Consumption of animal foods and endometrial cancer risk: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Abstract

This article summarizes and quantifies the current evidence relating dietary intake of animal products and endometrial cancer. Literature searches were conducted to identify peer-reviewed manuscripts published up to December 2006. Twenty-two manuscripts from three cohort studies and 16 case-control studies were identified. One of these cohort studies evaluated only fried meat and another only milk consumption; they were not included in our meta-analyses. The third cohort study identified did not present exposure levels and could not be included in dose-response meta-analysis. This cohort study did not show an association with meat or red meat consumption. Random-effects dose-response summary estimates for case-control studies evaluating these foods were 1.26 (95% CI: 1.03-1.54) per 100 g/day of total meat, 1.51 (95% CI: 1.19-1.93) per 100 g/day of red meat, 1.03 (95% CI: 0.32-3.28) per 100 g/day of poultry, 1.04 (95% CI: 0.55-1.98) per 100 g/day of fish, and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.93-1.01) per serving of dairy. Our meta-analysis, based on case-control data, suggests that meat consumption, particularly red meat, increases endometrial cancer risk. The current literature does not support an association with dairy products, while the evidence is inconsistent for poultry, fish, and eggs. More studies, particularly prospective studies, are needed.

Figure 1. Random-effects meta-analysis of meat consumption (unspecified type) and endometrial cancer risk

**Excluding studies for the following reasons: * Hospital-based; † Less than 200 cases; ‡ exclusion of hysterectomies not clearly specified; § not adjusted for total energy intake; || not adjusted for BMI/weight †† estimated confidence interval.

Figure 2. Random-effects meta-analysis of red meat intake and endometrial cancer risk

**Excluding studies for the following reasons: * Hospital-based; † Less than 200 cases; ‡ exclusion of hysterectomies not clearly specified; § not adjusted for total energy intake; || not adjusted for BMI/weight †† estimated confidence interval.

Figure 3. Random-effects meta-analysis of poultry intake and endometrial cancer risk

**Excluding studies for the following reasons: * Hospital-based; † Less than 200 cases; ‡ exclusion of hysterectomies not clearly specified; § not adjusted for total energy intake; || not adjusted for BMI/weight. †† estimated confidence interval.

Figure 4. Random-effects meta-analysis of fish intake and endometrial cancer risk (per 100 g/day)

**Excluding studies for the following reasons: * Hospital-based; † Less than 200 cases; ‡ exclusion of hysterectomies not clearly specified; § not adjusted for total energy intake, || not adjusted for BMI/weight. †† estimated confidence interval.

Figure 5. Random-effects meta-analysis of eggs intake and endometrial cancer risk (highest vs. lowest category)

*Hospital-based; † Less than 200 cases; ‡ exclusion of hysterectomies not clearly specified; § not adjusted for total energy intake, || not adjusted for BMI/weight, †† estimated confidence interval.

Figure 6. Random-effects meta-analysis of dairy products intake and endometrial cancer risk (per 1 serving/day)

*Hospital-based; † Less than 200 cases; ‡ exclusion of hysterectomies not clearly specified; § not adjusted for total energy intake, || not adjusted for BMI/weight, †† estimated confidence interval.