CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 45

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Association between ultra-processed foods and risk of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lian, Ying, Wang, Gang-Pu, Chen, Guo-Qiang, Chen, Hua-Nan, Zhang, Guang-Yong·2023·Frontiers in Nutrition
DOI 10.3389/fnut.2023.1175994PMC PMC10285062
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Despite increasing evidence that has shown the association of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) with cancer risk, the results remain inconclusive. We, therefore, conducted the meta-analysis to clarify the association by including recently published studies. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify all relevant studies from inception to January 2023. To pool data, fixed-effects or random-effects models were used where appropriate. Subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses, and publication bias tests were performed. Results: A total of 13 studies (4 cohort studies and 9 case–control studies) were included in the analysis, with a total of 625,738 participants. The highest UPFs consumption was associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer (OR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.10–1.38), colon cancer (OR = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.14–1.36), and breast cancer (OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.00–1.20) but not rectal cancer (OR = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.97–1.43) and prostate cancer (OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.93–1.12). In addition, the subgroup analyses showed that a positive association between UPFs consumption and colorectal cancer was observed among men (OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.15–1.50), whereas no significant association was observed among women (OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.94–1.29). Conclusion: The present meta-analysis suggests that high UPFs consumption is associated with a significantly increased risk of certain site-specific cancers, especially the digestive tract and some hormone-related cancers. However, further rigorously designed prospective and experimental studies are needed to better understand causal pathways.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fnut.2023.1175994

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Pooled analysis found limited evidence for an association between greater ultra-processed food exposure and pancreatic cancer (odds ratio 1.24, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.79; credibility class V; GRADE very low).

    “pancreatic cancer (odds ratio 1.24, 0.85 to 1.79; class V; very low)”

    From Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as [40]

  • Pooled dose-response analysis found limited evidence for an association between greater ultra-processed food exposure and prostate cancer (odds ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.97 to 1.02; credibility class V; GRADE moderate).

    “prostate cancer (dose-response odds ratio 0.99, 0.97 to 1.02; class V; moderate”

    From Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as [40]

  • Heterogeneity and imprecision may be partly explained by the treatment of different effect estimates (hazard ratios, odds ratios, and risk ratios) as approximately equivalent in various meta-analysis studies.

    “The heterogeneity and imprecision noted across several of the pooled analyses, as shown by both the evidence classification criteria and GRADE assessments, may be partly explained by the treatment of different effect estimates derived from original research articles (hazard ratios, odds ratios, and risk ratios) as approximately equivalent in various meta-analysis studies.”

    From Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as [40]

  • Synthesised non-dose-response analysis of mixed cohort and case-control studies showed a direct association between greater ultra-processed food exposure and risk of colorectal cancer (odds ratio 1.23, 95% confidence interval 1.10 to 1.38; credibility class III; GRADE very low).

    “non-dose-response odds ratio 1.23, 1.10 to 1.38; class III; very low”

    From Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as [40]

  • Pooled non-dose-response analysis of mixed cohort and case-control studies found limited evidence for an association between greater ultra-processed food exposure and higher risk of breast cancer (odds ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.34; credibility class V; GRADE very low).

    “non-dose-response odds ratio 1.15, 0.99 to 1.34; class V; very low”

