The World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR) introduced in 2007, and updated in 2018, nutrition-related recommendations for cancer prevention. Previous studies generally reported inverse associations of breast cancer with the 2007 recommendations, while no study has yet evaluated the association with the 2018 guidelines. We investigated the association between adherence to the 2018 WCRF/AICR recommendations and breast cancer risk in a case–control study from Italy and Switzerland (1991–2008) including 3034 incident histologically-confirmed breast cancer cases and 3392 hospital controls. Adherence to the 2018 guidelines was summarized through a score incorporating eight recommendations (body fatness, physical activity, consumption of wholegrains/vegetables/fruit/beans, “fast foods” and other processed foods high in fat, starches, or sugars, red/processed meat, sugar-sweetened drinks, alcohol, breastfeeding), with higher scores indicating higher adherence. Odds ratios (OR) were estimated using multiple logistic regression models. We also conducted a meta-analysis including 15 additional studies using random-effects models. In our case–control study, adherence to the 2018 WCRF/AICR guidelines was inversely associated with breast cancer, with ORs of 0.60 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.51–0.70) for a score ≥5.5 vs. ≤4.25, and of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79–0.88) for a 1-point increment. In our study, 25% of breast cancers were attributable to low-to-moderate guideline adherence. In the meta-analysis, the pooled relative risks (RRs) were 0.73 (95% CI, 0.65–0.82, p heterogeneity among studies < 0.001) for the highest vs. the lowest WCRF/AICR score category, and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88–0.94, p heterogeneity < 0.001) for a 1-point increment. This work provides quantitative evidence that higher adherence to the WCRF/AICR recommendations reduces the risk of breast cancer, thus opening perspectives for prevention.

No abstract

Background: Cancer mortality rates, though not absolute numbers of deaths, have been decreasing over the last three decades in Europe. Materials and methods: We estimated projections and the number of avoided deaths for total cancer mortality and 10 major cancer sites, between 1989 and 2022, for the European Union (EU), the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain using cancer death certification and population data since 1970 from the World Health Organization and Eurostat. Results: In the EU, we predict 1 269 200 cancer deaths in 2022; corresponding age-standardized rates (world) fall 6% to 126.9 deaths/100 000 in men and 4% to 80.2/100 000 women since 2017. Male lung cancer is expected to fall 10% reaching 30.9/100 000. The rise in female lung cancer mortality slowed (þ2% to 13.8/100 000). We estimated 369 000 (23%) avoided deaths in 2022 alone and a total of 5 394 000 (12%) deaths since the peak rate in 1988. Stomach, colorectal, breast and prostate cancers showed substantial declines, between 5% and 16% over the past 5 years. Pancreatic cancer remained stable in men (8.1/100 000) and rose 3% in women (5.9/100 000), becoming the third cause of cancer mortality in the EU (87 300 deaths), overtaking breast cancer (86 300 deaths). The fall in uterine cancers slowed down (À4%) to 4.7/100 000. Bladder cancer fell 9% in men, but was stable in women. Leukaemias fell more than 10%. Ovarian cancer mortality declined over the past decade in all considered countries. EU predicted rates were 4.3/100 000 (À13%) all ages, 1.2/100 000 (À26%) at 20-49, 15.3/100 000 (À11%) at 50-69 and 32.3/100 000 (À11%) at 70-79 years. Conclusions: We predicted additional declines in cancer mortality rates for 2022. The slowdown in female lung cancer mortality reflects some levelling of smoking in women. Favourable ovarian cancer trends are likely to continue and are largely attributable to the spreading oral contraceptive use and some impact of improved diagnosis and management.

Despite numerous available resources of evidence, the results about the frequency of pregnancy-associated cancer (PAC) still show poor comparability due to dissimilarities in the study design and methodology, inclusion criteria, incoherent duration of follow-up and a heterogeneous reference population. We conducted a systematic review of population-based studies on PAC published up to December 2019, to provide updated research on this topic, highlighting strengths and limitations. Of the 24 papers included, 11 considered all types of tumors and 13 dealt with specific types of cancer. Differences in the procedures for estimating the frequency of PAC emerged even among population studies. However, we found consistent results for overall frequency of PAC— around 1/1000 pregnancies. Our review suggests that about 25% of PAC cases are diagnosed during pregnancy, confirming the hypothesis of an excess of diagnosis in the postpregnancy period. Sparse and inconsistent results were found regarding a potential increase in the frequency of PAC over calendar years. Alignments in the strategy to identify PAC are needed to overcome methodological weaknesses.

Few studies have considered if a posteriori dietary patterns (DPs) are generalizable across different centers or studies, or if they are consistently seen over time. To date, no systematic search of the literature on these topics has been carried out. A scoping review was conducted through a systematic search on the PubMed database. In the current review, we included the 34 articles examining the extent to which a posteriori DPs were consistently seen: 1) across centers from the same study or across different studies potentially representing different populations or countries (here indicated as cross-study reproducibility) and 2) over longer time periods (i.e., ≥2 y) (here indicated as stability over time). Selected articles (published in 1981–2019, 32% from 2010 onwards) were based on observational studies, mostly from Europe and North America. Five articles were based on children and/or adolescents and 14 articles included adults (2 men; 12 women, of whom 3 were pregnant women). A posteriori DPs were mostly derived (32 articles) with principal component or factor analyses. Among the 9 articles assessing DP reproducibility across studies (number of centers/studies: 2–27; median: 3), 5 provided a formal assessment using statistical methods (4 index-based approaches of different complexity, 1 statistical model). A median of 4 DPs was reproduced across centers/studies (range: 1–7). Among the 25 articles assessing DP stability over time (number of time-occasions: 2–6; median: 3), 19 provided a formal assessment with statistical methods (17 index-based and/or test-based approaches, 1 statistical model, 1 with both strategies). The number and composition of DPs remained mostly stable over time. Based on the limited evidence collected, most identified DPs showed good reproducibility across studies and stability over time. However, when present within the single studies, the criteria for the formal assessment of cross-study reproducibility or stability over time were generally very basic.