4.3 Article

N-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids intake and risk of colorectal cancer: meta-analysis of prospective studies

Journal

CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL
Volume 26, Issue 1, Pages 133-141

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10552-014-0492-1

Keywords

Fatty acids; Colorectal cancer; Colon cancer; Meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Growing body of laboratory evidence supports the beneficial effects of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) on colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. Epidemiologic studies investigating the relationship between n-3 PUFAs intake and risk of CRC, however, have been inconsistent. We aimed to clarify the relation by conducting a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Eligible studies were identified by searching PubMed database and by carefully reviewing bibliographies of retrieved publications. Summary relative risks (RRs) with their 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were computed with a random-effects model. Subgroup, meta-regression, and dose-response analyses were performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. A total of 14 prospective studies involving 8,775 cancer cases were included in the final analysis. Overall, total n-3 or marine PUFAs intake was not associated with risk of CRC (RR 0.99 and 1.00). However, there was a trend toward reduced risk of proximal colon cancer (total n-3 PUFAs: RR 0.83, 95 % CI 0.66-1.05; marine PUFAs: RR 0.81, 95 % CI 0.59-1.10) and a significant increased risk of distal colon cancer (total n-3 PUFAs: RR 1.26, 95 % CI 1.06-1.50; marine PUFAs: RR 1.38, 95 % CI 1.11-1.71). Furthermore, marine PUFAs intake accessed longer before diagnosis was associated 21 % reduced risk of CRC (RR 0.79, 95 % CI 0.63-1.00). Overall, this meta-analysis finds no relation between n-3 PUFAs intake and risk of CRC. The observed subsite heterogeneity within colon cancer and the possible effect modification by latency time merit further studies.

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