Meat, fish, and ovarian cancer risk: Results from 2 Australian case-control studies, a systematic review, and meta-analysis

Kolahdooz, Fariba, van der Pols, Jolieke C., Bain, Christopher J., Marks, Geoffrey C., Hughes, Maria Celia, Whiteman, David C., Webb, Penelope M. and Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group (2010) Meat, fish, and ovarian cancer risk: Results from 2 Australian case-control studies, a systematic review, and meta-analysis. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 91 6: 1752-1763. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.28415

Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your UQ eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
HERDC_checklist.pdf HERDC checklist – not publicly available application/pdf 60.79KB 1

Author Kolahdooz, Fariba
van der Pols, Jolieke C.
Bain, Christopher J.
Marks, Geoffrey C.
Hughes, Maria Celia
Whiteman, David C.
Webb, Penelope M.
Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group
Title Meat, fish, and ovarian cancer risk: Results from 2 Australian case-control studies, a systematic review, and meta-analysis
Journal name American Journal of Clinical Nutrition   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0002-9165
Publication date 2010-06-01
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.3945/ajcn.2009.28415
Volume 91
Issue 6
Start page 1752
End page 1763
Total pages 12
Editor Dennis M. Bier
Place of publication Bethesda, MD, U.S.A.
Publisher American Society for Nutrition
Collection year 2011
Language eng
Formatted abstract
Background: Variation in meat and fish intakes has been associated with a risk of some cancers, but evidence for ovarian cancer is limited and inconsistent.

Objective: We examined the association between intakes of total meat, red meat, processed meat, poultry, and fish and ovarian cancer risk.

Design: Data came from 2 Australian population-based case-control studies conducted 10 y apart. Analyses included a total of 2049 cases and 2191 control subjects. We obtained dietary information via a food-frequency questionnaire. We estimated multivariable-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for each study by using logistic regression and combined results of the 2 studies by using random-effects models. We also assembled the published evidence in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Results: Although there was no association between total or red meat intake and ovarian cancer risk, women with the highest intake of processed meat had a significantly increased risk of ovarian cancer in the 2 case-control studies (combined OR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.15, 1.21) and the meta-analysis [7 studies; pooled relative risk (RR): 1.20; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.34]. In contrast, a frequent intake of poultry was associated with borderline significant reductions in risk in the 2 case-control studies (combined OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.67, 1.03) and the meta-analysis including 7 additional studies (pooled RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.79, 1.01). High fish intake was associated with a significantly reduced risk in the 2 case-control studies (combined OR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.62, 0.94) and a smaller borderline significant reduction in the meta-analysis (6 additional studies; pooled RR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.68, 1.03).

Conclusion: Our results suggest that low consumption of processed meat and higher consumption of poultry and fish may reduce the risk of ovarian cancer.
© 2010 American Society for Nutrition
Keyword Food-frequency questionnaire
Heterocyclic aromatic-amines
Dietary-fat intake
Red meat
Personal characteristics
No association
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: Official 2011 Collection
School of Public Health Publications
School of Medicine Publications
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 26 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 34 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Sun, 06 Jun 2010, 00:09:00 EST