Next Article in Journal
Dietary Patterns Are Associated with Cardiovascular and Cancer Mortality among Swiss Adults in a Census-Linked Cohort
Previous Article in Journal
Main Sources, Socio-Demographic and Anthropometric Correlates of Salt Intake in Austria
Open AccessLetter

Meat Mutagens and Colorectal Adenoma and Cancer: A Problem with a Recently Published Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by Ngoan Tran Le 1,2
1
Department of Occupational Health, Hanoi Medical University, 1st Ton That Tung street, Dong Da, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam
2
Department of Public Health, School of Medicine, International University of Health and Welfare, 4-2 Kozunomori, Narita, Chiba 286-8686, Japan
Nutrients 2018, 10(3), 312; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10030312
Received: 27 February 2018 / Revised: 2 March 2018 / Accepted: 5 March 2018 / Published: 6 March 2018

Abstract

Dear Editors and Authors, I had the pleasure to read the published article entitled [1] “Dietary Intake of Meat Cooking-Related Mutagens (HCAs) and Risk of Colorectal Adenoma and Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis” [...]
Dear Editors and Authors,
I had the pleasure to read the published article entitled [1] “Dietary Intake of Meat Cooking-Related Mutagens (HCAs) and Risk of Colorectal Adenoma and Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”. The authors completed a thorough collection and examination of thirty nine studies in their systematic review and meta-analysis. The aim of the work was to examine the association between heterocyclic amines (HCAs) intake and the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and colorectal adenoma (CRA) through a systematic review and meta-analysis. HCAs included 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP), 2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline (MeIQx) and 2-amino-3,4,8-trimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline (DiMeIQx) and the “meat-derived mutagenic activity” (MDM).
This work is very necessary and useful for engendering discussion regarding risk factors related to cancer.
The main findings included “Polled CRA risk (15,229 cases) was significantly increased by intake of PhIP (OR (odds ratio) = 1.20; 95% CI (confidence interval): 1.13, 1.28; p < 0.001), MeIQx (OR = 1.14; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.23; p = 0.001), DiMeIQx (OR = 1.13; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.21; p = 0.001), B(a)P (benzo(a)pyrene) (OR = 1.10; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.19; p = 0.017) and MDM (OR = 1.17; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.28; p = 0.001). A linear and curvilinear trend was observed in dose–response meta-analysis between CRA risk in association with PhIP, MDM, and MeIQx. “CRC risk (21,344 cases) was increased by uptake of MeIQx (OR = 1.14; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.25; p = 0.004), DiMeIQx (OR = 1.12; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.22; p = 0.014) and MDM (OR = 1.12; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.19; p < 0.001). No publication bias could be detected, whereas heterogeneity was in some cases rather high. Mutagenic compounds formed during cooking of meat at high temperature may be responsible of its carcinogenicity” (Abstract).
However, upon careful review of the number of data used to calculate risk in the study, some findings from the meta-analysis appear perplexing. This may result from a substantial problem in repeated usage of data; specifically, possible repeated examinations of OR/RR (relative risk) (95% CI), and missing data in prospective cohort studies. These issues might result in wrong outputs and, thus, skewed findings of the present study.

1. Combined Data from Prospective Cohort Study and Case-Control Study

It appears the authors’ above conclusion did not separate the pooled analysis in each study design within the Prospective Cohort Study and Case-Control Study. Those designs definitely differed regarding exposure measures of HCA intake before the occurrence of colorectal adenoma and cancer (Prospective Cohort Study) and after these diseases occurred (Case-Control Study). The findings presented (in Table 1 of the published article) [1] for the pooled analysis of Case-Control Studies indicated that there is a significant positive association between HCA intake and the risk of colorectal adenoma for all PhIP, MeIQx, DiMeIQx, and MDM. However, the pooled analysis of the Prospective Cohort Studies has confirmed only PhIP and its significant positive association.

2. Repeated Examination and Possible Partly Repeated Usage Data

2.1. For Colorectal Adenoma

Four published articles used participants recruited from 2003 to 2010 from the Tennessee Colorectal Polyp Study [2,3,4,5], a case-control study conducted in Nashville, Tennessee. The most recent cases of colorectal adenoma were 1527 and controls were 3329 cases in 2012. Due to repeated examination and a series of four published papers, the authors cited the total of colorectal adenoma cases as 4538 and controls as 10,130 in the present meta-analysis (Table 1). It appears that the number of colorectal adenoma cases and controls may have been repeatedly examined for HCAs and consequently, input four times in the present Meta-Analysis [1].

