4.6 Review

Effect of diet on mortality and cancer recurrence among cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies

期刊

NUTRITION REVIEWS
卷 74, 期 12, 页码 737-748

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/nutrit/nuw045

关键词

cancer survivors; food intake; dietary patterns; overall mortality; cancer recurrence; meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: Evidence of an association between dietary patterns and individual foods and the risk of overall mortality among cancer survivors has not been reviewed systematically. Objective: The aim of this meta-analysis of cohort studies was to investigate the association between food intake and dietary patterns and overall mortality among cancer survivors. Data Sources: The PubMed and Embase databases were searched. Study Selection: A total of 117 studies enrolling 209 597 cancer survivors were included. Data Extraction: The following data were extracted: study location, types of outcome, population characteristics, dietary assessment method, risk estimates, and adjustment factors. Results: Higher intakes of vegetables and fish were inversely associated with overall mortality, and higher alcohol consumption was positively associated with overall mortality (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.16). Adherence to the highest category of diet quality was inversely associated with overall mortality (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.85; postdiagnosis RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.89), as was adherence to the highest category of a prudent/healthy dietary pattern (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.98; postdiagnosis RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60-0.99). The Western dietary pattern was associated with increased risk of overall mortality (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.27-1.68; postdiagnosis RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.24-1.85). Conclusion: Adherence to a high-quality diet and a prudent/healthy dietary pattern is inversely associated with overall mortality among cancer survivors, whereas a Western dietary pattern is positively associated with overall mortality in this population.

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

4.6
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