4.7 Article

Red and processed meat consumption and risk of pancreatic cancer: meta-analysis of prospective studies

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 106, Issue 3, Pages 603-607

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2011.585

Keywords

diet; meat; meta-analysis; pancreatic cancer; prospective studies; review

Categories

Funding

  1. Swedish Cancer Foundation
  2. Karolinska Institutet

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Whether red and processed meat consumption is a risk factor for pancreatic cancer remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to summarise the evidence from prospective studies of red and processed meat consumption and pancreatic cancer risk. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed and EMBASE databases through November 2011. Study-specific results were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Eleven prospective studies, with 6643 pancreatic cancer cases, were included in the meta-analysis. An increase in red meat consumption of 120 g per day was associated with an overall relative risk (RR) of 1.13 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.93-1.39; P-heterogeneity <0.001). Red meat consumption was positively associated with pancreatic cancer risk in men (RR = 1.29; 95% CI = 1.08-1.53; P-heterogeneity = 0.28; five studies), but not in women (RR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.74-1.16; P-heterogeneity = 0.21; six studies). The RR of pancreatic cancer for a 50 g per day increase in processed meat consumption was 1.19 (95% CI 1.04-1.36; P-heterogeneity = 0.46). CONCLUSION: Findings from this meta-analysis indicate that processed meat consumption is positively associated with pancreatic cancer risk. Red meat consumption was associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer in men. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings. British Journal of Cancer (2012) 106, 603-607. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.585 www.bjcancer.com Published online 12 January 2012 (C) 2012 Cancer Research UK

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