Processed meat intake and gastric adenocarcinoma risk among adults in Central-West Brazil: a case-control study.

Data on the association between dietary red meat intake and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) are limited. We designed this case-control study to determine the association between red and processed meat consumption and risk of NAFLD in Iranian adults. A total of 999 eligible subjects, including 196 NAFLD patients and 803 non-NAFLD controls were recruited from hepatology clinics in Tehran, Iran. A reliable and validated food frequency questionnaire was used to evaluate the red and processed meat intakes. The analyzes performed showed that in an age- and gender-adjusted model, patients with the highest quartile of red meat intake had an approximately three-fold higher risk of NAFLD than those with the lowest quartile of intake (odds ratio [OR], 3.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.16–5.43; p value < 0.001). Moreover, patients in the highest quartile of processed meat intake had a 3.28 times higher risk of NAFLD, compared to the lowest quartile(OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 1.97–5.46; p value < 0.001).Both these associations remained significant by implementing additional adjustments for body mass index, energy intake, dietary factors, diabetes, smoking, and physical activity (OR, 3.65; 95% CI, 1.85–7.18; p value < 0.001 and OR, 3.25; 95% CI, 1.57–6.73; p value = 0.002, respectively).Our findings indicate that both red and processed meat intakes are related to the increased odds of NAFLD; however, prospective studies are needed to confirm these results.

Background: The association of meat intake with gastric adenocarcinoma is controversial. We examined the relation between white, red, and processed meat intake and gastric adenocarcinoma, considering doneness preference and cooking methods, by histological subtype and anatomical subsite. Methods: MCC-Spain is a multicase–control study that included 286 incident gastric adenocarcinoma cases and 2993 controls who answered a food-frequency questionnaire. The association of gastric adenocarcinoma with meat intake, doneness preference and cooking methods was assessed using binary multivariate logistic regression mixed models and a possible interaction with sex was considered. Multinomial logistic regression models were used to estimate risk by tumor subsite (cardia vs. non-cardia) and subtype (intestinal vs. diffuse). Sensitivity analyses were conducted comparing models with and without data on Helicobacter pylori infection. Results: The intake of red and processed meat increased gastric adenocarcinoma risk (OR for one serving/week increase (95% CI) = 1.11 (1.02;1.20) and 1.04 (1.00;1.08), respectively), specifically among men and for non-cardia and intestinal gastric adenocarcinoma. Those who consume well done white or red meat showed higher risk of non-cardia (white: RRR = 1.57 (1.14;2.16); red: RRR = 1.42 (1.00;2.02)) and intestinal tumors (white: RRR = 1.69 (1.10;2.59); red: RRR = 1.61 (1.02;2.53)) than those with a preference for rare/medium doneness. Stewing and griddling/barbequing red and white meat, and oven baking white meat, seemed to be the cooking methods with the greatest effect over gastric adenocarcinoma. The reported associations remained similar after considering Helicobacter pylori seropositivity. Conclusions: Reducing red and processed meat intake could decrease gastric adenocarcinoma risk, especially for intestinal and non-cardia tumors. Meat cooking practices could modify the risk of some gastric cancer subtypes.

