 Home > Active Ingredient News > Antitumor Therapy > Which meat is the most friendly to people at high risk of colorectal cancer?

Which meat is the most friendly to people at high risk of colorectal cancer?

 Last Update: 2022-04-24
 Source: Internet
 Author: User

participant characteristics

From March 2018 to December 2019, high-risk CRC patients aged 40-80 years were enrolled in the Lanxi City Colorectal Precancer Cohort (LP3C)

Cross-sectional analysis was performed using LP3C baseline data

A total of 2064 polyp cases were detected

Multivariate adjusted models were used to examine associations between total meat, red meat, unprocessed and processed red meat, poultry, seafood consumption and the prevalence of colorectal polyps
.
In the final model, total meat intake was not associated with polyp prevalence ( P for _trend= 0.
11) .
A positive correlation was found for poultry meat consumption in Model 1 [OR_Q4vs.
Q1(95% CI): 1.
28 (1.
09–1.
50); P for _trend = 0.
002] .
After additional adjustment for demographic factors, the relationship remained significant [OR _{Q4vs.
Q1} (95% CI): 1.
21 (1.
02–1.
42); P _trend = 0.
02] and was little changed in Model 3 [OR _{Q4vs .
Q1} (95% CI): 1.
20 (1.
02–1.
42); P for _trend = 0.
03] .
A significant relationship between poultry meat consumption and polyp prevalence was still observed in Model 4 [OR _{Q4vs.
Q1} (95% CI): 1.
20 (1.
02–1.
42); P for _trend = 0.
03] .
Higher processed red meat consumption was slightly associated with higher prevalence of colorectal polyps [OR _{Q4vs.
Q1} (95% CI): 1.
15 (0.
98–1.
34);

P for _trend = 0.
06], while no similar association was detected for total red meat ( P for _trend = 0.
81) and unprocessed red meat ( P for _trend = 0.
71) .

_TrendP _{Q4vs.
Q1}_TrendP _{Q4vs.
Q1}P _Trend_{Q4vs.
Q1}_TrendP _{Q4vs.
Q1}_TrendP _{Q4vs.
Q1}P _{Trend P}_TrendP _TrendP Consumption of seafood was not associated with the incidence of colonic polyps (Table 2)
.

Among the anatomical sublocations of polyps, 866 proximal polyps, 900 distal polyps, and 298 rectal polyps were diagnosed
.
Higher total meat intake was found to be positively associated with the prevalence of rectal polyps in the fully adjusted model [OR _{Q4vs.
Q1} (95% CI): 1.
48 (1.
03–2.
11); P for _trend = 0.
01] .
In addition, total red meat consumption [OR _{Q4vs.
Q1} (95% CI): 1.
33 (0.
94–1.
90); P _trend = 0.
05] and unprocessed red meat [OR _{Q4vs.
Q1} (95% CI): 1.
30 ( 0.
91–1.
85); P for _trend
= 0.
04] was marginally associated with the prevalence of rectal polyps .

Among the anatomical sublocations of polyps, 866 proximal polyps, 900 distal polyps, and 298 rectal polyps were diagnosed
.
Higher total meat intake was found to be positively associated with the prevalence of rectal polyps in the fully adjusted model [OR _{Q4vs.
Q1} (95% CI): 1.
48 (1.
03–2.
11); P for _trend = 0.
01] .
In addition, total red meat consumption [OR _{Q4vs.
Q1} (95% CI): 1.
33 (0.
94–1.
90); P _trend = 0.
05] and unprocessed red meat [OR _{Q4vs.
Q1} (95% CI): 1.
30 ( 0.
91–1.
85); _trendP
= 0.
04] There was a marginal association of diagnostic _{Q4vs.
Q1}_trendP _{Q4vs.
Q1}P _trend_{Q4vs.
Q1}_trendP with the prevalence of rectal polyps .

In addition, higher processed red meat consumption was associated with higher prevalence of small polyps [OR _{Q4vs.
Q1} (95% CI): 1.
17 (0.
99–1.
38); P for _trend = 0.
03] .
For poultry, participants with the highest consumption also had a higher prevalence of small polyps [OR _{Q4vs.
Q1} (95% CI): 1.
19 (1.
00–1.
41); P for _trend = 0.
04], whereas no association was found for large polyps [OR _{Q4vs.
Q1} (95% CI): 1.
28 (0.
89–1.
85); P for _trend = 0.
25] .
However, with the exception of seafood consumption, no significant relationship between consumption of various meats and the prevalence of large and small polyps was observed .
A positive association between seafood consumption and multiple polyps was observed [OR _{Q4vs.
Q1} (95% CI): 1.
70 (1.
31–2.
21); P for _trend < 0.
001] .

The current study investigated the association between meat intake of different subtypes and polyp prevalence in a high-risk population of CRC in China
.
The findings showed that higher unprocessed red meat intake and total meat intake were associated with higher prevalence of rectal polyps
.
Higher poultry consumption and processed red meat consumption were both associated with increased prevalence of small polyps
.
In addition, higher poultry meat intake was positively associated with higher overall prevalence of colorectal polyps
.
Seafood consumption was positively associated with a higher prevalence of multiple polyps
.
These findings provide new evidence for the current dietary guidelines , which recommend that low consumption of poultry, processed and unprocessed red meat, and seafood may prevent colorectal polyps in high-risk colorectal polyps populations in China
.
The findings showed that higher unprocessed red meat intake and total meat intake were associated with higher prevalence of rectal polyps
.
Higher poultry consumption and processed red meat consumption were both associated with increased prevalence of small polyps
.
In addition, higher poultry meat intake was positively associated with higher overall prevalence of colorectal polyps
.
Higher unprocessed red meat intake and total meat intake were associated with higher prevalence of rectal polyps
.
Guidelines for Prevention

Original source:

Chai X, Li Y, Yin Z, et al.
Association of Meat Subtypes With Colorectal Polyp Prevalence: Finding From the Lanxi Pre-colorectal Cancer Cohort in China.
Front Nutr .
2022;9:833571.
Published 2022 Mar 18.
doi:10.
3389 /fnut.
2022.
833571.

This article is an English version of an article which is originally in the Chinese language on echemi.com and is provided for information purposes only. This website makes no representation or warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness ownership or reliability of the article or any translations thereof. If you have any concerns or complaints relating to the article, please send an email, providing a detailed description of the concern or complaint, to service@echemi.com. A staff member will contact you within 5 working days. Once verified, infringing content will be removed immediately.