The Experts below are selected from a list of 18261 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Alicja Wolk - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
consumption of red and Processed Meat and breast cancer incidence a systematic review and meta analysis of prospective studies
International Journal of Cancer, 2018Co-Authors: Maryam S Farvid, Alicja Wolk, Mariana C Stern, Teresa Norat, Shizuka Sasazuki, Paolo Vineis, Matty P Weijenberg, Bernard W Stewart, Eunyoung ChoAbstract:Prior studies on red and Processed Meat consumption with breast cancer risk have generated inconsistent results. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies to summarize the evidence regarding the relation of red Meat and Processed Meat consumption with breast cancer incidence. We searched in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through January 2018 for prospective studies that reported the association between red Meat and Processed Meat consumption with incident breast cancer. The multivariable-adjusted relative risk (RR) was combined comparing the highest with the lowest category of red Meat (unProcessed) and Processed Meat consumption using a random-effect meta-analysis. We identified 13 cohort, 3 nested case-control and two clinical trial studies. Comparing the highest to the lowest category, red Meat (unProcessed) consumption was associated with a 6% higher breast cancer risk (pooled RR,1.06; 95% confidence intervals (95%CI):0.99-1.14; I2 = 56.3%), and Processed Meat consumption was associated with a 9% higher breast cancer risk (pooled RR, 1.09; 95%CI, 1.03-1.16; I2 = 44.4%). In addition, we identified two nested case-control studies evaluating the association between red Meat and breast cancer stratified by N-acetyltransferase 2 acetylator genotype. We did not observe any association among those with either fast (per 25 g/day pooled odds ratio (OR), 1.18; 95%CI, 0.93-1.50) or slow N-acetyltransferase 2 acetylators (per 25 g/day pooled OR, 0.99; 95%CI, 0.91-1.08). In the prospective observational studies, high Processed Meat consumption was associated with increased breast cancer risk.
-
red and Processed Meat consumption and risk of bladder cancer a dose response meta analysis of epidemiological studies
European Journal of Nutrition, 2018Co-Authors: Alessio Crippa, Susanna C Larsson, Alicja Wolk, Andrea Discacciati, Nicola OrsiniAbstract:Background/objectives Several epidemiological studies have analyzed the associations between red and Processed Meat and bladder cancer risk but the shape and strength of the associations are still unclear. Therefore, we conducted a dose–response meta-analysis to quantify the potential association between red and Processed Meat and bladder cancer risk.
-
red and Processed Meat consumption and risk of pancreatic cancer meta analysis of prospective studies
British Journal of Cancer, 2012Co-Authors: Susanna C Larsson, Alicja WolkAbstract:BACKGROUND: Whether red and Processed Meat consumption is a risk factor for pancreatic cancer remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to summarise the evidence from prospective studies of red and Processed Meat consumption and pancreatic cancer risk. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed and EMBASE databases through November 2011. Study-specific results were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Eleven prospective studies, with 6643 pancreatic cancer cases, were included in the meta-analysis. An increase in red Meat consumption of 120g per day was associated with an overall relative risk (RR) of 1.13 (95% confidence interval (CI) ¼0.93–1.39; Pheterogeneityo0.001). Red Meat consumption was positively associated with pancreatic cancer risk in men (RR ¼1.29; 95% CI ¼1.08–1.53; Pheterogeneity ¼0.28; five studies), but not in women (RR ¼0.93; 95% CI ¼0.74–1.16; Pheterogeneity ¼0.21; six studies). The RR of pancreatic cancer for a 50g per day increase in Processed Meat consumption was 1.19 (95% CI ¼1.04–1.36; Pheterogeneity ¼0.46). CONCLUSION: Findings from this meta-analysis indicate that Processed Meat consumption is positively associated with pancreatic cancer risk. Red Meat consumption was associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer in men. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.