To study the association between nitrite and nitrosamine intake and gastric cancer (GC), between meat and processed meat intake, GC and oesophageal cancer (OC), and between preserved fish, vegetable and smoked food intake and GC. In this article we reviewed all the published cohort and case-control studies from 1985-2005, and analyzed the relationship between nitrosamine and nitrite intake and the most important related food intake (meat and processed meat, preserved vegetables and fish, smoked foods and beer drinking) and GC or OC risk. Sixty-one studies, 11 cohorts and 50 case-control studies were included. Evidence from case-control studies supported an association between nitrite and nitrosamine intake with GC but evidence was insufficient in relation to OC. A high proportion of case-control studies found a positive association with meat intake for both tumours (11 of 16 studies on GC and 11 of 18 studies on OC). A relatively large number of case-control studies showed quite consistent results supporting a positive association between processed meat intake and GC and OC risk (10 of 14 studies on GC and 8 of 9 studies on OC). Almost all the case-control studies found a positive and significant association between preserved fish, vegetable and smoked food intake and GC. The evidence regarding OC was more limited. Overall the evidence from cohort studies was insufficient or more inconsistent than that from case-control studies. The available evidence supports a positive association between nitrite and nitrosamine intake and GC, between meat and processed meat intake and GC and OC, and between preserved fish, vegetable and smoked food intake and GC, but is not conclusive.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed malignancy and the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. A large body of epidemiologic research show that countries where people eat more red meat and processed meat are also countries where the risk of CRC is high. The processed meat intake was described as a convincing risk factor for CRC according to the recent report of the World Cancer Research Fund published in 2017. In Morocco the incidence of CRC is increased significantly during the last years according to the Cancer Registry of the Greater Casablanca region. In addition to the imported of modern processed meat; this country is characterized also by the presence of their traditional processed meat as: quaddid (obtained by salting and sun-drying of meat) and khlii (obtained from salted-dried meat, which is cooked and conditioned in fat). In contrast, no studies have been conducted previously to evaluate the association between processed meat and CRC risk. Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the association between processed meat intake and CRC risk in Morocco. Methods: A case-control study was conducted in 5 major public health hospitals in Morocco. Each case was matched with a control by age (±5 years), sex and center. Dietary data were collected by a validated Food Frequency Questionnaire including traditional processed meat (quaddid and khlii) and modern processed meat (delicatessen meat). Conditional logistic regression was done to predict the association between processed meat consumption and CRC risk. Results: Among 500 cases and 500 controls matched by age; sex and center, 50.9% were male and 49.1% were female. The mean age was 55.53 ± 14.53 years. Among the cases, 44.5% was diagnosed with colon cancer, and 55.5% with rectum cancer. Most participants live in the urban area; never attend school and are poor. The bivariate analysis was used to evaluate the association between processed meat intake and CRC. We found no statistical significant between the occurrence of CRC and consumption of traditional processed meat (OR = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.74-1.48; P = 0.43). While, this study found strong significant association between modern processed meat and CRC risk (OR = 9.23; 95% CI, 3.91-21.77; P = 0.00). Conclusion: This study support that high consumption of modern processed meat such delicatessen meat increased the risk of CRC. In contrast, this study did not provide evidence that traditional processed meat is related to CRC risk in Morocco. We could explain this association by the low consumption of traditional processed meat in this study sample. In addition, the increases in the urbanization could also reduce the consumption of these types of traditional processed meat. Further studies are needed to evaluate the association between meat consumption and CRC risk in the context Moroccan.

Dietary factors are thought to have an important role in gastric and esophageal carcinogenesis, but evidence from cohort studies for such a role is lacking. We examined the risks of gastric cancer and esophageal adenocarcinoma associated with meat consumption within the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort. A total of 521,457 men and women aged 35-70 years in 10 European countries participated in the EPIC cohort. Dietary and lifestyle information was collected at recruitment. Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine associations between meat intake and risks of cardia and gastric non-cardia cancers and esophageal adenocarcinoma. Data from a calibration substudy were used to correct hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for diet measurement errors. In a nested case-control study, we examined interactions between Helicobacter pylori infection status (i.e., plasma H. pylori antibodies) and meat intakes. All statistical tests were two-sided. During a mean follow-up of 6.5 years, 330 gastric adenocarcinoma and 65 esophageal adenocarcinomas were diagnosed. Gastric non-cardia cancer risk was statistically significantly associated with intakes of total meat (calibrated HR per 100-g/day increase = 3.52; 95% CI = 1.96 to 6.34), red meat (calibrated HR per 50-g/day increase = 1.73; 95% CI = 1.03 to 2.88), and processed meat (calibrated HR per 50-g/day increase = 2.45; 95% CI = 1.43 to 4.21). The association between the risk of gastric non-cardia cancer and total meat intake was especially large in H. pylori-infected subjects (odds ratio per 100-g/day increase = 5.32; 95% CI = 2.10 to 13.4). Intakes of total, red, or processed meat were not associated with the risk of gastric cardia cancer. A positive but non-statistically significant association was observed between esophageal adenocarcinoma cancer risk and total and processed meat intake in the calibrated model. In this study population, the absolute risk of development of gastric adenocarcinoma within 10 years for a study subject aged 60 years was 0.26% for the lowest quartile of total meat intake and 0.33% for the highest quartile of total meat intake. Total, red, and processed meat intakes were associated with an increased risk of gastric non-cardia cancer, especially in H. pylori antibody-positive subjects, but not with cardia gastric cancer.

