Meat, meat cooking methods and preservation, and risk for colorectal adenoma.

Nutritional Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Cancer Research (Impact Factor: 9.28). 10/2005; 65(17):8034-41. DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-3429
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Cooking meat at high temperatures produces heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Processed meats contain N-nitroso compounds. Meat intake may increase cancer risk as HCAs, PAHs, and N-nitroso compounds are carcinogenic in animal models. We investigated meat, processed meat, HCAs, and the PAH benzo(a)pyrene and the risk of colorectal adenoma in 3,696 left-sided (descending and sigmoid colon and rectum) adenoma cases and 34,817 endoscopy-negative controls. Dietary intake was assessed using a 137-item food frequency questionnaire, with additional questions on meats and meat cooking practices. The questionnaire was linked to a previously developed database to determine exposure to HCAs and PAHs. Intake of red meat, with known doneness/cooking methods, was associated with an increased risk of adenoma in the descending and sigmoid colon [odds ratio (OR), 1.26; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.05-1.50 comparing extreme quintiles of intake] but not rectal adenoma. Well-done red meat was associated with increased risk of colorectal adenoma (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.06-1.37). Increased risks for adenoma of the descending colon and sigmoid colon were observed for the two HCAs: 2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5]quinoxaline and 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5]pyridine (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01-1.38 and OR, 1.17, 95% CI, 1.01-1.35, respectively) as well as benzo(a)pyrene (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.02-1.35). Greater intake of bacon and sausage was associated with increased colorectal adenoma risk (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.00-1.30); however, total intake of processed meat was not (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.90-1.19). Our study of screening-detected colorectal adenomas shows that red meat and meat cooked at high temperatures are associated with an increased risk of colorectal adenoma.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Heterocyclic aromatic amines, such as 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP), are carcinogenic compounds produced during heating of protein-containing foods. Apiaceous vegetables inhibit PhIP-activating enzymes, whereas cruciferous vegetables induce both PhIP-activating and -detoxifying enzymes. We investigated the effects of these vegetables, either alone or combined, on PhIP metabolism and colonic DNA adduct formation in rats. Male Wistar rats were fed cruciferous vegetables (21%, wt:wt), apiaceous vegetables (21%, wt:wt), or a combination of both vegetables (10.5% wt:wt of each). Negative and positive control groups were fed an AIN-93G diet. After 6 d, all groups received an intraperitoneal injection of PhIP (10 mg · kg body weight(-1)) except for the negative control group, which received only vehicle. Urine was collected for 24 h after the injection for LC-tandem mass spectrometry metabolomic analyses. On day 7, rats were killed and tissues processed. Compared with the positive control, cruciferous vegetables increased the activity of hepatic PhIP-activating enzymes [39.5% and 45.1% for cytochrome P450 (CYP) 1A1 (P = 0.0006) and CYP1A2 (P < 0.0001), respectively] and of uridine 5'-diphospho-glucuronosyltransferase 1A (PhIP-detoxifying) by 24.5% (P = 0.0267). Apiaceous vegetables did not inhibit PhIP-activating enzymes, yet reduced colonic PhIP-DNA adducts by 20.4% (P = 0.0496). Metabolomic analyses indicated that apiaceous vegetables increased the relative abundance of urinary methylated PhIP metabolites. The sum of these methylated metabolites inversely correlated with colonic PhIP-DNA adducts (r = -0.43, P = 0.01). We detected a novel methylated urinary PhIP metabolite and demonstrated that methylated metabolites are produced in the human liver S9 fraction. Apiaceous vegetables did not inhibit the activity of PhIP-activating enzymes in rats, suggesting that the reduction in PhIP-DNA adducts may involve other pathways. Further investigation of the importance of PhIP methylation in carcinogen metabolism is warranted, given the inverse correlation of methylated PhIP metabolites with a biomarker of carcinogenesis and the detection of a novel methylated PhIP metabolite. © 2015 American Society for Nutrition.
    Journal of Nutrition 03/2015; 145(3):442-51. DOI:10.3945/jn.114.202622 · 4.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Previous studies have shown that in the rat, the colon carcinogen 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP) is only absorbed to a limited extent in the small intestines and that a major fraction of unmetabolised PhIP reaches the colon. Moreover, PhIP is extensively metabolised when incubated with human stool samples to a major derivative, 7-hydroxy-5-methyl-3-phenyl-6,7,8,9-tetrahydropyrido [3',2':4,5]imidazo[1,2-a]pyrimidin-5-ium chloride (PhIP-M1). In the present study, the uptake and transport of PhIP-M1 in Ussing chamber experiments, its cytotoxicity in the different segments of the Fischer 344 rat gut and its transforming potential in the BALB/c 3T3 cell transformation assay were analysed. At the most, 10-20% of the PhIP-M1 amount added to the mucosal compartment of the Ussing chambers per segment were absorbed within 90min. Therefore, the amount of PhIP-M1 detected in the tissues as well as in the serosal compartment of the Ussing chambers was extremely low. Moreover, human-relevant concentrations of PhIP-M1 were not cytotoxic and did not induce the malignant transformation of BALB/c 3T3 cells. In conclusion, even if one would assume that 100% of the daily amount of PhIP ingested by a human being is converted into PhIP-M1 in the colon, this concentration most probably would not lead to cytotoxicity and/or carcinogenicity in the colorectal mucosa. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Toxicology Letters 02/2015; 234(2):92-98. DOI:10.1016/j.toxlet.2015.02.015 · 3.36 Impact Factor
  • Frontiers in Bioscience 01/2013; 18(1):190. DOI:10.2741/4095 · 4.25 Impact Factor


Available from