-
Processed Meat consumption dietary nitrosamines and stomach cancer risk in a cohort of swedish women
International Journal of Cancer, 2006Co-Authors: Susanna C Larsson, Leif Bergkvist, Alicja WolkAbstract:Processed Meat consumption has been associated with an increased risk of stomach cancer in some epidemiological studies (mainly case–control). Nitrosamines may be responsible for this association, but few studies have directly examined nitrosamine intake in relation to stomach cancer risk. We prospectively investigated the associations between intakes of Processed Meat, other Meats and N-nitrosodimethylamine (the most frequently occurring nitrosamine in foods) with risk of stomach cancer among 61,433 women who were enrolled in the population-based Swedish Mammography Cohort. Information on diet was collected at baseline (between 1987 and 1990) and updated in 1997. During 18 years of follow-up, 156 incident cases of stomach cancer were ascertained. High consumption of Processed Meat, but not of other Meats (i.e., red Meat, fish and poultry), was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of stomach cancer. After adjustment for potential confounders, the hazard ratios for the highest compared with the lowest category of intake were 1.66 (95% CI = 1.13–2.45) for all Processed Meats, 1.55 (95% CI = 1.00–2.41) for bacon or side pork, 1.50 (95% CI = 0.93–2.41) for sausage or hotdogs and 1.48 (95% CI= 0.99–2.22) for ham or salami. Stomach cancer risk was 2-fold higher among women in the top quintile of N-nitrosodimethylamine intake when compared with those in the bottom quintile (hazard ratio = 1.96; 95% CI = 1.08–3.58). Our findings suggest that high consumption of Processed Meat may increase the risk of stomach cancer. Dietary nitrosamines might be responsible for the positive association. © 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
-
Processed Meat consumption, dietary nitrosamines and stomach cancer risk in a cohort of Swedish women
International Journal of Cancer, 2006Co-Authors: Susanna C Larsson, Leif Bergkvist, Alicja WolkAbstract:Processed Meat consumption has been associated with an increased risk of stomach cancer in some epidemiological studies (mainly case-control). Nitrosamines may be responsible for this association, but few studies have directly examined nitrosamine intake in relation to stomach cancer risk. We prospectively investigated the associations between intakes of Processed Meat, other Meats and N-nitrosodimethylamine (the most frequently occurring nitrosamine in foods) with risk of stomach cancer among 61,433 women who were enrolled in the population-based Swedish Mammography Cohort. Information on diet was collected at baseline (between 1987 and 1990) and updated in 1997. During 18 years of follow-up, 156 incident cases of stomach cancer were ascertained. High consumption of Processed Meat, but not of other Meats (i.e., red Meat, fish and poultry), was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of stomach cancer. After adjustment for potential confounders, the hazard ratios for the highest compared with the lowest category of intake were 1.66 (95% CI = 1.13-2.45) for all Processed Meats, 1.55 (95% CI = 1.00-2.41) for bacon or side pork, 1.50 (95% CI = 0.93-2.41) for sausage or hotdogs and 1.48 (95% CI= 0.99-2.22) for ham or salami. Stomach cancer risk was 2-fold higher among women in the top quintile of N-nitrosodimethylamine intake when compared with those in the bottom quintile (hazard ratio = 1.96; 95% CI = 1.08-3.58). Our findings suggest that high consumption of Processed Meat may increase the risk of stomach cancer. Dietary nitrosamines might be responsible for the positive association.
Mathilde Touvier - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Association between Processed Meat intake and asthma symptoms in the French NutriNet-Santé cohort
European Journal of Nutrition, 2020Co-Authors: Roland M. Andrianasolo, Serge Hercberg, Mathilde Touvier, Nathalie Druesne-pecollo, Moufidath Adjibade, Emmanuelle Kesse-guyot, Pilar Galan, Raphaëlle VarrasoAbstract:PurposeProcessed Meat intake may adversely affect lung health, but data on asthma remains sparse. The magnitude of the Processed Meat–asthma association may also depend on other unhealthy behaviors. We investigated the association between Processed Meat intake and the asthma symptom score, and the combined role of unhealthy weight, smoking, low diet quality, and high Processed Meat intake on the asthma score.MethodsIn 2017, 35,380 participants to the NutriNet-Santé cohort answered a detailed respiratory web-questionnaire. Asthma was defined by the asthma symptom score (sum of 5 questions; continuous variable). Based on repeated 24-h dietary records collected on a dedicated website, Processed Meat consumption was classified as 0, < 2, 2–5, > 5 servings/week. We examined the combined role of body mass index (BMI) (< 25 vs. ≥ 25 kg/m2), smoking (never vs. ever), diet quality score (highest vs. lowest), and Processed Meat (≤ 5 vs. > 5 servings/week) on the asthma symptom score.ResultsParticipants were aged 54 on average (women: 75%, smokers: 49%, BMI ≥ 25: 32%, ≥ 1 asthma symptoms: 27%). After adjustment for confounders, Processed Meat intake was positively and significantly associated with asthma symptom score: odds ratios (ORs) (95% CI) for > 5 vs. 0 servings/week were 1.15 (1.04–1.27) in women; 1.23 (1.01–1.50) in men. Compared to participants with 0 unhealthy behaviors, ORs for the asthma symptom score among participants with the 4 combined unhealthy behaviors were 2.18 (1.91–2.48) in women; 2.70 (2.10–3.45) in men.ConclusionHigh Processed Meat consumption was associated with higher asthma symptoms, and combining overweight/obesity, smoking, low diet quality, with high Processed Meat intake was strongly associated with asthma symptoms.
