A prospective study of meat, cooking methods, meat mutagens, heme iron, and lung cancer risks.

Nutritional Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD 20892-7242, USA.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Impact Factor: 6.5). 05/2009; 89(6):1884-94. DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2008.27272
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Red and processed meat consumption may play a role in lung cancer pathogenesis because of these meats' fat and carcinogen content.
We prospectively investigated whether meat type, cooking method, doneness level, and intake of specific meat mutagens and heme iron are associated with lung carcinoma.
Men (n = 278,380) and women (n = 189,596) from the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study with no history of cancer at baseline were monitored for 8 y. Diet was assessed with a 124-item food-frequency questionnaire. A meat-cooking module was used to estimate the intake of individual heterocyclic amines, benzo(a)pyrene, and heme iron. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs.
In a comparison of quintiles 5 with 1 (Q5vsQ1), a high intake of red meat was associated with an increased risk of lung carcinoma in both men (HR(Q5vsQ1): 1.22; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.38; P for trend = 0.005) and women (HR(Q5vsQ1): 1.13; 95% CI: 0.97, 1.32; P for trend = 0.05). A high intake of processed meat increased the risk only in men (HR(Q5vsQ1): 1.23; 95% CI: 1.10, 1.37; P for trend = 0.003). In an analysis stratified by smoking status, we observed a tendency for an increased risk with red meat intake in never smoking men and women; however, the risks were not statistically significant. In a comparison of tertiles 3 and 1 (T3vsT1), the risk of lung carcinoma was associated with intake of well-/very-well-done meat (HR(T3vsT1): 1.20; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.35; P for trend = 0.002) and the intake of 2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline (HR(Q5vsQ1): 1.20; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.38; P for trend = 0.04) in men. Heme iron intake increased the risk of lung carcinoma in both men (HR(Q5vsQ1): 1.25; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.45; P for trend = 0.02) and women (HR(Q5vsQ1): 1.18; 95% CI: 0.99, 1.42; P for trend = 0.002).
We observed a moderate association between meat consumption and lung carcinoma, which might be explained by heme iron intake, high-temperature cooking, and associated mutagens.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Compelling evidence for naturally occurring immunosurveillance against malignancies informs and justifies some current approaches toward cancer immunotherapy. However, some types of immune reactions have also been shown to facilitate tumor progression. For example, our previous studies showed that although experimental tumor growth is enhanced by low levels of circulating antibodies directed against the nonhuman sialic acid N-glycolyl-neuraminic acid (Neu5Gc), which accumulates in human tumors, growth could be inhibited by anti-Neu5Gc antibodies from a different source, in a different model. However, it remains generally unclear whether the immune responses that mediate cancer immunosurveillance vs. those responsible for inflammatory facilitation are qualitatively and/or quantitatively distinct. Here, we address this question using multiple murine tumor growth models in which polyclonal antibodies against tumor antigens, such as Neu5Gc, can alter tumor progression. We found that although growth was stimulated at low antibody doses, it was inhibited by high doses, over a linear and remarkably narrow range, defining an immune response curve (IRC; i.e., inverse hormesis). Moreover, modulation of immune responses against the tumor by altering antibody avidity or by enhancing innate immunity shifted the IRC in the appropriate direction. Thus, the dualistic role of immunosurveillance vs. inflammation in modulating tumor progression can be quantitatively distinguished in multiple model systems, and can occur over a remarkably narrow range. Similar findings were made in a human tumor xenograft model using a narrow range of doses of a monoclonal antibody currently in clinical use. These findings may have implications for the etiology, prevention, and treatment of cancer.
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 04/2014; DOI:10.1073/pnas.1209067111 · 9.81 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 · 6.50 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This meta-analysis was to summarize the published studies about the association between red/processed meat consumption and the risk of lung cancer. 5 databases were systematically reviewed, and random-effect model was used to pool the study results and to assess dose-response relationships. Results shown that six cohort studies and twenty eight case-control studies were included in this meat-analysis. The pooled Risk Radios (RR) for total red meat and processed meat were 1.44 (95% CI, 1.29-1.61) and 1.23 (95% CI, 1.10-1.37), respectively. Dose-response analysis revealed that for every increment of 120 grams red meat per day the risk of lung cancer increases 35% and for every increment of 50 grams red meat per day the risk of lung cancer increases 20%. The present dose-response meta-analysis suggested that both red and processed meat consumption showed a positive effect on lung cancer risk.
    International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine 01/2014; 7(6):1542-53. · 1.42 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Aug 21, 2014