Published online Apr 26, 2015. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v3.i2.125
Peer-review started: June 16, 2014
First decision: August 7, 2014
Revised: November 17, 2014
Accepted: February 10, 2015
Article in press: February 12, 2015
Published online: April 26, 2015
Processing time: 315 Days and 23.6 Hours
AIM: To evaluate whether red meat intake is related to the risk of endometrial cancer (EC) using meta-analysis.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to June 2013, using common keywords related to red meat and EC. Case-control studies and cohort studies comparing the risk of endometrial cancer among categories by the amount of intake were included. Eleven case-control studies and five cohort studies met our criteria. We performed a conventional and a dose-response meta-analysis of case-control studies using the DerSimonian-Laird method for random-effects. For cohort studies we performed a conventional meta-analysis. Publication bias was evaluated using Egger’s test.
RESULTS: In the meta-analysis of 11 case-control studies including 5419 cases and 12654 controls, higher red meat consumption was associated with an increased risk of EC [summary relative risk (SRR) = 1.43, 95%CI: 1.15-1.79; I2 = 73.3% comparing extreme intake categories). In a dose-response analysis, for red meat intake of 100 g/d, SRR was 1.84 (95%CI: 1.64-2.05). In contrast, in the meta-analysis of five prospective studies including a total of 2549 cases among 247746 participants, no significant association between red meat intake and EC risk (SRR = 0.97, 95%CI: 0.85-1.11; I2 = 4.9% comparing extreme intake categories) was observed.
CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis found a significant linear association between red meat intake and EC risk based on case-control studies but this was not confirmed in prospective studies.
Core tip: By conducting a dose-response meta-analysis, we found a significant linear association between red meat intake and endometrial cancer risk based on case-control studies. However this association was not confirmed in prospective studies. In our paper, we argue that those findings are attributable to methodological difference between retrospective case-control studies and prospective studies.