4.6 Review

Folate intake and the risk of upper gastrointestinal cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Volume 29, Issue 2, Pages 250-258

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.12446

Keywords

esophageal cancer; folate; folic acid; gastric cancer; pancreatic cancer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Aim: There is conflicting evidence on the association between folate intake and the risk of upper gastrointestinal tract cancers. In order to further elucidate this relationship, we performed a systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis of folate intake and the risk of esophageal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer. Methods: Four electronic databases (Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Current Contents Connect) were searched to July 26, 2013, with no language restrictions for observational studies that measured folate intake and the risk of esophageal cancer, gastric cancer, or pancreatic cancer. Pooled odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random effects model. Results: The meta-analysis of dietary folate and esophageal cancer risk comprising of nine retrospective studies showed a decreased risk of esophageal cancer (odds ratio [OR] 0.59; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.51-0.69). The meta-analysis of dietary folate and gastric cancer risk comprising of 16 studies showed no association (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.78-1.14). The meta-analysis of dietary folate and pancreatic cancer risk comprising of eight studies showed a decreased risk of pancreatic cancer (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.49-0.89). Conclusion: Dietary folate intake is associated with a decreased risk of esophageal and pancreatic cancer, but not gastric cancer. Interpretation of these relationships is complicated by significant heterogeneity between studies when pooled, and by small numbers of studies available to analyze when stratification is performed to reduce heterogeneity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available