-
Association between Processed Meat intake and asthma symptoms in the French NutriNet-Santé cohort
European Journal of Nutrition, 2019Co-Authors: Roland M. Andrianasolo, Serge Hercberg, Mathilde Touvier, Nathalie Druesne-pecollo, Moufidath Adjibade, Emmanuelle Kesse-guyot, Pilar Galan, Raphaëlle VarrasoAbstract:Processed Meat intake may adversely affect lung health, but data on asthma remains sparse. The magnitude of the Processed Meat–asthma association may also depend on other unhealthy behaviors. We investigated the association between Processed Meat intake and the asthma symptom score, and the combined role of unhealthy weight, smoking, low diet quality, and high Processed Meat intake on the asthma score. In 2017, 35,380 participants to the NutriNet-Sante cohort answered a detailed respiratory web-questionnaire. Asthma was defined by the asthma symptom score (sum of 5 questions; continuous variable). Based on repeated 24-h dietary records collected on a dedicated website, Processed Meat consumption was classified as 0, 5 servings/week. We examined the combined role of body mass index (BMI) ( 5 servings/week) on the asthma symptom score. Participants were aged 54 on average (women: 75%, smokers: 49%, BMI ≥ 25: 32%, ≥ 1 asthma symptoms: 27%). After adjustment for confounders, Processed Meat intake was positively and significantly associated with asthma symptom score: odds ratios (ORs) (95% CI) for > 5 vs. 0 servings/week were 1.15 (1.04–1.27) in women; 1.23 (1.01–1.50) in men. Compared to participants with 0 unhealthy behaviors, ORs for the asthma symptom score among participants with the 4 combined unhealthy behaviors were 2.18 (1.91–2.48) in women; 2.70 (2.10–3.45) in men. High Processed Meat consumption was associated with higher asthma symptoms, and combining overweight/obesity, smoking, low diet quality, with high Processed Meat intake was strongly associated with asthma symptoms.
-
Association between Processed Meat intake and asthma symptoms in the French NutriNet-Santé cohort
European Journal of Nutrition, 2019Co-Authors: Roland M. Andrianasolo, Serge Hercberg, Mathilde Touvier, Nathalie Druesne-pecollo, Moufidath Adjibade, Emmanuelle Kesse-guyot, Pilar Galan, Raphaëlle VarrasoAbstract:Purpose Processed Meat intake may adversely affect lung health, but data on asthma remains sparse. The magnitude of the Processed Meat–asthma association may also depend on other unhealthy behaviors. We investigated the association between Processed Meat intake and the asthma symptom score, and the combined role of unhealthy weight, smoking, low diet quality, and high Processed Meat intake on the asthma score. Methods In 2017, 35,380 participants to the NutriNet-Santé cohort answered a detailed respiratory web-questionnaire. Asthma was defined by the asthma symptom score (sum of 5 questions; continuous variable). Based on repeated 24-h dietary records collected on a dedicated website, Processed Meat consumption was classified as 0, 5 servings/week. We examined the combined role of body mass index (BMI) ( 5 servings/week) on the asthma symptom score. Results Participants were aged 54 on average (women: 75%, smokers: 49%, BMI ≥ 25: 32%, ≥ 1 asthma symptoms: 27%). After adjustment for confounders, Processed Meat intake was positively and significantly associated with asthma symptom score: odds ratios (ORs) (95% CI) for > 5 vs. 0 servings/week were 1.15 (1.04–1.27) in women; 1.23 (1.01–1.50) in men. Compared to participants with 0 unhealthy behaviors, ORs for the asthma symptom score among participants with the 4 combined unhealthy behaviors were 2.18 (1.91–2.48) in women; 2.70 (2.10–3.45) in men. Conclusion High Processed Meat consumption was associated with higher asthma symptoms, and combining overweight/obesity, smoking, low diet quality, with high Processed Meat intake was strongly associated with asthma symptoms.