    From Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as [40]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Fitzmaurice, 2018, Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 29 cancer groups, 1990 to 2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study, JAMA Oncol., 4, 1553, 10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.1568 · DOI
  2. Bray, 2021, The ever-increasing importance of cancer as a leading cause of premature death worldwide, Cancer., 127, 3029, 10.1002/cncr.33587 · DOI
  3. Dixon-Suen, 2022, Physical activity, sedentary time and breast cancer risk: a Mendelian randomisation study, Br J Sports Med., 56, 1157, 10.1136/bjsports-2021-105132 · DOI
  4. Grosso, 2017, Possible role of diet in cancer: systematic review and multiple meta-analyses of dietary patterns, lifestyle factors, and cancer risk, Nutr Rev., 75, 405, 10.1093/nutrit/nux012 · DOI
  5. Kazemi, 2021, Intake of various food groups and risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies, Adv Nutr., 12, 809, 10.1093/advances/nmaa147 · DOI
  6. De Nucci, 2022, Public health response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: concern about ultra-processed food consumption, Foods, 11, 950, 10.3390/foods11070950 · DOI
  7. Kelly, 2018, Public health nutrition special issue on ultra-processed foods, Public Health Nutr., 21, 1, 10.1017/S1368980017002853 · DOI
  8. Wang, 2022, Ultra-processed foods consumption increases the risk of hypertension in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Am J Hypertens., 35, 892, 10.1093/ajh/hpac069 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Srour, 2022, Ultra-processed foods and human health: from epidemiological evidence to mechanistic insights, Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol., 7, 1128, 10.1016/S2468-1253(22)00169-8 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Crimarco, 2022, Ultra-processed foods, weight gain, and co-morbidity risk, Curr Obes Rep., 11, 80, 10.1007/s13679-021-00460-y · DOI
  11. Chen, 2022, Associations of ultra-processed food consumption with cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality: UK Biobank, Eur J Public Health., 32, 779, 10.1093/eurpub/ckac104 · DOI
  12. Chen, 2020, Consumption of ultra-processed foods and health outcomes: a systematic review of epidemiological studies, Nutr J., 19, 86, 10.1186/s12937-020-00604-1 · DOI
  13. Elizabeth, 2020, Ultra-processed foods and health outcomes: a narrative review, Nutrients, 12, 1955, 10.3390/nu12071955 · DOI
  14. Kliemann, 2022, Ultra-processed foods and cancer risk: from global food systems to individual exposures and mechanisms, Br J Cancer., 127, 14, 10.1038/s41416-022-01749-y · DOI
  15. Wang, 2022, Association of ultra-processed food consumption with colorectal cancer risk among men and women: results from three prospective US cohort studies, BMJ., 378, e068921, 10.1136/bmj-2021-068921 · DOI
  16. Stang, 2010, Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses, Eur J Epidemiol., 25, 603, 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z · DOI · Paper page
  17. Romaguera, 2021, Consumption of ultra-processed foods and drinks and colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer, Clin Nutr., 40, 1537, 10.1016/j.clnu.2021.02.033 · DOI
  18. Trudeau, 2020, Extent of food processing and risk of prostate cancer: the PROtEuS study in Montreal, Canada, Nutrients, 12, 637, 10.3390/nu12030637 · DOI
  19. Jacobs, 2022, Degree of food processing and breast cancer risk in black urban women from Soweto, South African: the South African Breast Cancer study, Br J Nutr., 128, 2278, 10.1017/S0007114522000423 · DOI
  20. El Kinany, 2022, Food processing groups and colorectal cancer risk in Morocco: evidence from a nationally representative case-control study, Eur J Nutr., 61, 2507, 10.1007/s00394-022-02820-3 · DOI
  21. Solans, 2021, Consumption of ultra-processed food and drinks and chronic lymphocytic Leukemia in the MCC-Spain study, Int J Environ Res Public Health, 18, 5457, 10.3390/ijerph18105457 · DOI
  22. Zhong, 2023, Ultra-processed food consumption and the risk of pancreatic cancer in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial, Int J Cancer., 152, 835, 10.1002/ijc.34290 · DOI
  23. Romieu, 2022, Consumption of industrial processed foods and risk of premenopausal breast cancer among Latin American women: the PRECAMA study, BMJ Nutr Prev Health., 5, 1, 10.1136/bmjnph-2021-000335 · DOI
  24. Esposito, 2023, Food processing and risk of central nervous system tumours: a preliminary case-control analysis from the MEditerranean DIet in relation to CancEr of brAin (MEDICEA) study, Clin Nutr., 42, 93, 10.1016/j.clnu.2022.11.016 · DOI
