58
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Adherence to Mediterranean Diet and Risk of Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to gain further insight into the effects of adherence to Mediterranean Diet (MedD) on risk of overall cancer mortality, risk of different types of cancer, and cancer mortality and recurrence risk in cancer survivors. Literature search was performed using the electronic databases PubMed, and Scopus until 25 August 2017. We included randomized trials (RCTs), cohort (for specific tumors only incidence cases were used) studies, and case-control studies. Study-specific risk ratios, hazard ratios, and odds ratios (RR/HR/OR) were pooled using a random effects model. Observational studies (cohort and case-control studies), and intervention trials were meta-analyzed separately. The updated review process showed 27 studies that were not included in the previous meta-analysis (total number of studies evaluated: 83 studies). An overall population of 2,130,753 subjects was included in the present update. The highest adherence score to a MedD was inversely associated with a lower risk of cancer mortality (RR cohort: 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.91, I 2 = 82%; n = 14 studies), colorectal cancer (RR observational: 0.82, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.88, I 2 = 73%; n = 11 studies), breast cancer (RR RCT: 0.43, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.88, n = 1 study) (RR observational: 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.96, I 2 = 22%, n = 16 studies), gastric cancer (RR observational: 0.72, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.86, I 2 = 55%; n = 4 studies), liver cancer (RR observational: 0.58, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.73, I 2 = 0%; n = 2 studies), head and neck cancer (RR observational: 0.49, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.66, I 2 = 87%; n = 7 studies), and prostate cancer (RR observational: 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.00, I 2 = 0%; n = 6 studies). Among cancer survivors, the association between the adherence to the highest MedD category and risk of cancer mortality, and cancer recurrence was not statistically significant. Pooled analyses of individual components of the MedD revealed that the protective effects appear to be most attributable to fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. The updated meta-analysis confirms an important inverse association between adherence to a MedD and cancer mortality and risk of several cancer types, especially colorectal cancer. These observed beneficial effects are mainly driven by higher intakes of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. Moreover, we were able to report for the first time a small decrease in breast cancer risk (6%) by pooling seven cohort studies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references167

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

              The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Nutrients
                Nutrients
                nutrients
                Nutrients
                MDPI
                2072-6643
                26 September 2017
                October 2017
                : 9
                : 10
                : 1063
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke (DIfE), Arthur-Scheunert-Allee 114-116, 14558 Nuthetal, Germany; carolina.schwedhelm@ 123456dife.de
                [2 ]Department of Molecular Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke, 14558 Nuthetal, Germany; Cecilia.Galbete@ 123456dife.de
                [3 ]Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Vienna, Althanstraße 14, 1090 Vienna, Austria; georg.hoffmann@ 123456univie.ac.at
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: lukas.schwingshackl@ 123456dife.de ; Tel.: +49-33200-88-2712
                Article
                nutrients-09-01063
                10.3390/nu9101063
                5691680
                28954418
                f5c4ef4d-3e59-49cc-9d0f-d30a44ab2c1e
                © 2017 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 16 August 2017
                : 21 September 2017
                Categories
                Review

                Nutrition & Dietetics
                mediterranean diet,cancer,meta-analysis,systematic review update
                Nutrition & Dietetics
                mediterranean diet, cancer, meta-analysis, systematic review update

                Comments

                Comment on this article