-
red and Processed Meat intake and cancer risk results from the prospective nutrinet sante cohort study
International Journal of Cancer, 2018Co-Authors: Abou Diallo, Serge Hercberg, Pilar Galan, Fabrice Pierre, Mélanie Deschasaux, Philippine Fassier, Benjamin Allès, Françoise Guéraud, Paule Latinomartel, Mathilde TouvierAbstract:The International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO-IARC) classified red Meat and Processed Meat as probably carcinogenic and carcinogenic for humans, respectively. These conclusions were mainly based on studies concerning colorectal cancer, but scientific evidence is still limited for other cancer locations. In this study, we investigated the prospective associations between red and Processed Meat intakes and overall, breast, and prostate cancer risk. This prospective study included 61,476 men and women of the French NutriNet-Sante cohort (2009–2015) aged ≥35 y and who completed at least three 24 hrs dietary records during the first year of follow-up. The risk of developing cancer was compared across sex-specific quintiles of red and Processed Meat intakes by multivariable Cox models. 1,609 first primary incident cancer cases were diagnosed during follow-up, among which 544 breast cancers and 222 prostate cancers. Red Meat intake was associated with increased risk of overall cancers [HRQ5vs.Q1=1.31 (1.10–1.55), ptrend = 0.01) and breast cancer (HRQ5vs.Q1 = 1.83 (1.33–2.51), ptrend = 0.002]. The latter association was observed in both premenopausal [HRQ5vs.Q1=2.04 (1.03–4.06)] and postmenopausal women [HRQ5vs.Q1=1.79 (1.26-2.55)]. No association was observed between red Meat intake and prostate cancer risk. Processed Meat intake was relatively low in this study (cut-offs for the 5th quintile = 46 g/d in men and 29 g/d in women) and was not associated with overall, breast or prostate cancer risk. This large cohort study suggested that red Meat may be involved carcinogenesis at several cancer locations (other than colon-rectum), in particular breast cancer. These results are consistent with mechanistic evidence from experimental studies.
-
Red and Processed Meat intake and cancer risk: Results from the prospective NutriNet-Santé cohort study
International Journal of Cancer, 2017Co-Authors: Abou Diallo, Serge Hercberg, Fabrice Pierre, Mélanie Deschasaux, Paule Latino-martel, Maria Del Pilar Galan Hercberg, Philippine Fassier, Benjamin Allès, Françoise Guéraud, Mathilde TouvierAbstract:The International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO-IARC) classified red Meat and Processed Meat as probably carcinogenic and carcino genic for humans, respectively. These conclusions were mainly based on studies concerning colorectal cancer, but scientific evidence is still limited for other cancer locations. In this study, we investigated the prospective associations between red and Processed Meat intakes and overall, breast, and prostate cancer risk. This prospective study included 61,476 men and women of the French NutriNet Santé cohort (2009-2015) aged ≥35y and who completed at least 3 24h dietary records during the first year of follow-up. The risk of developing cancer was compared acro ss sex specific quintiles of red and Processed Meat intakes by multivariable Cox models. 1,609 first primary incident cancer cases were diagnosed during follow up, among which 544 breast cancers and 222 prostate cancers. Red Meat intake was associated with increased risk of overall cancers (HR Q5vs.Q1 =1.31 (1.10–1.55), P trend =0.01) and breast cancer (HR Q5vs.Q1 =1.83 (1.33–2.51), P trend =0.002). The latter association was observed in both premenopausal (HR Q5vs.Q1 =2.04 (1.03 4.06)) and postmenopausal women (HR Q5vs.Q1 =1.79 (1.26 2.55)). No association was observed bet ween red Meat intake and prostate cancer risk. Processed Meat intake was relatively l ow in this study (cut offs for the 5 th quintile=46g/d in men and 29g/d in women) and was n ot associated with overall, breast or prostate cancer risk. This large cohort study suggested that red Meat may be involved carcinogenesis at several cancer locations (other than colon rectum), in particular breast cancer. These results are consistent with mechanistic evidence from experimental studies.