  25. Jafari, 2022, Ultra-processed food intake and risk of colorectal cancer: a matched case-control study, Nutr Cancer, 2022, 1, 10.1080/01635581.2022.2125990 · DOI
  26. Queiroz, 2018, Sousa IMd, Silva F, Lyra CdO, Fayh APT. Nutritional and environmental risk factors for breast cancer: a case-control study, Social Sci Med., 28, 28723, 10.15448/1980-6108.2018.2.28723 · DOI
  27. Chang, 2022, Ultra-processed food consumption, cancer risk, and cancer mortality: a prospective cohort study of the UK Biobank, Lancet., 400, S31, 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02241-3 · DOI
  28. Farvid, 2021, Consumption of red meat and processed meat and cancer incidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies, Eur J Epidemiol., 36, 937, 10.1007/s10654-021-00741-9 · DOI
  29. Händel, 2020, Processed meat intake and incidence of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies, Eur J Clin Nutr., 74, 1132, 10.1038/s41430-020-0576-9 · DOI
  30. Li, 2018, Dose-response relation between dietary inflammatory index and human cancer risk: evidence from 44 epidemiologic studies involving 1,082,092 participants, Am J Clin Nutr., 107, 371, 10.1093/ajcn/nqx064 · DOI
  31. Morze, 2021, An updated systematic review and meta-analysis on adherence to mediterranean diet and risk of cancer, Eur J Nutr., 60, 1561, 10.1007/s00394-020-02346-6 · DOI
  32. Monteiro, 2018, The UN Decade of Nutrition, the NOVA food classification and the trouble with ultra-processing, Public Health Nutr., 21, 5, 10.1017/S1368980017000234 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Monteiro, 2019, FAO Ultra-Processed Foods, Diet Quality, and Health Using the NOVA Classification System.
  34. Monteiro, 2016, A NOVA The star shines bright World Nutrition., 28
  35. Sneed, 2023, Reliability and validity of assigning ultraprocessed food categories to 24-h dietary recall data, Am J Clin Nutr., 117, 182, 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2022.10.016 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Petimar, 2018, Recommendation-based dietary indexes and risk of colorectal cancer in the nurses' health study and health professionals follow-up study, Am J Clin Nutr., 108, 1092, 10.1093/ajcn/nqy171 · DOI
  37. Kim, 2017, Sex differences in the association of obesity and colorectal cancer risk, Cancer Causes Control., 28, 1, 10.1007/s10552-016-0831-5 · DOI
  38. Anderson, 2018, Red and processed meat consumption and breast cancer: UK Biobank cohort study and meta-analysis, Eur J Cancer., 90, 73, 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.11.022 · DOI
  39. Althuis, 2004, Etiology of hormone receptor-defined breast cancer: a systematic review of the literature, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev., 13, 1558, 10.1158/1055-9965.1558.13.10 · DOI
  40. Larsson, 2009, Long-term meat intake and risk of breast cancer by oestrogen and progesterone receptor status in a cohort of Swedish women, Eur J Cancer., 45, 3042, 10.1016/j.ejca.2009.04.035 · DOI
  41. Lane, 2022, Higher ultra-processed food consumption is associated with greater high-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentration in adults: cross-sectional results from the melbourne collaborative cohort study, Nutrients, 14, 3309, 10.3390/nu14163309 · DOI
  42. Buckley, 2019, Ultra-processed food consumption and exposure to phthalates and bisphenols in the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2013-2014, Environ Int., 131, 105057, 10.1016/j.envint.2019.105057 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Cuevas-Sierra, 2021, Gut microbiota differences according to ultra-processed food consumption in a Spanish population, Nutrients, 13, 2710, 10.3390/nu13082710 · DOI
  44. Martínez Leo, 2021, Ultra-processed diet, systemic oxidative stress, and breach of immunologic tolerance, Nutrition, 10.1016/j.nut.2021.111419 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Fernandes, 2023, Differences in the gut microbiota of women according to ultra-processed food consumption, Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis., 33, 84, 10.1016/j.numecd.2022.09.025 · DOI
  46. Edalati, 2021, Higher ultra-processed food intake is associated with higher DNA damage in healthy adolescents, Br J Nutr., 125, 568, 10.1017/S0007114520001981 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lian, Y., Wang, G.-P., Chen, G.-Q., Chen, H.-N., & Zhang, G.-Y.
Venue
Frontiers in Nutrition
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2023-06-08
Volume
10
ISSN
2296-861X
DOI
10.3389/fnut.2023.1175994
PMC
PMC10285062
Cited by
45
References
3
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review