Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

Intake of Dietary One-Carbon Metabolism-Related B Vitamins and the Risk of Esophageal Cancer: A Dose-Response Meta-Analysis

Read this article at

Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Abstract

      Several B vitamins are essential in the one-carbon metabolism pathway, which is central to DNA methylation, synthesis, and repair. Moreover, an imbalance in this pathway has been linked to certain types of cancers. Here, we performed a meta-analysis in order to investigate the relationship between the intake of four dietary one-carbon metabolism-related B vitamins (B2, B6, folate, and B12) and the risk of esophageal cancer (EC). We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase for relevant studies published through 1 March 2018. The odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for the highest versus the lowest level of each dietary B vitamin was then calculated. From 21 articles reporting 26 studies including 6404 EC cases and 504,550 controls, we found an inverse correlation between the consumption of vitamin B6 and folate and the risk of EC; this association was specific to the US, Europe, and Australia, but was not found in Asia. A dose-response analysis revealed that each 100 μg/day increase in folate intake reduced the risk of EC by 12%. Moreover, each 1 mg/day increase in vitamin B6 intake decreased the risk of EC by 16%. Surprisingly, we found that each 1 μg/day increase in vitamin B12 intake increased the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma by 2%, particularly in the US and Europe, suggesting both geographic and histological differences. Together, our results suggest that an increased intake of one-carbon metabolism-related B vitamins may protect against EC, with the exception of vitamin B12, which should be consumed in moderation.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 70

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

        Bookmark
        • Record: found
        • Abstract: not found
        • Article: not found

        Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

          Bookmark
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

           T Sipe,  D Rennie,  D Stroup (2000)
          Because of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Twenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods. From the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed. The proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Affiliations
            [1 ]Department of Nutrition, Precision Nutrition Innovation Center, School of Public Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China; qiangyzh@ 123456163.com (Y.Q.); lqw9319@ 123456163.com (Q.L.); yjxinzzu@ 123456163.com (Y.X.); tymayer@ 123456163.com (Y.T.); mjf15188351024@ 123456163.com (J.M.); 18734895045@ 123456163.com (J.W.); qingqingw820417@ 123456126.com (Q.W.); zhangruochen111@ 123456163.com (R.Z.); kevinwang93@ 123456163.com (J.W.)
            [2 ]Institute of Nutrition and Food Safety, School of Public Health, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310058, China; xuexianfang@ 123456zju.edu.cn
            Author notes
            [* ]Correspondence: fwang@ 123456zju.edu.cn
            [†]

            These authors contributed equally to this work.

            Journal
            Nutrients
            Nutrients
            nutrients
            Nutrients
            MDPI
            2072-6643
            27 June 2018
            July 2018
            : 10
            : 7
            29954131
            6073467
            10.3390/nu10070835
            nutrients-10-00835
            © 2018 by the authors.

            Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

            Categories
            Review

            Comments

            Comment on this article