4.7 Review

Dietary patterns and cancer risk

Journal

NATURE REVIEWS CANCER
Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages 125-138

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41568-019-0227-4

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA218578] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Over the past decade, the search for dietary factors on which to base cancer prevention guidelines has led to the rapid expansion of the field of dietary patterns and cancer. Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported epidemiological associations between specific cancer types and both data-driven dietary patterns determined by empirical analyses and investigator-defined dietary indexes based on a predetermined set of dietary components. New developments, such as the use of metabolomics to identify objective biomarkers of dietary patterns and novel statistical techniques, could provide further insights into the links between diet and cancer risk. Although animal models of dietary patterns are limited, progress in this area could identify the potential mechanisms underlying the disease-specific associations observed in epidemiological studies. In this Review, we summarize the current state of the field, provide a critical appraisal of new developments and identify priority areas for future research. An underlying theme that emerges is that the effectiveness of different dietary pattern recommendations in reducing risk could depend on the type of cancer or on other risk factors such as family history, sex, age and other lifestyle factors or comorbidities as well as on metabolomic signatures or gut microbiota profiles. This Review summarizes the epidemiology literature linking data-driven and investigator-defined dietary patterns to cancer risk, providing expert appraisal of new developments in the field and highlighting both emerging mechanistic insights and key areas for future research.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available