Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Mar;57(2):689-701.
doi: 10.1007/s00394-016-1356-0. Epub 2016 Dec 22.

Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk of Bladder Cancer: A Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Epidemiological Studies

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Review

Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk of Bladder Cancer: A Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Epidemiological Studies

Alessio Crippa et al. Eur J Nutr. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Background/objectives: Several epidemiological studies have analyzed the associations between red and processed meat and bladder cancer risk but the shape and strength of the associations are still unclear. Therefore, we conducted a dose-response meta-analysis to quantify the potential association between red and processed meat and bladder cancer risk.

Methods: Relevant studies were identified by searching the PubMed database through January 2016 and reviewing the reference lists of the retrieved articles. Results were combined using random-effects models.

Results: Five cohort studies with 3262 cases and 1,038,787 participants and 8 cases-control studies with 7009 cases and 27,240 participants met the inclusion criteria. Red meat was linearly associated with bladder cancer risk in case-control studies, with a pooled RR of 1.51 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13, 2.02) for every 100 g increase per day, while no association was observed among cohort studies (P heterogeneity across study design = 0.02). Based on both case-control and cohort studies, the pooled relative risk (RR) for every 50 g increase of processed meat per day was 1.20 (95% CI 1.06, 1.37) (P heterogeneity across study design = 0.22).

Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that processed meat may be positively associated with bladder cancer risk. A positive association between red meat and risk of bladder cancer was observed only in case-control studies, while no association was observe in prospective studies.

Keywords: Bladder cancer; Dose–response; Meta-analysis; Processed meat; Red meat.

Conflict of interest statement

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Selection of studies for inclusion in a meta-analysis of red and processed meat consumption and risk of bladder cancer 1966–2016
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Relative risks of bladder cancer with 100 g per day increment in red meat consumption separately for cohort and case–control studies
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Relative risks of bladder cancer with 50 g per day increment in processed meat consumption separately for cohort and case–control studies

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 6 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136:E359–E386. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29210. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, et al. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:69–90. doi: 10.3322/caac.20107. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Murta-Nascimento C, Schmitz-Dräger BJ, Zeegers MP, et al. Epidemiology of urinary bladder cancer: from tumor development to patient’s death. World J Urol. 2007;25:285–295. doi: 10.1007/s00345-007-0168-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Johansson SL, Cohen SM. Epidemiology and etiology of bladder cancer. Semin Surg Oncol. 1997;13:291–298. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2388(199709/10)13:5<291::AID-SSU2>3.0.CO;2-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wang C, Jiang H. Meat intake and risk of bladder cancer: a meta-analysis. Med Oncol. 2011;29:848–855. doi: 10.1007/s12032-011-9985-x. - DOI - PubMed
Feedback