2.2. For Colorectal Cancer

Two published articles using data from 1991 to 2002 from Utah and Northern California [6,7] for about 2298 cases of colorectal cancer and 2749 controls, of which there were 952 cases of colorectal cancer and 1205 controls recruited from 1997 to 2002 were published in 2004.
Furthermore, three published articles have also used cases (620, published in 2003) and controls (1038, published in 2003) from the North Carolina Colon Cancer Study [8,9,10] from 1996 to 2000 that were all input in the present Meta-Analysis. The present meta-analysis lists the totals from the five published articles including 4777 cases of colorectal cancer and 6253 controls, of which the number of cases and controls might have been repeated two or three times.
Were the findings of the meta-analysis modified due to repeatedly inputting data twice, three or four times? The authors should correct and fix these problems to show accurate results.

3. Possible Repeated Examinations of OR/RR (95% CI)

3.1. For Colorectal Adenoma

3.1.1. Case-Control Study

For the study by Sinha, et al. in 2005 [11], the authors used twice OR (95% CI) for both CRC and their sub sites of colon and rectum for both PhIP and MeIQx, Table 2, DiMeIQx and MDM (data not shown).

3.1.2. Prospective Cohort Study

For the study by Rohrman, et al. in 2009 [12], the authors used twice OR (95% CI) for both CRC and their sub sites of colon and rectum for PhIP (Table 2).
For the study by Ferrucci, et al. in 2012 [13], the authors used twice OR (95% CI) for both CRC and their sub sites of colon and rectum for both PhIP and MeIQx (Table 2) DiMeIQx and MDM (data not shown).
By repeated usage of RR (95% CI), there were four published articles of prospective cohort studies only; the number of data points used to calculate the risk were eight for PhIP, six for MeIQx, six for DiMeIQx, and five for MDM [1].

3.2. For Colorectal Cancer

3.2.1. Case-Control Study

For the two studies by Miller, et al. in 2013 [14] and Joshi, et al. in 2015 [15], the authors again used twice OR (95% CI) for both CRC and their sub sites of colon and rectum for both PhIP and MeIQx (Table 2) and DiMeIQx (data not shown). For MDM, the doubled OR (95% CI) was seen in the study by Miller, et al. in 2013 [14].

3.2.2. Prospective Cohort Study

For the study by Cross, et al. in 2010 [16], the authors used twice RR (95% CI) for both CRC and their sub sites of colon and rectum for both PhIP and MeIQx (Table 2) DiMeIQx and MDM (data not shown).
After the doubled RR(95% CI), there were only three published articles of prospective cohort studies, and the number of data points used to calculate the risk were five for PhIP, MeIQx, and DiMeIQx, and four for MDM [1].
Among the available three prospective cohort studies, only the study by Cross, et al. in 2010 [16] showed a significant positive association between HCAs intake and the risk of CRC for MeIQx, DiMeIQx and MDM. Due to the repeated usage of those RR (95% CI), the findings of the present meta-analysis might result in an over-positive estimation of the pooled analysis of prospective cohort studies.
Again, were the findings of the meta-analysis modified due to double input of OR/RR (95% CI) data? The authors should correct and fix these problems to show accurate results.

4. Missing Data from Prospective Cohort Studies

The data of MDM was missing from the study by Ollberding, et al. in 2012 [17]. The pointed estimation of RR was 1.01 for MeIQx, but less than one (negative association) for PhIP (0.95), for DiMeIQx (0.88) and total HCAs (0.90). Due to missing MDM (Ollberding, et al. in 2012) and doubled RR (95% CI): 1.14 (1.01, 1.29) (Cross, et al. in 2010 [16], significant positive association) (Table 3). The estimated risk of CRC was RR (95% CI): 1.12 (1.03, 1.21), p Value = 0.005 that might not reflect the true findings of the pooled analysis of only two available studies of prospective cohort studies.
I address these points only to illustrate the subtleties in handling data used to calculate risk and the importance of avoiding repeated usage of cases and controls due to multiple publications. For example, for OR/RR (95% CI), if analysis includes CRC, then the usage of their sub sites of colon and rectum in the computer analyzing programs will result in errant data in a meta-analysis. The authors should rerun the meta-analysis after excluding repeated cases and controls and avoid double OR/RR (95% CI). I believe this will result in accurate outputs and findings.

