No Effect of Energy Intake Overall on Risk of Endometrial Cancers: a Meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: Previous epidemiologic studies on the association between energy intake and endometrial cancer risk have only generated contradictory results. The role of energy intake in endometrial carcinogenesis thus remains unclear. To quantitatively assess the potential association between energy intake and endometrial cancer, a meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies was here conducted. Materials and Methods: Eligible studies were retrieved via both computerized searches and review of references. Fixed-or random-effect models were used to summarize the estimates of OR with 95%CIs. Stratified analyses on study design, region and macronutrients' calorie were performed. Results: Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria of the meta-analysis. No association between total energy intake and endometrial cancer was observed in either overall group (OR=1.11, 95%CI 0.92-1.30) or subgroups stratified by study design and region. In the specific macronutrients' calorie analysis, higher fat energy intake was found to be associated with increased endometrial risk (OR=1.72, 95%CI 1.12-2.32) while energy from carbohydrate and protein was not related to endometrial cancer risk. Conclusions: Our analysis did not support that total energy intake is related to endometrial cancer risk, in contrast to fat energy.

Risk factors for endometrial cancer: An umbrella review of the literature

“…We excluded studies where endometrial cancer incidence and mortality were not the primary outcomes, studies with benign endometrial pathologies as the primary outcomes of interest (such as fibroids or endometrial polyps), studies exploring the impact of genetic factors as well as studies assessing prognostic risk factors among women diagnosed with endometrial cancer (Supporting Information Figure 1). We further excluded narrative reviews and meta‐analyses that had only one study, did not report the necessary study‐specific data including the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) or the number of endometrial cancer cases and controls or total population . Where two or more meta‐analyses examined the exact same association, we chose the largest meta‐analysis to avoid duplicate assessment of the same primary studies; the concordance between included and duplicate meta‐analyses was explored in a sensitivity analysis (Supporting Information).…”

“…We further excluded narrative reviews and meta-analyses that had only one study, did not report the necessary study-specific data including the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) or the number of endometrial cancer cases and controls or total population. 14,[54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71] Where two or more meta-analyses examined the exact same association, we chose the largest meta-analysis to avoid duplicate assessment of the same primary studies; the concordance between included and duplicate meta-analyses was explored in a sensitivity analysis (Supporting Information).…”

The Effects of the Dietary and Nutrient Intake on Gynecologic Cancers

“…Chu et al performed a meta-analysis of 17 studies to investigate the effect of the overall energy intake on the endometrial cancer risk [58]. They found that there was no association between the total energy intake and the endometrial cancer risk in either overall group (OR = 1.11).…”