Numerous case-control studies suggest dietary fiber may reduce risk of gastric cancer, but this has not been confirmed prospectively. A previous case-control study reported reduced risk of gastric cardia adenocarcinomas associated with cereal fiber, but not with fruit or vegetable fiber. To date, different food sources of fiber have not been examined with respect to noncardia tumors or diverse histologic sub-types. This study prospectively examines associations between fiber from different food sources and incident gastric adenocarcinomas (GC) among more than 435,000 subjects from 10 countries participating in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study. Subjects aged 25-70 years completed dietary questionnaires in 1992-98, and were followed up for a median of 6.7 years. About 312 incident GCs were observed. The relative risk of GC was estimated based on cohort-wide sex-specific fiber intake quartiles using proportional hazards models to estimate hazards ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Intakes of cereal fiber, but not total, fruit or vegetable fiber, were associated with reduced GC risk [adjusted HR for the highest vs. lowest quartile of cereal fiber 0.69, 0.48-0.99]. There was a strong inverse association for diffuse [HR 0.43, 0.22-0.86], but not intestinal type [HR 0.98, 0.54-1.80] tumors. Associations for cardia vs. noncardia tumors were similar to those for overall GC, although cardia associations did not reach significance. Cereal fiber consumption may help to reduce risk of GC, particularly diffuse type tumors. Further study on different food sources of fiber in relation to GC risk is warranted to confirm these relationships.

The high consumption of purine-rich meat is associated with hyperuricemia. However, there is limited evidence linking the consumption of red and processed meat to the genetic risk of hyperuricemia. We investigated the relationship between various combinations of red and processed meat consumption and the polygenic risk scores (PRSs) and the incidence of hyperuricemia in middle-aged Koreans. We analyzed the data from 44,053 participants aged ≥40 years sourced from the Health Examinees (HEXA) cohort of the Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study (KoGES). Information regarding red and processed meat intake was obtained using a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire (SQ-FFQ). We identified 69 independent single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at uric acid-related loci using genome-wide association studies (GWASs) and clumping analyses. The individual PRS, which is the weighted sum of the effect size of each allele at the SNP, was calculated. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for covariates to determine the relationship between red and processed meat intake and the PRS in the incidence of hyperuricemia. During an average follow-up period of 5 years, 2,556 patients with hyperuricemia were identified. For both men and women, the group with the highest red and processed meat intake and the highest PRS was positively associated with the development of hyperuricemia when compared with the group with the lowest red and processed meat intake and the lowest PRS (hazard ratio [HR], 2.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.10-3.53; P < 0.0001; HR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.45-4.40; P < 0.0001). Individuals at a high genetic risk for uric acid levels should moderate their consumption of red and processed meat to prevent hyperuricemia.

Increasing evidence suggests that red and processed meat consumption may elevate the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), yet the magnitude and consistency of this association remain debated. This meta-analysis aims to quantify the relationship between red and processed meat intake and the risk of CRC, colon cancer, and rectal cancer using the most comprehensive set of prospective studies to date. We conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar databases from 1990 to November 2024, to identify relevant prospective studies examining red, processed, and total meat consumption in relation to colorectal, colon, and rectal cancer risk. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted for each study and pooled using a random-effects model to account for variability among studies. Statistical evaluation was executed using the online platform MetaAnalysisOnline.com. A total of 60 prospective studies were included. Red meat consumption was associated with a significantly increased risk of colon cancer (HR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.15–1.30), colorectal cancer (HR = 1.15, 95% CI 1.10–1.21), and rectal cancer (HR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.07–1.39). Processed meat consumption showed similar associations with increased risk for colon cancer (HR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.07–1.20), colorectal cancer (HR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.14–1.28), and rectal cancer (HR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.05–1.30). Total meat consumption also correlated with an elevated risk of colon cancer (HR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.11–1.35), colorectal cancer (HR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.12–1.22), and rectal cancer (HR = 1.28, 95% CI 1.10–1.48). This meta-analysis provides robust evidence that high consumption of red and processed meats is significantly associated with an increased risk of colorectal, colon, and rectal cancers. These findings reinforce current dietary recommendations advocating for the limitation of red and processed meat intake as part of cancer prevention strategies.

