Patterns of meat intake and risk of prostate cancer among African-Americans in a large prospective study

22Citations
Citations of this article
42Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objective: Given the large racial differences in prostate cancer risk, further investigation of diet and prostate cancer is warranted among high-risk groups. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between type of meat intake and prostate cancer risk among African-American men. Methods: In the large, prospective NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study, we analyzed baseline (1995-1996) data from African-American participants, aged 50-71 years. Incident prostate cancer cases (n = 1,089) were identified through 2006. Dietary and risk factor data were ascertained by questionnaires administered at baseline. Cox models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) within intake quantiles. Results: Neither white nor processed meat intake was associated with prostate cancer, regardless of meat-cooking method. Red meats cooked at high temperatures were associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer (HR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.00-1.38 and HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.03-1.44, for the upper two intake tertiles). Intake of the heterocyclic amine (HCA), 2-amino-3,4,8-trimethylimidazo[4,5-f] quinoxaline (DiMeIQx) was positively associated with prostate cancer (HR = 1.30; 95% CI = 1.05-1.61, p = 0.02). No associations were observed for intake of other HCAs. Conclusion: Red meats cooked at high temperatures were positively associated with prostate cancer risk among African-American men. Further studies are needed to replicate these findings. © 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. (outside the USA).

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Major, J. M., Cross, A. J., Watters, J. L., Hollenbeck, A. R., Graubard, B. I., & Sinha, R. (2011). Patterns of meat intake and risk of prostate cancer among African-Americans in a large prospective study. Cancer Causes and Control, 22(12), 1691–1698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-011-9845-1

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free