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|

Does a Patient-Held Quality-of-Life Diary Benefit Patients With Inoperable Lung Cancer?

Purpose To examine the effect of weekly completion of a patient-held quality-of-life (QOL) diary in routine oncology practice for palliative care patients.

Glycemic index, glycemic load, and risk of digestive tract neoplasms: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Habitual consumption of diets with a high glycemic index (GI) and a high glycemic load (GL) may influence cancer risk via hyperinsulinemia and the insulin-like growth factor axis.
Objective: The objective was to conduct a systematic review to assess the association between GI, GL, and risk of digestive tract cancers.
Design: Medline and Embase were searched for relevant publications from inception to July 2008. When possible, adjusted results from a comparison of cancer risk of the highest compared with the lowest category of GI and GL intake were combined by using random-effects meta-analyses.
Results: Cohort and case-control studies that examined the risk between GI or GL intake and colorectal cancer (n = 12) and adenomas (n = 2), pancreatic cancer (n = 6), gastric cancer (n = 2), and squamous-cell esophageal carcinoma (n = 1) were retrieved. Most case-control studies observed positive associations between GI and GL intake and these cancers. However, pooled cohort study results showed no associations between colorectal cancer risk and GI intake [relative risk (RR): 1.04; 95% CI: 0.92, 1.12; n = 7 studies] or GL intake (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.95, 1.17; n = 8 studies). Furthermore, no significant associations were observed in meta-analyses of cohort study results of colorectal cancer subsites and GI and GL intake. Similarly, no significant associations emerged between pancreatic cancer risk and GI intake (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.83, 1.19; n = 5 studies) or GL intake (RR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.86, 1.19; n = 6 studies) in combined cohort studies.
Conclusions: The findings from our meta-analyses indicate that GI and GL intakes are not associated with risk of colorectal or pancreatic cancers. There were insufficient data available regarding other digestive tract cancers to make any conclusions about GI or GL intake and risk.