Red meat and processed meat intake and risk for cutaneous melanoma in white women and men: Two prospective cohort studies

ABSTRACTObjective: The potential influence of dietary factors on inflammation is important for cancer prevention. Utilizing data from control participants (312 men, 911 women) in 2 nested case–control studies of cancer within the Multiethnic Cohort, we examined the associations of red and processed meat intake with serum levels of leptin, adiponectin, C-reactive protein (CRP), tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, and interleukin (IL)-6 and the mediator effect of body mass index (BMI) on the above associations (if present).Methods: Multivariable linear models were applied to assess the association between red and processed meat intake at cohort entry and serum biomarker levels measured 9.1 years later after adjusting for covariates and to determine the mediator effect of BMI.Results: Overall red and processed meat intake was positively associated with serum leptin levels in men (β = 0.180, p = 0.0004) and women (β = 0.167, p < 0.0001). In women, higher red and processed meat consumption was significantly associated with higher CRP (β = 0.069, p = 0.03) and lower adiponectin levels (β = −0.082, p = 0.005). In mediation analyses with red and processed meat intake and BMI as predictors, the associations of red and processed meat with biomarkers decreased substantially (as indicated by percentage change in effect: leptin in men, 13.4%; leptin in women, 13.7%; adiponectin in women, −4.7%; CRP in women, 7.4%) and were no longer significant (p > 0.05), whereas BMI remained significantly associated with serum leptin (men: β = 3.209, p < 0.0001; women: β = 2.891, p < 0.0001), adiponectin (women: β = −1.085, p < 0.0001), and CRP (women: β = 1.581, p < 0.0001).Conclusion: The current data suggest that the amount of excess body weight or the degree of adiposity may mediate the relations between dietary red and processed meat intake and serum biomarkers associated with obesity and inflammation.

BackgroundOsteoporosis is one of the inevitable diseases affecting an aging society, substantially impacting the quality of life of its population. Protein intake has been shown to be beneficial in reducing the incidence of osteoporosis, and the effects of both animal and vegetable proteins have been studied. However, the relationship between processed meat consumption and osteoporosis has not been studied in Korea. Therefore, we aimed to analyze the correlation between processed meat consumption and incident osteoporosis in adults.MethodsOur analysis included 1,260 adults aged 50 years and older from the Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study (KoGES), recruited between 2005 and 2020. Participants were categorized into two groups according to their processed meat intake, assessed using a semi-quantitative 103-food item food frequency questionnaire. Diagnosis of osteoporosis was based on questionnaire answers. Multiple Cox hazard regression analyses were conducted to examine the association between processed meat intake and incident osteoporosis.ResultsDuring an average follow-up period of 8.8 years, 230 participants developed osteoporosis. According to the Cox proportional regression models, the hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) of incident osteoporosis in the high intake group was 0.62 (0.41–0.94), compared to the low intake group after adjusting for confounding variables.ConclusionThese findings reveal that processed meat protein intake is inversely related to the incidence of osteoporosis in adults aged 50 years and older. This in turn suggests that processed meat intake can be proposed as an additional strategy to prevent osteoporosis.

A tremendous amount of scientific interest has been generated regarding processed meat consumption and cancer risk. Therefore, to estimate the association between processed meat intake and colorectal cancer (CRC), a meta-analysis of prospective studies was conducted. Twenty-eight prospective studies of processed meat and CRC were identified, of which 20 represented independent nonoverlapping study populations. Summary relative risk estimates (SRREs) for high versus low intake and dose-response relationships were calculated. The SRRE for high (vs. low) processed meat intake and CRC was 1.16 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10-1.23] for all studies. Summary associations were modified considerably by sex; the SRRE for men was 1.23 (95% CI: 1.07-1.42) and the SRRE for women was 1.05 (95% CI: 0.94-1.16), based on nine and 13 studies, respectively. Sensitivity analyses did not indicate appreciable statistical variation by tumor site, processed meat groups, or study location. The SRRE for each 30-gram increment of processed meat and CRC was 1.10 (95% CI: 1.05-1.15) based on nine studies, and the SRRE for each incremental serving of processed meat per week was 1.03 (95% CI: 1.01-1.05) based on six studies. Overall, summary associations were weak in magnitude (i.e. most less than 1.20), processed meat definitions and analytical comparisons were highly variable across studies, and isolating the independent effects of processed meat intake is difficult, given the likely influence of confounding by other dietary and lifestyle factors. Therefore, the currently available epidemiologic evidence is not sufficient to support a clear and unequivocal independent positive association between processed meat consumption and CRC.

