Coffee Consumption and Prostate Cancer Risk: A Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies
Coffee Consumption and Prostate Cancer Risk: A Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/01635581.2015.1004727
复制
发表时间：
2015-04-03
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Xu, Yun-Fei
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Liu, Huan;Hu, Guang-Hui;Xu, Yun-Fei
这项荟萃分析旨在评估咖啡消费与前列腺癌风险之间的关联。荟萃分析纳入了13项队列研究，共34，105例病例和539，577例受试者。计算不同咖啡摄入水平的汇总相对危险度（RR）及其95%置信区间（CI）。使用广义最小二乘趋势估计评估剂量-反应关系。最高与最低咖啡摄入量的合并RR为0.90（95% CI：0.85-0.95），研究间无显著异质性（P = 0.267; I-2= 17.5%）。剂量反应分析显示，咖啡摄入量每增加2杯/天，癌症风险降低2.5%（RR = 0.975; 95%CI：0.957-0.995）。按地理区域分层，咖啡对欧洲人群的前列腺癌风险具有统计学显著的保护作用。在前列腺癌分级的亚组分析中，非晚期、晚期和致死性疾病的汇总RR分别为0.89（95% CI：0.83-0.96）、0.82（95% CI：0.61-1.10）和0.76（95% CI：0.55-1.06）。我们的研究结果表明，咖啡消费可能与前列腺癌的风险降低有关，它也与非晚期前列腺癌呈负相关。由于研究数量有限，需要更多大样本量的前瞻性研究来证实这种关联。
This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the association between coffee consumption and prostate cancer risk. Thirteen cohort studies with 34,105 cases and 539,577 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The summary relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for different coffee intake levels were calculated. Dose-response relationship was assessed using generalized least square trend estimation. The pooled RR for the highest vs. lowest coffee intake was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.85-0.95), with no significant heterogeneity across studies (P = 0.267; I-2= 17.5%). The dose-response analysis showed a lower cancer risk decreased by 2.5% (RR = 0.975; 95% CI: 0.957-0.995) for every 2 cups/day increment in coffee consumption. Stratifying by geographic region, there was a statistically significant protective influence of coffee on prostate cancer risk among European populations. In subgroup analysis of prostate cancer grade, the summary RRs were 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83-0.96) for nonadvanced, 0.82 (95% CI: 0.61-1.10) for advanced and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.55-1.06) for fatal diseases. Our findings suggest that coffee consumption may be associated with a reduced risk of prostate cancer and it also has an inverse association with nonadvanced prostate cancer. Because of the limited number of studies, more prospective studies with large sample size are needed to confirm this association.