 | 15 | 10 | 19 |
| Women | 2,878 | 2,490 | 2,363 | 2,618 | 14 | 9 | 18 | |
*under elimination of red or processed meat consumption
†Based on the lower and upper end of the 95% confidence intervals of the meta-analyses of the relative risks for colorectal cancer for red and processed meat consumption