Dietary glycaemic index, glycaemic load and endometrial and ovarian cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Long-term consumption of a high glycaemic index (GI) or glycaemic load (GL) diet may lead to chronic hyperinsulinaemia, which is a potential risk factor for cancer. To date, many studies have examined the association between GI, GL and cancer risk, although results have been inconsistent, therefore our objective was to conduct a systematic review of the literature. Medline and Embase were systematically searched using terms for GI, GL and cancer to identify studies published before December 2007. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for endometrial cancer, combining maximally adjusted results that compared risk for those in the highest versus the lowest category of intake. Separate analysis examined risk by body mass index categories. Five studies examining GI and/or GL intake and endometrial cancer risk were identified. Pooled effect estimates for endometrial cancer showed an increased risk for high GL consumers (RR 1.20; 95% CI: 1.06-1.37), further elevated in obese women (RR 1.54; 95% CI: 1.18-2.03). No significant associations were observed for GI. Only two studies examined ovarian cancer and therefore no meta-analysis was performed, but results indicate positive associations for GL also. A high GL, but not a high GI, diet is positively associated with the risk of endometrial cancer, particularly among obese women. © 2008 Cancer Research UK All rights reserved.

Dietary glycaemic index, glycaemic load and breast cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review aimed to examine if an association exists between dietary glycaemic index (GI) and glycaemic load (GL) intake and breast cancer risk. A systematic search was conducted in Medline and Embase and identified 14 relevant studies up to May 2008. Adjusted relative risk estimates comparing breast cancer risk for the highest versus the lowest category of GI/GL intake were extracted from relevant studies and combined in meta-analyses using a random-effects model. Combined estimates from six cohort studies show non-significant increased breast cancer risks for premenopausal women (relative risk (RR) 1.14, 95% CI 0.95-1.38) and postmenopausal women (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99-1.25) consuming the highest versus the lowest category of GI intake. Evidence of heterogeneity hindered analyses of GL and premenopausal risk, although most studies did not observe any significant association. Pooled cohort study results indicated no association between postmenopausal risk and GL intake (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94-1.12). Our findings do not provide strong support of an association between dietary GI and GL and breast cancer risk. © 2008 Cancer Research UK.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reaxys Database Information|

Dietary patterns and breast cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Dietary patterns, which represent whole-diet and possible food and nutrient interactions, have been linked to the risk of various cancers. However, the associations of these dietary patterns with breast cancer remain unclear. Objective: We critically appraised the literature and conducted meta-analyses to pool the results of studies to clarify the relation between dietary patterns and breast cancer risk.
Design: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for relevant articles that identified common dietary patterns published up to November 2009. Multivariable-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) comparing highest and lowest categories of dietary pattern scores and multi-variable-adjusted ORs for a 20th-percentile increase in dietary pattern scores were combined by using random-effects meta-analyses. Results: Case-control and cohort studies were retrieved that identified prudent/healthy (n = 18), Western/unhealthy (n = 17), and drinker (n = 4) dietary patterns. There was evidence of a decrease in the risk of breast cancer in the highest compared with the lowest categories of prudent/healthy dietary patterns (OR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.82, 0.99; P = 0.02) in all studies and in pooled cohort studies alone. An increase in the risk of breast cancer was shown for the highest compared with the lowest categories of a drinker dietary pattern (OR = 1.21; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.41; P = 0.01). There was no evidence of a difference in the risk of breast cancer between the highest and the lowest categories of Western/unhealthy dietary patterns (OR = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.22; P = 0.12). Conclusion: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that some dietary patterns may be associated with breast cancer risk.

Can physical activity modulate pancreatic cancer risk?:a systematic review and meta-analysis

Numerous epidemiological studies have examined the association between physical activity and pancreatic cancer; however, findings from individual cohorts have largely not corroborated a protective effect. Among other plausible mechanisms, physical activity may reduce abdominal fat depots inducing metabolic improvements in glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity, thereby potentially attenuating pancreatic cancer risk. We performed a systematic review to examine associations between physical activity and pancreatic cancer. Six electronic databases were searched from their inception through July 2009, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, seeking observational studies examining any physical activity measure with pancreatic cancer incidence/mortality as an outcome. A random effects model was used to pool individual effect estimates evaluating highest vs. lowest categories of activity. Twenty-eight studies were included. Pooled estimates indicated a reduction in pancreatic cancer risk with higher levels of total (five prospective studies, RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.52-0.99) and occupational activity (four prospective studies, RR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.59-0.96). Nonsignificant inverse associations were seen between risks and recreational and transport physical activity. When examining exercise intensity, moderate activity appeared more protective (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.52-1.20) than vigorous activity (RR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.85-1.11), but results were not statistically significant and the former activity variable incorporated marked heterogeneity. Despite indications of an inverse relationship with higher levels of work and total activity, there was little evidence of such associations with recreational and other activity exposures.