Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Processed meat and colorectal cancer: a quantitative review of prospective epidemiologic studies.
Eur J Cancer Prev 2010; 19(5):328-41EJ

Abstract

A tremendous amount of scientific interest has been generated regarding processed meat consumption and cancer risk. Therefore, to estimate the association between processed meat intake and colorectal cancer (CRC), a meta-analysis of prospective studies was conducted. Twenty-eight prospective studies of processed meat and CRC were identified, of which 20 represented independent nonoverlapping study populations. Summary relative risk estimates (SRREs) for high versus low intake and dose-response relationships were calculated. The SRRE for high (vs. low) processed meat intake and CRC was 1.16 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10-1.23] for all studies. Summary associations were modified considerably by sex; the SRRE for men was 1.23 (95% CI: 1.07-1.42) and the SRRE for women was 1.05 (95% CI: 0.94-1.16), based on nine and 13 studies, respectively. Sensitivity analyses did not indicate appreciable statistical variation by tumor site, processed meat groups, or study location. The SRRE for each 30-gram increment of processed meat and CRC was 1.10 (95% CI: 1.05-1.15) based on nine studies, and the SRRE for each incremental serving of processed meat per week was 1.03 (95% CI: 1.01-1.05) based on six studies. Overall, summary associations were weak in magnitude (i.e. most less than 1.20), processed meat definitions and analytical comparisons were highly variable across studies, and isolating the independent effects of processed meat intake is difficult, given the likely influence of confounding by other dietary and lifestyle factors. Therefore, the currently available epidemiologic evidence is not sufficient to support a clear and unequivocal independent positive association between processed meat consumption and CRC.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Exponent Inc. Health Sciences, Wood Dale, Illinois 60191, USA. dalexander@exponent.comNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review

Language

eng

PubMed ID

20495462

Citation

Alexander, Dominik D., et al. "Processed Meat and Colorectal Cancer: a Quantitative Review of Prospective Epidemiologic Studies." European Journal of Cancer Prevention : the Official Journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP), vol. 19, no. 5, 2010, pp. 328-41.
Alexander DD, Miller AJ, Cushing CA, et al. Processed meat and colorectal cancer: a quantitative review of prospective epidemiologic studies. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2010;19(5):328-41.
Alexander, D. D., Miller, A. J., Cushing, C. A., & Lowe, K. A. (2010). Processed meat and colorectal cancer: a quantitative review of prospective epidemiologic studies. European Journal of Cancer Prevention : the Official Journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP), 19(5), pp. 328-41. doi:10.1097/CEJ.0b013e32833b48fa.
Alexander DD, et al. Processed Meat and Colorectal Cancer: a Quantitative Review of Prospective Epidemiologic Studies. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2010;19(5):328-41. PubMed PMID: 20495462.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Processed meat and colorectal cancer: a quantitative review of prospective epidemiologic studies. AU - Alexander,Dominik D, AU - Miller,Arthur J, AU - Cushing,Colleen A, AU - Lowe,Kimberly A, PY - 2010/5/25/entrez PY - 2010/5/25/pubmed PY - 2010/11/9/medline SP - 328 EP - 41 JF - European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) JO - Eur. J. Cancer Prev. VL - 19 IS - 5 N2 - A tremendous amount of scientific interest has been generated regarding processed meat consumption and cancer risk. Therefore, to estimate the association between processed meat intake and colorectal cancer (CRC), a meta-analysis of prospective studies was conducted. Twenty-eight prospective studies of processed meat and CRC were identified, of which 20 represented independent nonoverlapping study populations. Summary relative risk estimates (SRREs) for high versus low intake and dose-response relationships were calculated. The SRRE for high (vs. low) processed meat intake and CRC was 1.16 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10-1.23] for all studies. Summary associations were modified considerably by sex; the SRRE for men was 1.23 (95% CI: 1.07-1.42) and the SRRE for women was 1.05 (95% CI: 0.94-1.16), based on nine and 13 studies, respectively. Sensitivity analyses did not indicate appreciable statistical variation by tumor site, processed meat groups, or study location. The SRRE for each 30-gram increment of processed meat and CRC was 1.10 (95% CI: 1.05-1.15) based on nine studies, and the SRRE for each incremental serving of processed meat per week was 1.03 (95% CI: 1.01-1.05) based on six studies. Overall, summary associations were weak in magnitude (i.e. most less than 1.20), processed meat definitions and analytical comparisons were highly variable across studies, and isolating the independent effects of processed meat intake is difficult, given the likely influence of confounding by other dietary and lifestyle factors. Therefore, the currently available epidemiologic evidence is not sufficient to support a clear and unequivocal independent positive association between processed meat consumption and CRC. SN - 1473-5709 UR - http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/20495462/Processed_meat_and_colorectal_cancer:_a_quantitative_review_of_prospective_epidemiologic_studies_ L2 - http://Insights.ovid.com/pubmed?pmid=20495462 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -