Citrus fruit intake and stomach cancer risk: a quantitative systematic review
- 969 Downloads
The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the association between dietary intake of citrus fruits and gastric cancer risk.
We searched electronic databases and the reference lists of publications on diet and stomach cancer studies until April 2007. All of the epidemiological studies that obtained individual data on dietary intake of citrus fruits and presented risk estimates of the association between intake of citrus fruits and risk of stomach cancer were identified and included in this review. Using general variance-based methods, study-specific odds ratio (OR)/ relative risk (RR) and associated confidence interval (CI)/ standard error (SE) for highest versus lowest intake of citrus fruits level were extracted from each article.
Fourteen articles, including six hospital-based case-control studies, six community-based case-control studies, and two cohort studies, proved eligible. Overall summary OR using a fixed-effect model showed a 28% reduction in risk of stomach cancer associated with high intake of citrus fruits (summary OR = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.64–0.81; P value <0.0001); results were consistent across studies (I2 = 0, where I2 describes the percentage of total variation across studies because of heterogeneity rather than chance). Also, visual inspection of the results did not suggest a publication bias.
Pooled results from observational studies support a protective effect of high citrus fruit intake in the risk of stomach cancer.
Key wordsCitrus fruits Stomach neoplasm Metaanalysis Cancer risk Prevention
- 13.Blot WJ, Li JY, Taylor PR, Guo W, Dawsey S, Wang GQ, et al. Nutrition intervention trials in Linxian, China: supplementation with specific vitamin/mineral combinations, cancer incidence, and disease specific mortality in the general population. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:1483–1492.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Gonzalez CA, Pera G, Agudo A, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, Ceroti M, Boeing H, et al. Fruit and vegetable intake and the risk of stomach and oesophagus adenocarcinoma in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-EURGAST). Int J Cancer 2006;118:2559–2566.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Deeks J, Altman DG, Bradburn MJ. 15. Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis. In: Egger M, Smith DG, Altman DG, editors. Systematic reviews in health care. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books; 2007. p. 285–312.Google Scholar
- 25.Review Manager version 4.2 for Windows. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration; 2003.Google Scholar
- 26.Stata Corporation. Stata Statistical Software. Special Edition. 8.2 for Windows. College Station, TX, USA: Stata Corporation; 2004.Google Scholar
- 35.Boeing H, Frentzel-Beyme R, Berger M, Berndt V, Gores W, Korner M, et al. Case-control study on stomach cancer in Germany. Int J Cancer 1991;47;858-64.Google Scholar
- 36.Park HS, Kim HS, Choi SY, Chung CK. Effect of dietary factors in the etiology of stomach cancer (in Korean). Kor J Epidemiol 1998;20:82–101.Google Scholar
- 38.Zickute J, Strumylaite L, Dregval L, Petrauskiene J, Dudzevicius J, Stratilatovas E. Vegetables and fruits and risk of stomach cancer (in Lithuanian). Medicina (Kaunas) 2005;41: 733–740.Google Scholar
- 48.Zhu S, Mason J, Shi Y, Ho YP, Lee YY, Wang M, et al. The interventional effect of folic acid on the development of gastric and other gastrointestinal cancers — clinical trial and follow-up for 7 years.Chin J Gastroenterol 2002;7:73–78.Google Scholar
- 60.World Health Organization. National cancer control programmes. Policies and managerial guidelines. 2nd ed. WHO: Geneva; 2002. p. 17–22.Google Scholar
- 64.Tajima K, Tominaga S. Dietary habits and gastro-intestinal cancers: a comparative case-control study of stomach and large intestinal cancers in Nagoya, Japan. Jpn J Cancer Res (Gann) 1985;76:705–716.Google Scholar
- 68.Ye W, Yi Y, Renzia L. A case-control study on diet and gastric cancer. Chin J Prev Med 1998;32:100–102.Google Scholar