Effect of individual omega-3 fatty acids on the risk of prostate cancer: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.
Effect of individual omega-3 fatty acids on the risk of prostate cancer: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.
复制标题
单个 Omega-3 脂肪酸对前列腺癌风险的影响：前瞻性队列研究的系统回顾和剂量反应荟萃分析
DOI：
10.2188/jea.je20140120
复制
发表时间：
2015
影响因子：
4.7
通讯作者：
Li D
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fu YQ;Zheng JS;Yang B;Li D
流行病学研究表明 omega-3 多不饱和脂肪酸 (n-3 PUFA) 与前列腺癌 (PCa) 风险之间存在不一致的关联。我们对前瞻性观察研究进行了剂量反应荟萃分析，调查了膳食摄入量以及循环 n-3 PUFA 和 PCa 风险。检索了 2014 年 2 月之前的 PubMed 和 EMBASE，有 16 篇出版物符合条件。二十二碳六烯酸的血液浓度（而非α-亚麻酸或二十碳五烯酸）与 PCa 风险呈边际正相关（血液二十二碳六烯酸浓度增加 1% 的相对风险：1.02；95% 置信区间，1.00–1.05；I2 = 26%；线性趋势 P = 0.05），而膳食二十二碳六烯酸摄入量则呈现非线性与 PCa 风险呈正相关（P < 0.01）。膳食α-亚麻酸与 PCa 风险呈负相关（α-亚麻酸摄入量每天增加 0.5 克的相对风险：0.99；95% 置信区间，0.98–1.00；I2 = 0%；线性趋势 P = 0.04），这是由一项研究主导的。亚组分析表明，血液二十碳五烯酸浓度和血液二十二碳六烯酸浓度分别与侵袭性 PCa 风险和非侵袭性 PCa 风险呈正相关。在采用巢式病例对照研究设计的研究中，血液二十二碳五烯酸浓度增加 0.2% 与 PCa 风险降低 3% 相关（相对风险 0.97；95% 置信区间，0.94–1.00；I2 = 44%；线性趋势 P = 0.05）。总之，不同个体的 n-3 PUFA 暴露可能与 PCa 风险表现出不同甚至相反的关联，需要更多的前瞻性研究，特别是那些检查膳食 n-3 PUFA 和按癌症严重程度分层的 PCa 风险的研究来证实结果。
Epidemiological studies have suggested inconsistent associations between omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFAs) and prostate cancer (PCa) risk. We performed a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective observational studies investigating both dietary intake and circulating n-3 PUFAs and PCa risk. PubMed and EMBASE prior to February 2014 were searched, and 16 publications were eligible. Blood concentration of docosahexaenoic acid, but not alpha-linolenic acid or eicosapentaenoic acid, showed marginal positive association with PCa risk (relative risk for 1% increase in blood docosahexaenoic acid concentration: 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.00–1.05; I2 = 26%; P = 0.05 for linear trend), while dietary docosahexaenoic acid intake showed a non-linear positive association with PCa risk (P < 0.01). Dietary alpha-linolenic acid was inversely associated with PCa risk (relative risk for 0.5 g/day increase in alpha-linolenic acid intake: 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.98–1.00; I2 = 0%; P = 0.04 for linear trend), which was dominated by a single study. Subgroup analyses indicated that blood eicosapentaenoic acid concentration and blood docosahexaenoic acid concentration were positively associated with aggressive PCa risk and nonaggressive PCa risk, respectively. Among studies with nested case-control study designs, a 0.2% increase in blood docosapentaenoic acid concentration was associated with a 3% reduced risk of PCa (relative risk 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.94–1.00; I2 = 44%; P = 0.05 for linear trend). In conclusion, different individual n-3 PUFA exposures may exhibit different or even opposite associations with PCa risk, and more prospective studies, especially those examining dietary n-3 PUFAs and PCa risk stratified by severity of cancer, are needed to confirm the results.