Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Apr 11;11(4):826.
doi: 10.3390/nu11040826.

Effect of Red, Processed, and White Meat Consumption on the Risk of Gastric Cancer: An Overall and Dose⁻Response Meta-Analysis

Seong Rae Kim  1 , Kyuwoong Kim  2 , Sang Ah Lee  3 , Sung Ok Kwon  4 , Jong-Koo Lee  5 , NaNa Keum  6   7 , Sang Min Park  8
Affiliations
Review

Effect of Red, Processed, and White Meat Consumption on the Risk of Gastric Cancer: An Overall and Dose⁻Response Meta-Analysis

Seong Rae Kim et al. Nutrients. .

Abstract

: Whether the risk of gastric cancer varies by the types of meat consumption still remains disputable. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to identify the exact associations that red, processed, and white meat have with gastric cancer. We searched relevant studies in Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library before November 2018, including cohort and case-control studies. We used random-effect models to estimate the adjusted relative risk (RR), and Egger's tests to evaluate publication bias. Through stepwise screening, 43 studies were included in this analysis (11 cohort studies and 32 case-control studies with 16,572 cases). In a meta-analysis for the highest versus lowest categories of meat consumption, both red (RR: 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.21-1.66) and processed (RR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.37-1.81) meat consumption were positively associated with gastric cancer risk, while white meat consumption was negatively associated with gastric cancer risk (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.69-0.92). In a dose-response meta-analysis, the RRs of gastric cancer were 1.26 (95% CI: 1.11-1.42) for every 100 g/day increment in red meat consumption, 1.72 (95% CI: 1.36-2.18) for every 50 g/day increment in processed meat consumption, and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.64-1.15) for every 100 g/day increment in white meat consumption. The increase of white meat consumption may reduce the risk of gastric cancer, while red or processed meat may increase the risk of gastric cancer. Further studies are required to identify these associations, especially between white meat and gastric cancer.

Keywords: cancer epidemiology; gastric cancer; processed meat; red meat; white meat.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram for the selection of studies. A total of 43 studies for quantitative meta-analysis were selected using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2009 flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Adjusted relative risks and 95% confidence intervals of gastric cancer for red meat consumption. Squares indicate each study’s relative risks. Horizontal lines indicate 95% confidence intervals. Diamonds indicate the summary relative risks and 95% confidence intervals. (a) Highest versus lowest categories of red meat consumption; (b) dose–response meta-analysis for 100 g/day increase in red meat consumption.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Adjusted relative risks and 95% confidence intervals of gastric cancer for red meat consumption. Squares indicate each study’s relative risks. Horizontal lines indicate 95% confidence intervals. Diamonds indicate the summary relative risks and 95% confidence intervals. (a) Highest versus lowest categories of red meat consumption; (b) dose–response meta-analysis for 100 g/day increase in red meat consumption.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Adjusted relative risks and 95% confidence intervals of gastric cancer for processed meat consumption. Squares indicate each study’s relative risks. Horizontal lines indicate 95% confidence intervals. Diamonds indicate the summary relative risks and 95% confidence intervals. (a) Highest versus lowest categories of processed meat consumption; (b) dose–response meta-analysis for 50 g/day increase in processed meat consumption.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Adjusted relative risks and 95% confidence intervals of gastric cancer for processed meat consumption. Squares indicate each study’s relative risks. Horizontal lines indicate 95% confidence intervals. Diamonds indicate the summary relative risks and 95% confidence intervals. (a) Highest versus lowest categories of processed meat consumption; (b) dose–response meta-analysis for 50 g/day increase in processed meat consumption.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Adjusted relative risks and 95% confidence intervals of gastric cancer for white meat consumption. Squares indicate each study’s relative risks. Horizontal lines indicate 95% confidence intervals. Diamonds indicate the summary relative risks and 95% confidence intervals. (a) Highest versus lowest categories of white meat consumption; (b) dose–response meta-analysis for 100 g/day increase in white meat consumption.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Adjusted relative risks and 95% confidence intervals of gastric cancer for white meat consumption. Squares indicate each study’s relative risks. Horizontal lines indicate 95% confidence intervals. Diamonds indicate the summary relative risks and 95% confidence intervals. (a) Highest versus lowest categories of white meat consumption; (b) dose–response meta-analysis for 100 g/day increase in white meat consumption.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Luo G., Zhang Y., Guo P., Wang L., Huang Y., Li K. Global patterns and trends in stomach cancer incidence: Age, period and birth cohort analysis. Int. J. Cancer. 2017;141:1333–1344. doi: 10.1002/ijc.30835. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bray F., Ferlay J., Soerjomataram I., Siegel R.L., Torre L.A., Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018;68:394–424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Grosso G., Bella F., Godos J., Sciacca S., Del Rio D., Ray S., Galvano F., Giovannucci E.L. Possible role of diet in cancer: Systematic review and multiple meta-analyses of dietary patterns, lifestyle factors, and cancer risk. Nutr. Rev. 2017;75:405–419. doi: 10.1093/nutrit/nux012. - DOI - PubMed
    1. González C.A., Jakszyn P., Pera G., Agudo A., Bingham S., Palli D., Ferrari P., Boeing H., del Giudice G., Plebani M., et al. Meat intake and risk of stomach and esophageal adenocarcinoma within the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2006;98:345–354. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djj071. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Daniel C.R., Cross A.J., Koebnick C., Sinha R. Trends in meat consumption in the USA. Public Health Nutr. 2011;14:575–583. doi: 10.1017/S1368980010002077. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-