Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Feb 7:9:801722.
doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.801722. eCollection 2022.

Association Between Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Saeedeh Nouri-Majd  1 , Asma Salari-Moghaddam  1 , Azadeh Aminianfar  2 , Bagher Larijani  3 , Ahmad Esmaillzadeh  1   3   4
Affiliations

Association Between Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Saeedeh Nouri-Majd et al. Front Nutr. .

Abstract

Background: Debate on the potential carcinogenic effects of meat intake is open and the relationship between meat consumption and risk of prostate cancer remains uncertain. This meta-analysis was conducted to summarize earlier prospective studies on the association of meat consumption with risk of prostate cancer.

Methods: Relevant studies were identified by exploring PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases up to December 2020. Fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analyses were used for pooling the relative risks (RRs). Heterogeneity across studies was evaluated using the Q-statistic and I-square (I 2). A funnel plot and Egger's test was used to detect publication bias. Linear and non-linear dose-response analyses were performed to estimate the dose-response relations between meat intake and risk of prostate cancer.

Results: Twenty-five prospective studies were included in this meta-analysis. Totally, 1,900,910 participants with 35,326 incident cases of prostate cancer were investigated. Pooling the eligible effect sizes, we observed that high consumption of processed meat might be associated with an increased risk of "total prostate cancer" (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.10; I 2 = 1.5%, P = 0.43) and "advanced prostate cancer" (1.17; 1.09, 1.26; I 2 = 58.8%, P = 0.01). However, the association between processed meat and "advanced prostate cancer" was not significant in the random-effects model: 1.12 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.29). A linear dose-response analysis indicated that an increment of 50 grams per day of processed meat intake might be related to a 4% greater risk of "total prostate cancer" (1.04; 1.00, 1.08; I 2 = 0.0%, P = 0.51). "Total meat intake" was marginally associated with all outcomes of prostate cancer risk (1.04; 1.01, 1.07; I 2 = 58.4%, P < 0.001).

Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies indicated that increased consumption of "total meat" and "processed meat" might be associated with a higher risk of prostate cancer.

Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=230824, identifier: CRD42021230824.

Keywords: meta-analysis; processed meat; prostate cancer; red meat; total meat.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of the study selection process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot derived from fixed-effects meta-analysis investigating the association between red meat intake and risk of total prostate cancer (A) and advanced prostate cancer (B). RR, relative risk; CI, confidence intervals; I2, I-square.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot derived from fixed-effects meta-analysis investigating the association between processed meat intake and risk of total prostate cancer (A) and advanced prostate cancer (B). RR, relative risk; CI, confidence intervals; I2, I-square.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot derived from fixed-effects meta-analysis investigating the association between total meat intake and risk of total prostate cancer (A) and advanced prostate cancer (B). RR, relative risk; CI, confidence intervals; I2, I-square.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plot derived from fixed-effects meta-analysis investigating the association between total meat intake and all outcomes of prostate cancer. RR, relative risk; CI, confidence intervals; I2, I-square.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Non-linear dose-response relation between total meat intake and all outcomes of prostate cancer (P-nonlinearity = 0.37; n = 18 studies).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. (2018) 68:394–424. 10.3322/caac.21492 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, Mathers C, Parkin DM, Pineros M, et al. . Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. Int J Cancer. (2019) 144:1941–53. 10.1002/ijc.31937 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Leitzmann MF, Rohrmann S. Risk factors for the onset of prostatic cancer: Age, location, and behavioral correlates. Clin Epidemiol. (2012) 4:1–11. 10.2147/CLEP.S16747 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Perez-Cornago A, Travis RC, Appleby PN, Tsilidis KK, Tjonneland A, Olsen A, et al. . Fruit and vegetable intake and prostate cancer risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Int J Cancer. (2017) 141:287–97. 10.1002/ijc.30741 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gao X, LaValley MP, Tucker KL. Prospective studies of dairy product and calcium intakes and prostate cancer risk: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. (2005) 97:1768–77. 10.1093/jnci/dji402 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources