Systematic Analysis of the Differential Effects of Red Meat on Colorectal Cancer Risks: A Meta-Analytic Approach
Woon JY, Vidanapathirana G, Lam AK, Gopalan V
Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 0 citas
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Metaanálisis (indexado por PubMed)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Eventos clínicos como enfermedad o muerte
- Consumo medido con
- No se indica
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiación independiente
- Universidad u hospital
- Griffith University
Según 1 financiador declarado y la declaración de financiación del texto completo.
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2025-08-07 · J Gastrointest Cancer · vol. 56 · número 1 · pág. 170
- Editorial
- Springer Science+Business Media
- Citado
- 2 citas · más que el 75% de estudios similares · 0.8× el promedio de su campo
- Referencias
- 69 trabajos
- Acceso
- Acceso abierto (revista híbrida) · CC-BY
- Áreas de investigación
- Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection · Nutritional Studies and Diet · Cancer Risks and Factors
- Palabras clave
- Medicine, Colorectal cancer, Meta-analysis, Red meat, Radiation therapy, Differential (mechanical device), Oncology, Internal medicine, Cancer, Pathology
- MeSH
- animals, cattle, sheep, swine, humans, colorectal neoplasms, rectal neoplasms, diet, risk factors, red meat
4 autores
- Jun Yu Woon🇦🇺Griffith University; Gold Coast Health
- Gihani Udeshika Vidanapathirana🇱🇰🇦🇺University of Peradeniya; Griffith University; Gold Coast Health
- Alfred King-yin Lam🇦🇺 · autor de correspondenciaGriffith University; Gold Coast Hospital
- Vinod Gopalan🇦🇺 · autor de correspondenciaGriffith University
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Objectives
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide, with rising incidence in younger populations. Red meat consumption has been proposed as a risk factor for CRC, though the evidence remains inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the associations between the consumption of beef, pork, and lamb with CRC, colon cancer (CC), and rectal cancer (RC) risk.
Methods
The findings from 27 studies published between 1993 and 2024 were included, involving over 1 million participants from diverse geographical regions. Relative risks were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis, with subgroup and meta-regression analyses performed to assess potential sources of heterogeneity.
Results
Beef consumption was significantly associated with increased CRC risk, with a 30% overall risk increase (95% CI: 1.10-1.54). The association with colon cancer (CC) was marginally significant (RR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.99-1.43, p = 0.0585), while the link to rectal cancer (RC) was not statistically significant. Pork consumption was associated with a 17% increased CRC risk (95% CI: 1.09-1.25), with similar, nonsignificant trends for CC and RC. Lamb consumption was weakly associated with an 11% increase in CRC risk (95% CI: 1.02-1.21), though this was based on limited studies (n = 6), and no significant associations emerged for cancer subtypes. Study design and confounding factors influenced these associations, with case-control studies reporting stronger associations than cohort studies. Physical activity adjustments were pivotal, as studies without this adjustment consistently reported higher-risk estimates.
Conclusion
These findings emphasise the importance of accounting several lifestyle factors in future research and public health guidance. While these results support current dietary guidelines recommending limited red meat consumption, they also underscore the complexity of diet-cancer relationships and the need for comprehensive, lifestyle-inclusive cancer prevention strategies.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial (CC BY).
Confianza de la comunidad
Cargando…
¿Cuánto confías en los hallazgos de este estudio?
Comentarios
¿Algo está mal aquí?
Señala este estudio si su información, etiquetas o financiación parecen incorrectas. Un editor revisa cada señalamiento.
Información educativa sobre investigación publicada. No es consejo médico ni una recomendación para empezar o dejar nada.