Eunyoung Cho - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
consumption of red and Processed Meat and breast cancer incidence a systematic review and meta analysis of prospective studies
International Journal of Cancer, 2018Co-Authors: Maryam S Farvid, Alicja Wolk, Mariana C Stern, Teresa Norat, Shizuka Sasazuki, Paolo Vineis, Matty P Weijenberg, Bernard W Stewart, Eunyoung ChoAbstract:Prior studies on red and Processed Meat consumption with breast cancer risk have generated inconsistent results. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies to summarize the evidence regarding the relation of red Meat and Processed Meat consumption with breast cancer incidence. We searched in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through January 2018 for prospective studies that reported the association between red Meat and Processed Meat consumption with incident breast cancer. The multivariable-adjusted relative risk (RR) was combined comparing the highest with the lowest category of red Meat (unProcessed) and Processed Meat consumption using a random-effect meta-analysis. We identified 13 cohort, 3 nested case-control and two clinical trial studies. Comparing the highest to the lowest category, red Meat (unProcessed) consumption was associated with a 6% higher breast cancer risk (pooled RR,1.06; 95% confidence intervals (95%CI):0.99-1.14; I2 = 56.3%), and Processed Meat consumption was associated with a 9% higher breast cancer risk (pooled RR, 1.09; 95%CI, 1.03-1.16; I2 = 44.4%). In addition, we identified two nested case-control studies evaluating the association between red Meat and breast cancer stratified by N-acetyltransferase 2 acetylator genotype. We did not observe any association among those with either fast (per 25 g/day pooled odds ratio (OR), 1.18; 95%CI, 0.93-1.50) or slow N-acetyltransferase 2 acetylators (per 25 g/day pooled OR, 0.99; 95%CI, 0.91-1.08). In the prospective observational studies, high Processed Meat consumption was associated with increased breast cancer risk.
-
red Meat and Processed Meat intake and risk for cutaneous melanoma in white women and men two prospective cohort studies
Journal of The American Academy of Dermatology, 2018Co-Authors: Eunyoung Cho, Hsi Yen, Ashar Dhana, Abrar A QureshiAbstract:Background Red and Processed Meat consumption has been associated with increased risk for several cancers, but the association with cutaneous melanoma risk has been inconclusive. Objective To investigate the association between red and Processed Meat intake and melanoma risk. Methods Dietary information was assessed by using food frequency questionnaires in 2 prospective cohorts: 75,263 women from the Nurses’ Health Study (1984-2010) and 48,523 men from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986-2010). Melanoma cases were confirmed by reviewing pathology records. Pooled multivariable hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by using Cox proportional hazards models. Results A total of 679 female and 639 male melanoma cases were documented during follow-up. Red and Processed Meat intake was inversely associated with melanoma risk (P = .002 for trend); the pooled hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) of the 2 cohorts were 1.00 (reference), 1.00 (0.87-1.14), 0.98 (0.86-1.13), 0.89 (0.77-1.02), and 0.81 (0.70-0.95) for increasing quintiles of intake. Limitations Findings might have limited generalizability, considering that the cohorts were limited to white health professionals. Conclusion Red and Processed Meat intake was inversely associated with melanoma risk in these 2 cohorts.
Susanna C Larsson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
red and Processed Meat consumption and risk of bladder cancer a dose response meta analysis of epidemiological studies
European Journal of Nutrition, 2018Co-Authors: Alessio Crippa, Susanna C Larsson, Alicja Wolk, Andrea Discacciati, Nicola OrsiniAbstract:Background/objectives Several epidemiological studies have analyzed the associations between red and Processed Meat and bladder cancer risk but the shape and strength of the associations are still unclear. Therefore, we conducted a dose–response meta-analysis to quantify the potential association between red and Processed Meat and bladder cancer risk.
-
Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption and All-Cause Mortality: A Meta-Analysis
American Journal of Epidemiology, 2013Co-Authors: Susanna C Larsson, Nicola OrsiniAbstract:High consumption of red Meat and Processed Meat has been associated with increased risk of several chronic diseases. We conducted a meta-analysis to summarize the evidence from prospective studies on red Meat and Processed Meat consumption in relationship to all-cause mortality. Pertinent studies were identified by searching PubMed through May 2013 and by reviewing the reference lists of retrieved articles. Prospective studies that reported relative risks with 95% confidence intervals for the association of red Meat or Processed Meat consumption with all-cause mortality were eligible. Study-specific results were combined by using a random-effects model. Nine prospective studies were included in the meta-analysis. The summary relative risks of all-cause mortality for the highest versus the lowest category of consumption were 1.10 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98, 1.22; n = 6 studies) for unProcessed red Meat, 1.23 (95% CI: 1.17, 1.28; n = 6 studies) for Processed Meat, and 1.29 (95% CI: 1.24, 1.35; n = 5 studies) for total red Meat. In a dose-response meta-analysis, consumption of Processed Meat and total red Meat, but not unProcessed red Meat, was statistically significantly positively associated with all-cause mortality in a nonlinear fashion. These results indicate that high consumption of red Meat, especially Processed Meat, may increase all-cause mortality.
-
red and Processed Meat consumption and risk of pancreatic cancer meta analysis of prospective studies
British Journal of Cancer, 2012Co-Authors: Susanna C Larsson, Alicja WolkAbstract:BACKGROUND: Whether red and Processed Meat consumption is a risk factor for pancreatic cancer remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to summarise the evidence from prospective studies of red and Processed Meat consumption and pancreatic cancer risk. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed and EMBASE databases through November 2011. Study-specific results were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Eleven prospective studies, with 6643 pancreatic cancer cases, were included in the meta-analysis. An increase in red Meat consumption of 120g per day was associated with an overall relative risk (RR) of 1.13 (95% confidence interval (CI) ¼0.93–1.39; Pheterogeneityo0.001). Red Meat consumption was positively associated with pancreatic cancer risk in men (RR ¼1.29; 95% CI ¼1.08–1.53; Pheterogeneity ¼0.28; five studies), but not in women (RR ¼0.93; 95% CI ¼0.74–1.16; Pheterogeneity ¼0.21; six studies). The RR of pancreatic cancer for a 50g per day increase in Processed Meat consumption was 1.19 (95% CI ¼1.04–1.36; Pheterogeneity ¼0.46). CONCLUSION: Findings from this meta-analysis indicate that Processed Meat consumption is positively associated with pancreatic cancer risk. Red Meat consumption was associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer in men. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.
-
Processed Meat consumption dietary nitrosamines and stomach cancer risk in a cohort of swedish women
International Journal of Cancer, 2006Co-Authors: Susanna C Larsson, Leif Bergkvist, Alicja WolkAbstract:Processed Meat consumption has been associated with an increased risk of stomach cancer in some epidemiological studies (mainly case–control). Nitrosamines may be responsible for this association, but few studies have directly examined nitrosamine intake in relation to stomach cancer risk. We prospectively investigated the associations between intakes of Processed Meat, other Meats and N-nitrosodimethylamine (the most frequently occurring nitrosamine in foods) with risk of stomach cancer among 61,433 women who were enrolled in the population-based Swedish Mammography Cohort. Information on diet was collected at baseline (between 1987 and 1990) and updated in 1997. During 18 years of follow-up, 156 incident cases of stomach cancer were ascertained. High consumption of Processed Meat, but not of other Meats (i.e., red Meat, fish and poultry), was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of stomach cancer. After adjustment for potential confounders, the hazard ratios for the highest compared with the lowest category of intake were 1.66 (95% CI = 1.13–2.45) for all Processed Meats, 1.55 (95% CI = 1.00–2.41) for bacon or side pork, 1.50 (95% CI = 0.93–2.41) for sausage or hotdogs and 1.48 (95% CI= 0.99–2.22) for ham or salami. Stomach cancer risk was 2-fold higher among women in the top quintile of N-nitrosodimethylamine intake when compared with those in the bottom quintile (hazard ratio = 1.96; 95% CI = 1.08–3.58). Our findings suggest that high consumption of Processed Meat may increase the risk of stomach cancer. Dietary nitrosamines might be responsible for the positive association. © 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
