Evidence Hub

Associations between unprocessed red and processed meat, poultry, seafood and egg intake and the risk of prostate cancer: A pooled analysis of 15 prospective cohort studies

Wu K, Spiegelman D, Hou T, Albanes D, Allen NE, Berndt SI, van den Brandt PA, Giles GG et al.

International journal of cancer, 2016

842,149 participants

Abstract

Reports relating meat intake to prostate cancer risk are inconsistent. Associations between these dietary factors and prostate cancer were examined in a consortium of 15 cohort studies. During follow-up, 52,683 incident prostate cancer cases, including 4,924 advanced cases, were identified among 842,149 men. Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate study-specific relative risks (RR) and then pooled using random effects models. Results do not support a substantial effect of total red, unprocessed red and processed meat for all prostate cancer outcomes, except for a modest positive association for tumors identified as advanced stage at diagnosis (advanced(r)). For seafood, no substantial effect was observed for prostate cancer regardless of stage or grade. Poultry intake was inversely associated with risk of advanced and fatal cancers (pooled multivariable RR [MVRR], 95% confidence interval, comparing ≥ 45 vs. <5 g/day: advanced 0.83, 0.70-0.99; trend test p value 0.29), fatal, 0.69, 0.59-0.82, trend test p value 0.16). Participants who ate ≥ 25 versus <5 g/day of eggs (1 egg ∼ 50 g) had a significant 14% increased risk of advanced and fatal cancers (advanced 1.14, 1.01-1.28, trend test p value 0.01; fatal 1.14, 1.00-1.30, trend test p value 0.01). When associations were analyzed separately by geographical region (North America vs. other continents), positive associations between unprocessed red meat and egg intake, and inverse associations between poultry intake…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 842,149 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free