Red and processed meat intake is convincingly associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence, but its impact on prognosis after CRC diagnosis is unknown. We examined associations of red and processed meat consumption, self-reported before and after cancer diagnosis, with all-cause and cause-specific mortality among men and women with invasive, nonmetastatic CRC. Participants in the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort reported information on diet and other factors at baseline in 1992-1993, 1999, and 2003. Participants with a verified CRC diagnosis after baseline and up to June 30, 2009, were observed for mortality through December 31, 2010. Among 2,315 participants diagnosed with CRC, 966 died during follow-up (413 from CRC and 176 from cardiovascular disease [CVD]). In multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models, red and processed meat intake before CRC diagnosis was associated with higher risks of death as a result of all causes (top v bottom quartile, relative risk [RR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.59; Ptrend = .03) and from CVD (RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.00 to 2.67; Ptrend = .08) but not CRC (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.51; Ptrend = 0.54). Although red and processed meat consumption after CRC diagnosis was not associated with mortality, survivors with consistently high (median or higher) intakes before and after diagnosis had a higher risk of CRC-specific mortality (RR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.89) compared with those with consistently low intakes. This study suggests that greater red and processed meat intake before diagnosis is associated with higher risk of death among patients with nonmetastatic CRC.

Objective: The 2016 WCRF Continuous Update Project reported that consumption of alcoholic drinks probably causes gastric cancer, but the magnitude of the association was small, there was moderate heterogeneity among the studies included in the meta-analysis, and most studies were from Asian populations, with only 401 cases from North American studies. Therefore, we re-evaluated the association between alcohol intake and gastric cancer in a large US cohort that has accrued more than 1300 gastric cancer cases. Methods: We prospectively investigated the associations of alcohol consumption with gastric cardia adenocarcinoma (GCA) and gastric non-cardia adenocarcinoma (GNCA) in 490,605 members aged 50-71 years at baseline in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study cohort. Alcohol consumption was assessed during the baseline questionnaire in 1995/1996 and evaluated as grams of ethanol intake and as a categorical variable: never, up to or including one drink/day, one to three drinks/day, and greater than three drinks/day. We used Cox proportional hazard regression to calculate the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for associations between alcohol intake and risk of gastric adenocarcinomas with adjustment for several potential confounders. Results: Through 2011, 662 incident cases of GCA and 713 of GNCA occurred in the cohort. We found no association between higher alcohol consumption and GCA or GNCA, regardless of whether analyzed as total alcoholic beverage intake or the individual beverage types of beer, wine and liquor and no evidence for a dose-response. Furthermore, we observed no association by stratum of sex, ethnic group, educational level, or smoking status. Although there were no overall associations, we found some evidence for lower risk of GNCA among people who drank up to one drink per day (HR=0.81, 95%CIs:0.67-0.97) compared to nondrinkers. Conclusion: Alcohol consumption was not associated with increased risk of gastric cardia adenocarcinoma or gastric non-cardia adenocarcinoma in this large US prospective cohort. Citation Format: ShaoMing Wang, Neal D. Freedman, Erikka Loftfield, Xing Hua, Christian C. Abnet. Alcohol consumption and risk of gastric cardia adenocarcinoma and gastric non-cardia adenocarcinoma: A prospective analysis from the NIH-AARP Diet and Health cohort [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 5260.

BackgroundWhether or not the use of metformin decreases the risk of gastric adenocarcinoma is unclear.MethodsThis was a population-based cohort study in 2005–2015. Associations between metformin use and gastric non-cardia and cardia adenocarcinomas were examined within two cohorts; a diabetes cohort of participants using anti-diabetes medications, and a matched cohort of common-medication users, where metformin non-users were frequency matched (10:1) with metformin users for sex and age. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analyses provided hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusting for sex, age, calendar year, comorbidity, Helicobacter pylori eradication treatment, use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or aspirin and use of statins.ResultsDuring the follow-up for a median of 5.8 years, 892 (0.1%) participants in the diabetes cohort and 6395 (0.1%) participants in the matched cohort of common-medication users developed gastric adenocarcinoma. Metformin users had no significantly decreased risk of gastric non-cardia adenocarcinoma (diabetes cohort: HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78–1.12; matched cohort: HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.18–1.42) or cardia adenocarcinoma (diabetes cohort: HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.09–2.02; matched cohort: HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.38–1.81) compared with non-users in both cohorts.ConclusionsThis cohort study with <10 years of follow-up suggests metformin use may not prevent gastric adenocarcinoma.