scholarly journals Red meat and cancer risk in a network of case–control studies focusing on cooking practices

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Montella ◽  
M Di Maso ◽  
A Zucchetto ◽  
C Bosetti ◽  
M Taborelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Red Meat ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Cooking Practices

scholarly journals Red meat and cancer risk in a network of case–control studies focusing on cooking practices

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (12) ◽  
pp. 3107-3112 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Di Maso ◽  
R. Talamini ◽  
C. Bosetti ◽  
M. Montella ◽  
A. Zucchetto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Red Meat ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Cooking Practices

scholarly journals Meat and colo-rectal cancer

1999 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Hill
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Red Meat ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Meat Intake ◽  
Early Case ◽  
Diet And Cancer ◽  
Main Determinants

In early epidemiological studies of diet and cancer the stress was on the search for causal factors. Population (ecological) studies tended to show a strong correlation between meat intake, particularly red meat, and the risk of colo-rectal cancer. They also tended to show meat to be strongly inversely correlated with cancers of the stomach and oesophagus and liver. Early case- control studies tended to support the postulated role for red meat in colo-rectal carcinogenesis, although more recent case-control studies, particularly those from Europe, have tended to show no relationship. The cohort studies in general failed to detect any relationship between meat intake and colo-rectal cancer risk. The available evidence points to the intake of protective factors such as vegetables and whole-grain cereals being the main determinants of colo-rectal cancer risk, with meat intake only coincidentally related.

scholarly journals A systematic assessment of the association between frequently prescribed medicines and the risk of common cancers: a series of nested case-control studies

BMC Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
R. D. McDowell ◽  
C. Hughes ◽  
P. Murchie ◽  
C. Cardwell
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Conditional Logistic Regression ◽  
Exposure Dose ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Systematic Assessment ◽  
Exposure Response ◽  
Prescribed Medicines ◽  
Nested Case Control ◽  
Novel Associations

Abstract Background Studies systematically screening medications have successfully identified prescription medicines associated with cancer risk. However, adjustment for confounding factors in these studies has been limited. We therefore investigated the association between frequently prescribed medicines and the risk of common cancers adjusting for a range of confounders. Methods A series of nested case-control studies were undertaken using the Primary Care Clinical Informatics Unit Research (PCCIUR) database containing general practice (GP) records from Scotland. Cancer cases at 22 cancer sites, diagnosed between 1999 and 2011, were identified from GP records and matched with up to five controls (based on age, gender, GP practice and date of registration). Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) comparing any versus no prescriptions for each of the most commonly prescribed medicines, identified from prescription records, were calculated using conditional logistic regression, adjusting for comorbidities. Additional analyses adjusted for smoking use. An association was considered a signal based upon the magnitude of its adjusted OR, p-value and evidence of an exposure-response relationship. Supplementary analyses were undertaken comparing 6 or more prescriptions versus less than 6 for each medicine. Results Overall, 62,109 cases and 276,580 controls were included in the analyses and a total of 5622 medication-cancer associations were studied across the 22 cancer sites. After adjusting for comorbidities 2060 medicine-cancer associations for any prescription had adjusted ORs greater than 1.25 (or less than 0.8), 214 had a corresponding p-value less than or equal to 0.01 and 118 had evidence of an exposure-dose relationship hence meeting the criteria for a signal. Seventy-seven signals were identified after additionally adjusting for smoking. Based upon an exposure of 6 or more prescriptions, there were 118 signals after adjusting for comorbidities and 82 after additionally adjusting for smoking. Conclusions In this study a number of novel associations between medicine and cancer were identified which require further clinical and epidemiological investigation. The majority of medicines were not associated with an altered cancer risk and many identified signals reflected known associations between medicine and cancer.

scholarly journals Lung cancer risk among bricklayers in a pooled analysis of case–control studies

2014 ◽  
Vol 136 (2) ◽  
pp. 360-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dario Consonni ◽  
Sara De Matteis ◽  
Angela C. Pesatori ◽  
Pier Alberto Bertazzi ◽  
Ann C. Olsson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Lung Cancer Risk ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Case Control Studies

Association between CASP3 polymorphisms and overall cancer risk: A meta‐analysis of case‐control studies

2018 ◽  
Vol 120 (5) ◽  
pp. 7199-7210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Hashemi ◽  
Abdolkarim Moazeni‐Roodi ◽  
Saeid Ghavami
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Case Control Studies

scholarly journals The TERT rs2736100 Polymorphism and Cancer Risk: A Meta-analysis Based on 25 Case-Control Studies

BMC Cancer ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peng Zou ◽  
Aihua Gu ◽  
Guixiang Ji ◽  
Lin Zhao ◽  
Peng Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Case Control Studies

scholarly journals Oral Contraceptive Use and Breast Cancer Risk Assessment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Case-Control Studies, 2009–2020

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (22) ◽  
pp. 5654
Author(s):  
Agnieszka Barańska ◽  
Agata Błaszczuk ◽  
Wiesław Kanadys ◽  
Maria Malm ◽  
Katarzyna Drop ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Oral Contraceptive ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Breast Cancer Risk Assessment

To perform a meta-analysis of case-control studies that addressed the association between oral contraceptive pills (OC) use and breast cancer (BrCa), PubMED (MEDLINE), Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify case-control studies of OC and BrCa published between 2009 and 2020. We used the DerSimonian–Laird method to compute pooled odds ratios (ORs) and confidence intervals (CIs), and the Mantel–Haenszel test to assess the association between OC use and cancer. Forty-two studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria and we included a total of 110,580 women (30,778 into the BrCa group and 79,802 into the control group, of which 15,722 and 38,334 were using OC, respectively). The conducted meta-analysis showed that the use of OC was associated with a significantly increased risk of BrCa in general, OR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.31, p = 0.0358. Regarding other risk factors for BrCa, we found that increased risk was associated significantly with early menarche, nulliparous, non-breastfeeding, older age at first parity, postmenopause, obesity, smoking, and family history of BrCa. Despite our conclusion that birth control pills increase the cancer risk being supported by extensive previous studies and meta-analyzes, further confirmation is required.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document