4.7 Article

Coffee consumption and risk of endometrial cancer: Findings from a large up-to-date meta-analysis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 131, 期 7, 页码 1700-1710

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.27408

关键词

coffee; dietary factors; hyperinsulinemia; endometrial cancer; observational study; meta-analysis

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several epidemiological studies have examined the association between coffee drinking and risk of endometrial cancer. To provide a quantitative assessment of this association, we conducted a meta-analysis of observational studies published up to October 2011 through a search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the reference lists of retrieved article. Pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model, and generalized least square trend estimation was used to assess doseresponse relationships. A total of 16 studies (10 casecontrol and six cohort studies) on coffee intake with 6,628 endometrial cancer cases were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled RR of endometrial cancer for the highest versus lowest categories of coffee intake was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.620.81; p for heterogeneity = 0.13). By study design, the pooled RRs were 0.69 (95% CI: 0.550.87) for casecontrol studies and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.610.80) for cohort studies. By geographic region, the inverse association was stronger for three Japanese studies (pooled RR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.250.63) than five studies from USA/Canada (pooled RR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.600.79) or eight studies from Europe (pooled RR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.630.99). An increment of one cup per day of coffee intake conferred a pooled RR of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.900.95). In conclusion, our findings suggest that increased coffee intake is associated with a reduced risk of endometrial cancer, consistently observed for cohort and casecontrol studies. More large studies are needed to determine subgroups to obtain more benefits from coffee drinking in relation to endometrial cancer risk.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据