4.6 Review

Hot Tea Consumption and Esophageal Cancer Risk: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

Journal

FRONTIERS IN NUTRITION
Volume 9, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2022.831567

Keywords

hot tea; esophageal cancer; meta-analysis; case-control study; risk

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81773230]
  2. Science and Technology Research Plan of Henan [212102310619]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This meta-analysis suggests that drinking hot tea is significantly associated with an increased risk of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), but not with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).
Objective: Many laboratory studies have shown that tea consumption protected against the development of esophageal cancer (EC). However, in epidemiological studies, inconsistent or even contradictory results were frequently observed, especially when drinking tea at higher temperatures. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis based on published observational studies to explore whether hot tea consumption was a risk factor of EC. Relevant studies were searched in PubMed, Embase, and Web of science up to October 13, 2021, and we also manually retrieved the literature in the included studies and recent reviews. Results: A total of 23 eligible reports were identified, including 5,050 cases and 10,609 controls, and a meta-analysis with Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) software (version 2.0) was conducted. A statistically significant increased EC risk was observed when drinking tea at higher temperature (odds ratios (ORs) = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.48-2.15, p = 0.00). Except for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), this increased risk was also found in the majority of subgroups, which are the European and Australian populations. Conclusions: This meta-analysis showed that people who drank hot tea had a significantly increased risk of Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), but no significant association for EAC.

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