-
Processed Meat consumption, dietary nitrosamines and stomach cancer risk in a cohort of Swedish women
International Journal of Cancer, 2006Co-Authors: Susanna C Larsson, Leif Bergkvist, Alicja WolkAbstract:Processed Meat consumption has been associated with an increased risk of stomach cancer in some epidemiological studies (mainly case-control). Nitrosamines may be responsible for this association, but few studies have directly examined nitrosamine intake in relation to stomach cancer risk. We prospectively investigated the associations between intakes of Processed Meat, other Meats and N-nitrosodimethylamine (the most frequently occurring nitrosamine in foods) with risk of stomach cancer among 61,433 women who were enrolled in the population-based Swedish Mammography Cohort. Information on diet was collected at baseline (between 1987 and 1990) and updated in 1997. During 18 years of follow-up, 156 incident cases of stomach cancer were ascertained. High consumption of Processed Meat, but not of other Meats (i.e., red Meat, fish and poultry), was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of stomach cancer. After adjustment for potential confounders, the hazard ratios for the highest compared with the lowest category of intake were 1.66 (95% CI = 1.13-2.45) for all Processed Meats, 1.55 (95% CI = 1.00-2.41) for bacon or side pork, 1.50 (95% CI = 0.93-2.41) for sausage or hotdogs and 1.48 (95% CI= 0.99-2.22) for ham or salami. Stomach cancer risk was 2-fold higher among women in the top quintile of N-nitrosodimethylamine intake when compared with those in the bottom quintile (hazard ratio = 1.96; 95% CI = 1.08-3.58). Our findings suggest that high consumption of Processed Meat may increase the risk of stomach cancer. Dietary nitrosamines might be responsible for the positive association.
Mairead Kiely - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
consumption of red Meat white Meat and Processed Meat in irish adults in relation to dietary quality
British Journal of Nutrition, 2005Co-Authors: Meadhbh Cosgrove, Albert Flynn, Mairead KielyAbstract:The aim of the present study was to examine the association of red Meat, white Meat and Processed Meat consumption in Irish adults with dietary quality. A cross-sectional study of subjects, randomly selected using the electoral register, estimated habitual food intakes using a 7 d food diary in a nationally representative sample of 662 men and 717 women (not pregnant or lactating) aged 18-64 years. Consumers were classified into thirds, based on the distribution of mean daily intakes for red Meat, white Meat and Processed Meat. The mean intakes of red Meat, white Meat and Processed Meat were 51, 33 and 26 g/d respectively, and men consumed significantly more (P<0.001) than women for all Meat types. In men, red Meat consumption was associated with lower (P<0.001) prevalence of inadequacy for Zn, riboflavin and vitamin C intakes. Increasing Processed Meat intake was associated with a lower (P<0.01) level of compliance with dietary recommendations for fat, carbohydrate and fibre in men. Increasing Processed Meat consumption was associated with lower (P<0.01) wholemeal bread, vegetables, fruit and fish intakes in men and women. Managerial occupations were associated with lower Processed Meat intakes. It is important to distinguish between Meat groups, as there was a large variation between the dietary quality in consumers of red Meat, white Meat and Processed Meat. Processed Meat consumption is negatively associated with dietary quality and might therefore be a dietary indicator of poor dietary quality. This has important implications in nutritional epidemiological studies and for the development of food-based dietary guidelines.
-
Consumption of red Meat, white Meat and Processed Meat in Irish adults in relation to dietary quality.
British Journal of Nutrition, 2005Co-Authors: Meadhbh Cosgrove, Albert Flynn, Mairead KielyAbstract:The aim of the present study was to examine the association of red Meat, white Meat and Processed Meat consumption in Irish adults with dietary quality. A cross-sectional study of subjects, randomly selected using the electoral register, estimated habitual food intakes using a 7 d food diary in a nationally representative sample of 662 men and 717 women (not pregnant or lactating) aged 18-64 years. Consumers were classified into thirds, based on the distribution of mean daily intakes for red Meat, white Meat and Processed Meat. The mean intakes of red Meat, white Meat and Processed Meat were 51, 33 and 26 g/d respectively, and men consumed significantly more (P
