Dietary intake of acrylamide and endometrial cancer risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohort

Abstract

Background:Three prospective studies have evaluated the association between dietary acrylamide intake and endometrial cancer (EC) risk with inconsistent results. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between acrylamide intake and EC risk: for overall EC, for type-I EC, and in never smokers and never users of oral contraceptives (OCs). Smoking is a source of acrylamide, and OC use is a protective factor for EC risk.Methods:Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for the association between acrylamide intake and EC risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort. Acrylamide intake was estimated from the EU acrylamide monitoring database, which was matched with EPIC questionnaire-based food consumption data. Acrylamide intake was energy adjusted using the residual method.Results:No associations were observed between acrylamide intake and overall EC (n=1382) or type-I EC risk (n=627). We observed increasing relative risks for type-I EC with increasing acrylamide intake among women who both never smoked and were non-users of OCs (HRQ5vsQ1: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.08–3.62; likelihood ratio test (LRT) P-value: 0.01, n=203).Conclusions:Dietary intake of acrylamide was not associated with overall or type-I EC risk; however, positive associations with type I were observed in women who were both non-users of OCs and never smokers.

Dietary acrylamide and cancer risk: An updated meta‐analysis

“…The role of acrylamide on endometrial and ovarian cancers has been the object of a recent debate . In this updated review, we were able to include additional data from the NHS and EPIC (for endometrial cancer only) studies . Still, summary results were close to those of our previous report confirming, overall, an absence of association, but a moderate increase in risk in the subgroup of never smoking women.…”

“…The findings reported by different studies were generally not heterogeneous, and results were confirmed when only cohort investigation were retained in the analyses. The total number of cancer cases included in this updated meta‐analysis was approximately doubled by including the new data released over the last 5 years, mainly from large prospective cohort studies . Thus, we were able to examine a higher number of cancer sites, as well as to achieve an increased statistical power – with, therefore, narrower CIs for several estimates.…”

“…These were abstracted and reviewed in detail. Among them, 46 did not report original epidemiological results on dietary acrylamide and cancer and were no longer considered, whereas the remaining 13 publications were retained for the review . These were added to the previously selected 19 publications on dietary intake of acrylamide, for a total of 32 publications.…”

“…No association emerged for pancreatic cancer, based on 865 incident cases, the HRs being 0.77 (95% CI, 0.58–1.04) for high versus low intake and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.89–1.01) for an increase in acrylamide intake of 10 µg/day . The analysis of endometrial cancer, including 1,382 cases—627 of which were type‐I—found no overall association with acrylamide (HR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.78–1.25), but a positive one for type‐I endometrial cancer in the subgroup of women who never smoked and never used oral contraceptives (HR = 1.97; 95% CI, 1.08–3.62) …”

Scientific Opinion on acrylamide in food

“…In the EPIC study, a large prospective study enrolling over 500 000 men and women from 10 European countries between 1992 and 1998, the relation between AA intake and cancer risk was investigated on 341 oesophageal cancers, 865 adenocarcinomas of the exocrine pancreas, 1 191 epithelial ovarian cancers, and 1 382 endometrial cancers identified after a mean follow-up of 11 years (Obón-Santacana et al, 2013;Luján-Barroso et al, 2014;Obón-Santacana et al, 2014, 2015. In this study, food and alcohol consumption was assessed at cohort enrolment by country-specific validated FFQs.…”