Cargando…

Effect of Red, Processed, and White Meat Consumption on the Risk of Gastric Cancer: An Overall and Dose–Response Meta-Analysis

Whether the risk of gastric cancer varies by the types of meat consumption still remains disputable. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to identify the exact associations that red, processed, and white meat have with gastric cancer. We searched relevant studies in Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochran...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Seong Rae, Kim, Kyuwoong, Lee, Sang Ah, Kwon, Sung Ok, Lee, Jong-Koo, Keum, NaNa, Park, Sang Min
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6520977/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30979076
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu11040826
_version_ 1783418853201543168
author Kim, Seong Rae
Kim, Kyuwoong
Lee, Sang Ah
Kwon, Sung Ok
Lee, Jong-Koo
Keum, NaNa
Park, Sang Min
author_facet Kim, Seong Rae
Kim, Kyuwoong
Lee, Sang Ah
Kwon, Sung Ok
Lee, Jong-Koo
Keum, NaNa
Park, Sang Min
author_sort Kim, Seong Rae
collection PubMed
description Whether the risk of gastric cancer varies by the types of meat consumption still remains disputable. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to identify the exact associations that red, processed, and white meat have with gastric cancer. We searched relevant studies in Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library before November 2018, including cohort and case-control studies. We used random-effect models to estimate the adjusted relative risk (RR), and Egger’s tests to evaluate publication bias. Through stepwise screening, 43 studies were included in this analysis (11 cohort studies and 32 case-control studies with 16,572 cases). In a meta-analysis for the highest versus lowest categories of meat consumption, both red (RR: 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.21–1.66) and processed (RR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.37–1.81) meat consumption were positively associated with gastric cancer risk, while white meat consumption was negatively associated with gastric cancer risk (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.69–0.92). In a dose–response meta-analysis, the RRs of gastric cancer were 1.26 (95% CI: 1.11–1.42) for every 100 g/day increment in red meat consumption, 1.72 (95% CI: 1.36–2.18) for every 50 g/day increment in processed meat consumption, and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.64–1.15) for every 100 g/day increment in white meat consumption. The increase of white meat consumption may reduce the risk of gastric cancer, while red or processed meat may increase the risk of gastric cancer. Further studies are required to identify these associations, especially between white meat and gastric cancer.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6520977
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65209772019-05-31 Effect of Red, Processed, and White Meat Consumption on the Risk of Gastric Cancer: An Overall and Dose–Response Meta-Analysis Kim, Seong Rae Kim, Kyuwoong Lee, Sang Ah Kwon, Sung Ok Lee, Jong-Koo Keum, NaNa Park, Sang Min Nutrients Review Whether the risk of gastric cancer varies by the types of meat consumption still remains disputable. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to identify the exact associations that red, processed, and white meat have with gastric cancer. We searched relevant studies in Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library before November 2018, including cohort and case-control studies. We used random-effect models to estimate the adjusted relative risk (RR), and Egger’s tests to evaluate publication bias. Through stepwise screening, 43 studies were included in this analysis (11 cohort studies and 32 case-control studies with 16,572 cases). In a meta-analysis for the highest versus lowest categories of meat consumption, both red (RR: 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.21–1.66) and processed (RR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.37–1.81) meat consumption were positively associated with gastric cancer risk, while white meat consumption was negatively associated with gastric cancer risk (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.69–0.92). In a dose–response meta-analysis, the RRs of gastric cancer were 1.26 (95% CI: 1.11–1.42) for every 100 g/day increment in red meat consumption, 1.72 (95% CI: 1.36–2.18) for every 50 g/day increment in processed meat consumption, and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.64–1.15) for every 100 g/day increment in white meat consumption. The increase of white meat consumption may reduce the risk of gastric cancer, while red or processed meat may increase the risk of gastric cancer. Further studies are required to identify these associations, especially between white meat and gastric cancer. MDPI 2019-04-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6520977/ /pubmed/30979076 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu11040826 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Kim, Seong Rae
Kim, Kyuwoong
Lee, Sang Ah
Kwon, Sung Ok
Lee, Jong-Koo
Keum, NaNa
Park, Sang Min
Effect of Red, Processed, and White Meat Consumption on the Risk of Gastric Cancer: An Overall and Dose–Response Meta-Analysis
title Effect of Red, Processed, and White Meat Consumption on the Risk of Gastric Cancer: An Overall and Dose–Response Meta-Analysis
title_full Effect of Red, Processed, and White Meat Consumption on the Risk of Gastric Cancer: An Overall and Dose–Response Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Effect of Red, Processed, and White Meat Consumption on the Risk of Gastric Cancer: An Overall and Dose–Response Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Effect of Red, Processed, and White Meat Consumption on the Risk of Gastric Cancer: An Overall and Dose–Response Meta-Analysis
title_short Effect of Red, Processed, and White Meat Consumption on the Risk of Gastric Cancer: An Overall and Dose–Response Meta-Analysis
title_sort effect of red, processed, and white meat consumption on the risk of gastric cancer: an overall and dose–response meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6520977/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30979076
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu11040826
work_keys_str_mv AT kimseongrae effectofredprocessedandwhitemeatconsumptionontheriskofgastriccanceranoverallanddoseresponsemetaanalysis
AT kimkyuwoong effectofredprocessedandwhitemeatconsumptionontheriskofgastriccanceranoverallanddoseresponsemetaanalysis
AT leesangah effectofredprocessedandwhitemeatconsumptionontheriskofgastriccanceranoverallanddoseresponsemetaanalysis
AT kwonsungok effectofredprocessedandwhitemeatconsumptionontheriskofgastriccanceranoverallanddoseresponsemetaanalysis
AT leejongkoo effectofredprocessedandwhitemeatconsumptionontheriskofgastriccanceranoverallanddoseresponsemetaanalysis
AT keumnana effectofredprocessedandwhitemeatconsumptionontheriskofgastriccanceranoverallanddoseresponsemetaanalysis
AT parksangmin effectofredprocessedandwhitemeatconsumptionontheriskofgastriccanceranoverallanddoseresponsemetaanalysis