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank Barnabas Martin for reviewing and addressing any errors in the original English of this letter.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chiavarini, M.; Bertarelli, G.; Minelli, L.; Fabiani, R. Dietary Intake of Meat Cooking-Related Mutagens (HCAs) and Risk of Colorectal Adenoma and Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutrients 2017, 9, 514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Fu, Z.; Shrubsole, M.J.; Li, G.; Smalley, W.E.; Hein, D.W.; Chen, Z.; Shyr, Y.; Cai, Q.; Ness, R.M.; Zheng, W. Using gene-environment interaction analyses to clarify the role of well-done meat and heterocyclic amine exposure in the etiology of colorectal polyps. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2012, 96, 1119–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Fu, Z.; Shrubsole, M.J.; Smalley, W.E.; Wu, H.; Chen, Z.; Shyr, Y.; Ness, R.M.; Zheng, W. Association of meat intake and meat-derived mutagen exposure with the risk of colorectal polyps by histologic type. Cancer Prev. Res. 2011, 4, 1686–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Shin, A.; Shrubsole, M.J.; Rice, J.M.; Cai, Q.; Doll, M.A.; Long, J.; Smalley, W.E.; Shyr, Y.; Sinha, R.; Ness, R.M.; et al. Meat intake, heterocyclic amine exposure, and metabolizing enzyme polymorphisms in relation to colorectal polyp risk. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2008, 17, 320–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Shin, A.; Shrubsole, M.J.; Ness, R.M.; Wu, H.; Sinha, R.; Smalley, W.E.; Shyr, Y.; Zheng, W. Meat and meat-mutagen intake, doneness preference and the risk of colorectal polyps: The Tennessee Colorectal Polyp Study. Int. J. Cancer 2007, 121, 136–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Murtaugh, M.A.; Ma, K.N.; Sweeney, C.; Caan, B.J.; Slattery, M.L. Meat consumption patterns and preparation, genetic variants of metabolic enzymes, and their association with rectal cancer in men and women. J. Nutr. 2004, 134, 776–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Murtaugh, M.A.; Sweeney, C.; Ma, K.N.; Caan, B.J.; Slattery, M.L. The CYP1A1 genotype may alter the association of meat consumption patterns and preparation with the risk of colorectal cancer in men and women. J. Nutr. 2005, 135, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Butler, L.M.; Sinha, R.; Millikan, R.C.; Martin, C.F.; Newman, B.; Gammon, M.D.; Ammerman, A.S.; Sandler, R.S. Heterocyclic amines, meat intake, and association with colon cancer in a population-based study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2003, 157, 434–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Butler, L.M.; Duguay, Y.; Millikan, R.C.; Sinha, R.; Gagne, J.F.; Sandler, R.S.; Guillemette, C. Joint effects between UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1A7 genotype and dietary carcinogen exposure on risk of colon cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2005, 14, 1626–1632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Butler, L.M.; Millikan, R.C.; Sinha, R.; Keku, T.O.; Winkel, S.; Harlan, B.; Eaton, A.; Gammon, M.D.; Sandler, R.S. Modification by N-acetyltransferase 1 genotype on the association between dietary heterocyclic amines and colon cancer in a multiethnic study. Mutat. Res. 2008, 638, 162–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Sinha, R.; Peters, U.; Cross, A.J.; Kulldorff, M.; Weissfeld, J.L.; Pinsky, P.F.; Rothman, N.; Hayes, R.B. Meat, meat cooking methods and preservation, and risk for colorectal adenoma. Cancer Res. 2005, 65, 8034–8041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Rohrmann, S.; Hermann, S.; Linseisen, J. Heterocyclic aromatic amine intake increases colorectal adenoma risk: Findings from a prospective European cohort study. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2009, 89, 1418–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Ferrucci, L.M.; Sinha, R.; Huang, W.Y.; Berndt, S.I.; Katki, H.A.; Schoen, R.E.; Hayes, R.B.; Cross, A.J. Meat consumption and the risk of incident distal colon and rectal adenoma. Br. J. Cancer 2012, 106, 608–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Miller, P.E.; Lazarus, P.; Lesko, S.M.; Cross, A.J.; Sinha, R.; Laio, J.; Zhu, J.; Harper, G.; Muscat, J.E.; Hartman, T.J. Meat-related compounds and colorectal cancer risk by anatomical subsite. Nutr. Cancer 2013, 65, 202–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Joshi, A.D.; Kim, A.; Lewinger, J.P.; Ulrich, C.M.; Potter, J.D.; Cotterchio, M.; Le