No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Multiple studies have suggested that ω-3 fatty acid intake may have a protective effect on cancer risk; however, its true association with cancer risk remains controversial. We performed an umbrella review of meta-analyses to summarize and evaluate the evidence for the association between ω-3 fatty acid intake and cancer outcomes. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to December 1, 2018. We included meta-analyses of observational studies that examined associations between intake of fish or ω-3 fatty acid and cancer risk (gastrointestinal, liver, breast, gynecologic, prostate, brain, lung, and skin) and determined the level of evidence of associations. In addition, we appraised the quality of the evidence of significant meta-analyses by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. We initially screened 598 articles, and 15 articles, including 57 meta-analyses, were eligible. Among 57 meta-analyses, 15 reported statistically significant results. We found that 12 meta-analyses showed weak evidence of an association between ω-3 fatty acid intake and risk of the following types of cancer: liver cancer (n = 4 of 6), breast cancer (n = 3 of 14), prostate cancer (n = 3 of 11), and brain tumor (n = 2 of 2). In the other 3 meta-analyses, studies of endometrial cancer and skin cancer, there were no assessable data for determining the evidence levels. No meta-analysis showed convincing, highly suggestive, or suggestive evidence of an association. In the sensitivity analysis of meta-analyses by study design, we found weak associations between ω-3 fatty acid intake and breast cancer risk in cohort studies, but no statistically significant association in case-control studies. However, the opposite results were found in case of brain tumor risk. Although ω-3 fatty acids have been studied in several meta-analyses with regard to a wide range of cancer outcomes, only weak associations were identified in some cancer types, with several limitations. Considering the nonsignificant or weak evidence level, clinicians and researchers should cautiously interpret reported associations between ω-3 fatty acid consumption and cancer risks.

Low-fat sausages with or without 10% hydrated rice flour were made from duck, chicken and pork and their physical and sensory properties were compared. Results showed that moisture content did not differ significantly among the sausage batters. However, crude protein, crude fat and total ash content were significantly lower in the group with added rice flour compared with the no flour group. Crude protein and crude fat were the highest in pork sausages without rice flour (p<0.05). Adding 10% rice flour reduced total expressible fluid in all meat type sausages. Cooking loss was also decreased when 10% rice flour was used in making sausages from chicken and pork. However, no changes in cooking loss were found in duck meat by adding rice flour. Again, the highest cooking loss was in pork sausages without rice flour and lowest in chicken sausages with 10% rice flour. The pH of the meat from different animal species differs significantly, although no significant difference was found within meat types with or without rice flour. Lightness (L*) increased, while redness (a*) decreased with adding rice flour in all meat type sausages. Results showed that hardness was significantly reduced when 10% rice flour was added to pork, chicken and duck meat (p<0.05). This may be due to increased water retention of rice flour after cooking. Sensory evaluation indicated that the overall acceptability of pork and chicken sausages with or without rice flour was the same, but duck sausages without rice flour had the highest off-flavor score among the sausages. Addition of rice flour increased the overall acceptability of duck sausage to that of pork and chicken sausages.