Cargando…
Processed meat, red meat, white meat, and digestive tract cancers: A two-sample Mendelian randomization study
BACKGROUND: Previous observational studies suggested inconsistent insights on the associations between meat intake and the risk of digestive tract cancers (DCTs). The causal effect of meat intake on DCTs is unclear. METHODS: Two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) was performed based on genome-wide...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9968810/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36860687 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2023.1078963 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Previous observational studies suggested inconsistent insights on the associations between meat intake and the risk of digestive tract cancers (DCTs). The causal effect of meat intake on DCTs is unclear. METHODS: Two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) was performed based on genome-wide association studies (GWAS) summary data from UK Biobank and FinnGen to evaluate the causal effect of meat intake [processed meat, red meat (pork, beef, and lamb), and white meat (poultry)] on DCTs (esophageal, stomach, liver, biliary tract, pancreatic, and colorectal cancers). The causal effects were estimated using a primary analysis that employed inverse-variance weighting (IVW) and complementary analysis that utilized MR-Egger weighted by the median. A sensitivity analysis was conducted using the Cochran Q statistic, a funnel plot, the MR-Egger intercept, and a leave-one-out approach. MR-PRESSO and Radial MR were performed to identify and remove outliers. To demonstrate direct causal effects, multivariable MR (MVMR) was applied. In addition, risk factors were introduced to explore potential mediators of the relationship between exposure and outcome. RESULTS: The results of the univariable MR analysis indicated that genetically proxied processed meat intake was associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer [IVW: odds ratio (OR) = 2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07–4.19; P = 0.031]. The causal effect is consistent in MVMR (OR = 3.85, 95% CI 1.14–13.04; P = 0.030) after controlling for the influence of other types of exposure. The body mass index and total cholesterol did not mediate the causal effects described above. There was no evidence to support the causal effects of processed meat intake on other cancers, except for colorectal cancer. Similarly, there is no causal association between red meat, white meat intake, and DCTs. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reported that processed meat intake increases the risk of colorectal cancer rather than other DCTs. No causal relationship was observed between red and white meat intake and DCTs. |
---|