Adherence to Data-Driven Dietary Patterns and Lung Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Dose–Response Meta-Analysis

Abstract

The effect of dietary patterns on lung cancer risk is currently debated. In this study, we evaluated the association between different “a posteriori” dietary patterns and lung cancer risk. The search was carried out (February 2023) through Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed databases. Meta-analysis was performed by a random-effects model using risk values (RR and OR) extracted from the 12 selected studies. Two main dietary patterns were identified and named “Western/meat” and “Healthy/prudent”. The highest adherence to the “Western/meat” dietary pattern significantly increased the lung cancer risk (OR = 1.39; 95% CI: 1.17–1.65; p = 0.0002) while the highest adherence to the “Healthy/prudent” pattern reduced it (OR = 0.65; 95% CI: 0.51–0.83; p = 0.001). A linear trend between both dietary patterns and lung cancer risk was observed. However, a statistically significant inverse dose–response trend was found only for the “Healthy/prudent” dietary pattern (regression coefficient = −0.0031, p = 0.003). Subgroup analyses showed that the “Western/meat” pattern significantly increased the lung cancer risk in former (n = 4) (OR = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.11–3.36) and current smokers (n = 7) (OR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.06–1.71). Similarly, the “Healthy/prudent” pattern exerts a protective effect on former (n = 4) (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.44–0.85) and current smokers (n = 8) (OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46–0.88). For both dietary patterns, no significant effect was observed on never-smokers.

Is certain food and nutrients associated with the risk of lung cancer? A systematic review

“…A comprehensive analysis of studies revealed no link between offal intake and lung cancer risk in nonsmokers; however, heavy smokers enrolled in a lung cancer screening program in Italy exhibited an elevated risk of lung cancer associated with increased offal consumption. [1,11] Earlier investigations have demonstrated a heightened risk of lung cancer -up to a 12% increase -linked to greater consumption of red meat and processed meat, even among nonsmokers (in the case of red meat) [8,11,15,18]. In contrast, no association was identified in the EPIC and NCS study.…”

“…[1,4,6,10] Further analyses indicated that individuals with the highest intake of citrus fruit, compared to the lowest intake, experienced a 9% reduction in lung cancer risk [odds ratio 0.91 (95% CI 0.84-0.98)]. [7,8,10] In a cohort study comprising 34,198 participants, it was observed that the consumption of dried fruit three or more times per week was linked to a reduced risk of lung cancer, with a relative risk of 0.89. [11] Vegetables For current smokers, the intake of vegetables showed a significant association with a reduced risk of lung cancer (summary RR = 87%; 95% confidence interval: 0.78, 0.94), while no such association was observed for former smokers and never smokers.…”

“…The absence of association in the systematic dietwide association study suggests that the consumption of red or processed meat is unlikely to exert a significant impact on lung cancer risk. [1,8,15]…”

“…[5] Notably, total fat, saturated fat, and lactose intakes from dairy products were each found to have no association with lung cancer risk. [5,8,11] Beer/cydre Within the EPIC study, an elevated risk of lung cancer was linked to the consumption of beer/cider, with no such association found for other types of alcoholic beverages (wine, spirits) or total alcohol intake. [1] Despite a meta-analysis revealing a positive connection between beer consumption and lung cancer risk among individuals consuming an average of one or 123 more drinks per day, this association did not extend to other alcoholic beverage types or overall alcohol intake.…”

“…Specifically, a substantial association exists between nut intake and a reduced risk of lung cancer (ES: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.81-0.91, P < 0.001) as well as gastric cancer. Noteworthy is the finding that a daily increase of 10 g in tree nuts intake corresponds to a notable 20% reduction in overall cancer mortality [8,15].…”