Marchand, L.; Stern, M.C. Meat intake, cooking methods, dietary carcinogens, and colorectal cancer risk: Findings from the Colorectal Cancer Family Registry. Cancer Med. 2015, 4, 936–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Cross, A.J.; Ferrucci, L.M.; Risch, A.; Graubard, B.I.; Ward, M.H.; Park, Y.; Hollenbeck, A.R.; Schatzkin, A.; Sinha, R. A large prospective study of meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: An investigation of potential mechanisms underlying this association. Cancer Res. 2010, 70, 2406–2414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Ollberding, N.J.; Wilkens, L.R.; Henderson, B.E.; Kolonel, L.N.; Le Marchand, L. Meat consumption, heterocyclic amines and colorectal cancer risk: The Multiethnic Cohort Study. Int. J. Cancer 2012, 131, E1125–E1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Le, N.T.; Michels, F.A.; Song, M.; Zhang, X.; Bernstein, A.M.; Giovannucci, E.L.; Fuchs, C.S.; Ogino, S.; Chan, A.T.; Sinha, R.; et al. A Prospective Analysis of Meat Mutagens and Colorectal Cancer in the Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professional Follow-up Study. Environ. Health Perspect. 2016, 124, 1529–1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Repeated examination and possible repeated data.
Table 1. Repeated examination and possible repeated data.
Study (Year)Time Recruited Cases and ControlsCasesControlsJournalPossible Repeated Data
Colorectal adenoma
Fu (2012) [2]2003–201015273329Am. J. Clin. Nutr.Four times
Fu (2011) [3]2003–201018813764Cancer Prev. Res.
Shin (2008) [4]2003–20055571493Cancer Epi. Bio. and Prevention
Shin (2007) [5]2003–20055731544Int. J. Cancer
Total colorectal adenoma 453810,130
Colorectal cancer
Murtaugh (2004) [6]1997–20029521205Journal of nutritionTwo times
Murtaugh (2005) [7]1991–200222982749Journal of nutrition
Butler (2003) [8]1996–20006201038American Journal of EpidemiologyThree times
Butler (2005) [9]1996–2000400412Cancer Epi. Bio. & Prevention
Butler (2008) [10]1996–2000507849Mutation research
Total Colorectal cancer 47776253
Table 2. Possible repeated examinations of OR/RR (95% CI).
Table 2. Possible repeated examinations of OR/RR (95% CI).
Study (Year)CasesControlsPhIPMeIQx
OR/RR (95% CI)OR/RR (95% CI)
Colorectal adenoma
Case-control study
Sinha (2005) [11]369634,817Colon: 1.17 (1.01–1.35)Colon: 1.18 (1.01–1.38)
Rectal: 1.02 (0.79–1.33)Rectal: 0.79 (0.60–1.04)
CRC: 1.11 (0.98–1.25)CRC: 1.08 (0.95–1.23)
Prospective cohort studiesCasesParticipants
Rohrmann (2009) [12]51625,540Colon: 1.56 (1.12–2.19)-
Rectal: 1.08 (0.62–1.86)-
CRC: 1.47 (1.13–1.93)-
Ferrucci (2012) [13]100817,072Colon: 1.07 (0.85–1.36)Colon: 0.97 (0.76–1.24)
Rectal: 1.75 (1.17–2.64)Rectal: 1.12 (0.74–1.72)
CRC: 1.18 (0.96–1.45)CRC: 0.99 (0.80–1.23)
Total (Prospective cohort studies)152442,612
Colorectal cancer
Case-control studyCasesControls
Miller (2013) [14]9891033Colon: 0.95 (0.68–1.33)Colon: 1.23 (0.89–1.69)
Rectum: 1.33 (0.88–2.02)Rectum: 1.24 (0.81–1.91)
CRC: 1.06 (0.79–1.43)CRC: 1.22 (0.91–1.64)
Joshi (2015) [15]33503504Colon: 1.00 (0.80–1.20)Colon: 1.10 (0.90–1.30)
Rectum: 0.90 (0.70–1.10)Rectum: 0.90 (0.70–1.20)
CRC: 0.90 (0.80–1.10)CRC: 1.00 (0.90–1.20)
Total case-control43394537
Prospective cohort studiesCasesParticipants
Cross (2010) [16]2719300,948Colon: 1.01 (0.87–1.16)Colon: 1.26 (1.09–1.45)
Rectum: 0.94 (0.73–1.20)Rectum: 1.01 (0.79–1.28)
CRC: 0.99 (0.87–1.12)CRC: 1.19 (1.05–1.34)
PhIP: 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine, MeIQx: 2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline, OR: odds ratio, RR: relative risk, CI: confidence interval, CRC: colorectal cancer.
Table 3. Missing data from prospective cohort studies.
Table 3. Missing data from prospective cohort studies.
Exposure Indicator of HCAsLe (2016) * [18]Ollberding (2012) * [17]Cross (2010) * [16]
PhIPCRC: 1.09 (0.90–1.33)CRC: 0.95 (0.81–1.11)CRC: 0.99 (0.87–1.12)
MeIQxCRC: 1.12 (0.93–1.34)CRC: 1.01 (0.86–1.19)CRC: 1.19 (1.05–1.34)
DiMeIQxCRC: 1.05 (0.88–1.25)CRC: 0.88 (0.75–1.03)CRC: 1.17 (1.05–1.29)
Total HCAs-CRC: 0.90 (0.76–1.05)-
MDMCRC: 1.03 (0.86–1.24)-CRC: 1.14 (1.01–1.29)
HCAs: heterocyclic amines, PhIP: 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine, MeIQx: 2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline, DiMeIQx: 2-amino-3,4,8-trimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline, MDM: meat-derived mutagenic activity, * Study (year), CRC: colorectal cancer.
Back to TopTop