Meat Intake Is Not Associated with Risk of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma in a Large Prospective Cohort of US Men and Women

National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD, USA.
Journal of Nutrition (Impact Factor: 4.23). 04/2012; 142(6):1074-80. DOI: 10.3945/jn.112.158113
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Meat intake has been inconsistently associated with risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), a heterogeneous group of malignancies of the lymphoid tissue etiologically linked to immunomodulatory factors. In a large U.S. cohort, we prospectively investigated several biologically plausible mechanisms related to meat intake, including meat-cooking and meat-processing compounds, in relation to NHL risk by histologic subtype. At baseline (1995-1996), participants of the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study completed a diet and lifestyle questionnaire (n = 492,186), and a subcohort (n = 302,162) also completed a questionnaire on meat-cooking methods and doneness levels. Over a mean of 9 y of follow-up, we identified 3611 incident cases of NHL. In multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models, we found no association between intake of red meat, processed meat, fish, poultry, heme iron, nitrite, nitrate, animal fat, or protein and NHL risk. MeIQx (2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline) and DiMeIQx (2-amino-3,4,8-trimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline), heterocyclic amines formed in meats cooked to well done at high temperatures, were inversely associated with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma [n = 979; HR (95% CI) for the highest vs. lowest quintile of intake: 0.73 (0.55, 0.96) and 0.77 (0.61, 0.98), respectively]. In this large U.S. cohort, meat intake was not associated with NHL or any histologic subtypes of NHL. Contrary to findings in animal models and other cancer sites, meat-cooking and -processing compounds did not increase NHL risk.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: High consumption of red meat and processed meat has been associated with increased risk of several chronic diseases. We conducted a meta-analysis to summarize the evidence from prospective studies on red meat and processed meat consumption in relationship to all-cause mortality. Pertinent studies were identified by searching PubMed through May 2013 and by reviewing the reference lists of retrieved articles. Prospective studies that reported relative risks with 95% confidence intervals for the association of red meat or processed meat consumption with all-cause mortality were eligible. Study-specific results were combined by using a random-effects model. Nine prospective studies were included in the meta-analysis. The summary relative risks of all-cause mortality for the highest versus the lowest category of consumption were 1.10 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98, 1.22; n = 6 studies) for unprocessed red meat, 1.23 (95% CI: 1.17, 1.28; n = 6 studies) for processed meat, and 1.29 (95% CI: 1.24, 1.35; n = 5 studies) for total red meat. In a dose-response meta-analysis, consumption of processed meat and total red meat, but not unprocessed red meat, was statistically significantly positively associated with all-cause mortality in a nonlinear fashion. These results indicate that high consumption of red meat, especially processed meat, may increase all-cause mortality.
    American journal of epidemiology 10/2013; 179(3). DOI:10.1093/aje/kwt261 · 4.98 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In 2007 the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR) report judged that the evidence for an association between red and processed meat consumption and colorectal cancer was convincing. In addition, the effect of other animal products on cancer risk has been studied, and the WCRF/AICR report concluded that milk probably decreases the risk of colorectal cancer but diets high in calcium probably increase the risk of prostate cancer, whereas there was limited evidence for an association between milk and bladder cancer and insufficient evidence for other cancers. There are several potential mechanisms relating meat to cancer, including heterocyclic amines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, N-nitroso compounds, and heme iron. Although the evidence in favor of a link between red and processed meat and colorectal cancer is convincing, the relations with other cancers are unclear. In this review, we summarize cohort studies conducted by the National Cancer Institute on meat and dairy intake in relation to cancer since the 2007 WCRF/AICR report. We also report the findings of meta-analyses published since 2007.
    American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 05/2014; DOI:10.3945/ajcn.113.071597 · 6.92 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Vegetarian diets might affect the risk of cancer.OBJECTIVE: The objective was to describe cancer incidence in vegetarians and nonvegetarians in a large sample in the United Kingdom.DESIGN: This was a pooled analysis of 2 prospective studies including 61,647 British men and women comprising 32,491 meat eaters, 8612 fish eaters, and 20,544 vegetarians (including 2246 vegans). Cancer incidence was followed through nationwide cancer registries. Cancer risk by vegetarian status was estimated by using multivariate Cox proportional hazards models.RESULTS: After an average follow-up of 14.9 y, there were 4998 incident cancers: 3275 in meat eaters (10.1%), 520 in fish eaters (6.0%), and 1203 in vegetarians (5.9%). There was significant heterogeneity between dietary groups in risks of the following cancers: stomach cancer [RRs (95% CIs) compared with meat eaters: 0.62 (0.27, 1.43) in fish eaters and 0.37 (0.19, 0.69) in vegetarians; P-heterogeneity = 0.006], colorectal cancer [RRs (95% CIs): 0.66 (0.48, 0.92) in fish eaters and 1.03 (0.84, 1.26) in vegetarians; P-heterogeneity = 0.033], cancers of the lymphatic and hematopoietic tissue [RRs (95% CIs): 0.96 (0.70, 1.32) in fish eaters and 0.64 (0.49, 0.84) in vegetarians; P-heterogeneity = 0.005], multiple myeloma [RRs (95% CIs): 0.77 (0.34, 1.76) in fish eaters and 0.23 (0.09, 0.59) in vegetarians; P-heterogeneity = 0.010], and all sites combined [RRs (95% CIs): 0.88 (0.80, 0.97) in fish eaters and 0.88 (0.82, 0.95) in vegetarians; P-heterogeneity = 0.0007].CONCLUSION: In this British population, the risk of some cancers is lower in fish eaters and vegetarians than in meat eaters.
    American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 06/2014; 100(Supplement_1). DOI:10.3945/ajcn.113.071266 · 6.92 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Sep 29, 2014