4.3 Article

Patterns of meat intake and risk of prostate cancer among African-Americans in a large prospective study

Journal

CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL
Volume 22, Issue 12, Pages 1691-1698

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10552-011-9845-1

Keywords

Prostate cancer; Cohort studies; Diet; Meat consumption; Racial disparities; Men

Funding

  1. NIH, National Cancer Institute
  2. Florida Department of Health (FDOH)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective Given the large racial differences in prostate cancer risk, further investigation of diet and prostate cancer is warranted among high-risk groups. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between type of meat intake and prostate cancer risk among African-American men. Methods In the large, prospective NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study, we analyzed baseline (1995-1996) data from African-American participants, aged 50-71 years. Incident prostate cancer cases (n = 1,089) were identified through 2006. Dietary and risk factor data were ascertained by questionnaires administered at baseline. Cox models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) within intake quantiles. Results Neither white nor processed meat intake was associated with prostate cancer, regardless of meat-cooking method. Red meats cooked at high temperatures were associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer (HR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.00-1.38 and HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.03-1.44, for the upper two intake tertiles). Intake of the heterocyclic amine (HCA), 2-amino-3,4,8-trimethylimidazo[4,5-f] quinoxaline (DiMeIQx) was positively associated with prostate cancer (HR = 1.30; 95% CI = 1.05-1.61, p = 0.02). No associations were observed for intake of other HCAs. Conclusion Red meats cooked at high temperatures were positively associated with prostate cancer risk among African-American men. Further studies are needed to replicate these findings.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available