Evidence Hub

Dietary Fiber Intake and Risk of Advanced and Aggressive Forms of Prostate Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of 15 Prospective Cohort Studies

E. Sidahmed, S. Freedland, Molin Wang, Kana Wu, D. Albanes, Matt Barnett, P. A. van den Brandt, Michael B. Cook et al.

Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2024

842,149 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Background Evidence of an association between dietary fiber intake and risk of advanced and aggressive forms of prostate cancer (PC) and PC mortality is limited. Objective To examine associations between intakes of dietary fiber overall and by food source and risk of advanced and aggressive forms of PC. Design Pooled analysis of the primary data in 15 cohorts in three continents. Baseline dietary fiber intake was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire or diet history in each study. Participants/setting 842,149 men were followed for up to 9–22 years between 1985–2009 across studies. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measures were advanced (stage T4, N1, or M1 or PC mortality), advanced restricted (excluded men with missing stage and those with localized PC who died of PC), high grade (Gleason score ≥8 or poorly differentiated/undifferentiated) PC, and PC mortality. Statistical analysis Study-specific multivariable hazard ratios (MVHR) were calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression and pooled using random effects models. Results Intake of dietary fiber overall, from fruits, and from vegetables was not associated with risk of advanced (n=4,863), advanced restricted (n=2,978), or high-grade PC (n=9,673) or PC mortality (n=3,097). Dietary fiber intake from grains was inversely associated with advanced PC (MVHR comparing the highest vs. lowest quintile=0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76–0.93), advanced restricted PC (MVHR=0.85, 95%CI…

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