rss
  1. Dietary alpha-linolenic acid intake and prostate cancer risk: A dose-response analysis of observational studies

    Abstract Alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) consumption has been linked to risk of prostate cancer theoretically, but the findings were conflicting from observational studies. Results from recent meta-analysis suggested a small risk, moderate protective and no effect of alpha-linolenic acid consumption on prostate cancer risk. However, the relationship, if exists, between alpha-linolenic acid consumption and prostate cancer risk is unclear. Thus, the dose-response relationship was assessed by restricted cubic spline model and multivariate random-effect meta-regression. The results suggested that a significant association was found between alpha- linolenic acid consumption and decreased risk of prostate cancer among subjects consuming 0.2-1.3g of alpha-linolenic acid per day. A potential nonlinear relationship should be assessed before assuming a linear relationship.

    Keywords Alpha-linolenic acid; Prostate cancer; Dose-response analysis

    Dear editor,

    We read with great interest the article by Carleton et al. [1] titled ''Case-control and prospective studies of dietary alpha-linolenic acid intake and prostate cancer risk: a meta-analysis.'' The study failed to confirm an association between dietary ALA intake and prostate cancer risk. However, the findings were inconsistent with the prior meta-analysis by Simon et al. [2] and Carayol et al. [3] indicating a small increased risk and weak protective association between dietary ALA intake and prostate, respectively. This is a very important investigation considering the widespread consumption of alpha-linolenic acid and high incidence of prostate cancer. Thus, it is meaningful regarding the exploration of the causes and control of prostate cancer. However, we would like to draw attention to the type of dose-response analysis between alpha-linolenic acid consumption and risk of prostate cancer, because, Simon et al., Carayol et al. and Carleton et al. [1-3]assumed a linear dose relationship without performing a formal test and the dose relationship was not assessed in the meta-analysis, and linear associations in epidemiologic research can rarely be assumed a priori [4]. Besides, categories of alpha- linolenic acid consumption per day differed between studies, which might complicate the interpretation of the pooled results across study populations with different categories. In this respect, a dose-response meta-analysis provides a solution to the problem, from which a summary risk estimate can be derived for a standardized increase and specific exposure values considering alpha-linolenic acid consumption per day.

    Studies included in this dose-response analysis must provide the following information: the number of cases and participants, and odds ratio (OR for case-control studies) and relative risk (RR for cohort studies) estimates with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for each category of alpha-linolenic acid consumption were extracted. We extracted the OR or RR (95 % CI) that reflected the greatest degree of control for potential confounders. The median or mean alpha-linolenic acid consumption for each category was assigned to each corresponding OR for every study. If the upper boundary of the highest category was not provided, we assumed that the boundary had the same amplitude as the adjacent category. Detailed information of the included publications is shown in the Table 1 (for case - control studies) and Table 2 (for cohort studies).

    A two-stage random-effects dose-response meta-analysis was performed taking into account the between-study heterogeneity proposed by Orsini et al. [5] to compute the trend from the correlated log OR or RR estimates across categories of alpha-linolenic acid consumption per day. Briefly, a restricted cubic spline model, with four knots at the 5th, 35th, 65th, and 95th percentiles [6] of the alpha-linolenic acid consumption per day, was estimated using generalized least-square regression taking into account the correlation within each set of published ORs or RR [7]. Then we combined the study-specific estimates using the restricted maximum likelihood method in a multivariate random-effects meta-analysis [8]. A P value for nonlinearity was calculated using the method proposed by Greenland and Longnecker [9]. All statistical analyses were performed with STATA, version 10.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA). All reported probabilities (p values) were two-sided, with p< 0.05 considered statistically significant.

    Dose-response analysis of case-control studies

    For case-control studies, data from 6 publications [10-15] with 6 studies were used. A nonlinear relationship was found of alpha-linolenic acid consumption with risk of prostate cancer (P for nonlinearity= 0.0027), and the ORs (95 % CI) of prostate cancer was 0.89 (0.79-1.00), 0.91 (0.78-1.07), 1.25 (1.02-1.54), 1.52 (1.24-1.88), and 1.74 (1.29-2.35) for 0.4, 1.0, 1.6, 2.1, and 2.5 grams per day (Fig. 1).

    Dose-response analysis of cohort studies

    For cohort studies, data from 5 publications [16-20] with 5 studies were used. The departure from nonlinear relationship was not significant (P for nonlinearity = 0.7488), and the RRs (95 % CI) of prostate cancer was 0.97 (0.94-1.00), 0.96 (0.93-0.99), 0.95 (0.87-1.04), 0.95 (0.86- 1.05), and 0.94 (0.84-1.06) for 1.0, 1.3, 1.7, 2.0, and 2.3 grams per day (Fig. 2).

    Dose-response analysis of all observational studies

    For case-control and cohort studies, data from 11 publications [10- 20] with 11 studies were used. A nonlinear relationship was found of alpha -linolenic acid consumption with risk of prostate cancer (P for nonlinearity= 0.0132), and the ORs (95 % CI) of prostate cancer was 0.93 (0.89-0.98), 0.88 (0.81-0.96), 0.87 (0.80-0.95), 0.91 (0.85-0.97), 0.98 (0.91-1.06), 1.00 (0.92-1.09), and 1.00 (0.91-1.10) for 0.4, 0.7, 1.0, 1.3, 1.7, 2.0, and 2.3 grams per day (Fig. 3).

    Overall, a significant association was found between alpha-linolenic acid consumption and decreased risk of prostate cancer among subjects consuming 0.2-1.3 grams of alpha-linolenic acid per day. Besides, consuming 1.0 gram of alpha-linolenic acid per day can bring us the strongest protective effect of prostate cancer risk. A potential nonlinear relationship should be assessed before assuming a linear relationship, which is not always the case in epidemiologic research and more studies are required to confirm this relationship.

    All above mentioned 2 tables and 3 figures can be provided if they were needed.

    Acknowledgments None.

    References

    1. Carleton AJ, Sievenpiper JL, de Souza R, McKeown-Eyssen G, Jenkins DJ. Case-control and prospective studies of dietary alpha-linolenic acid intake and prostate cancer risk: a meta-analysis. BMJ open 2013;3(5) doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002280[published Online First: Epub Date]|.

    2. Simon JA, Chen Y-H, Bent S. The relation of alpha-linolenic acid to the risk of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The American journal of clinical nutrition 2009;89(5):1558S-64S

    3. Carayol M, Grosclaude P, Delpierre C. Prospective studies of dietary alpha-linolenic acid intake and prostate cancer risk: a meta- analysis. Cancer Causes & Control 2010;21(3):347-55

    4. Desquilbet L, Mariotti F. Dose-response analyses using restricted cubic spline functions in public health research. Statistics in medicine 2010;29(9):1037-57 doi: 10.1002/sim.3841[published Online First: Epub Date]|.

    5. Orsini N, Li R, Wolk A, Khudyakov P, Spiegelman D. Meta-analysis for linear and nonlinear dose-response relations: examples, an evaluation of approximations, and software. American journal of epidemiology 2012;175(1):66-73 doi: 10.1093/aje/kwr265[published Online First: Epub Date]|.

    6. Durrleman S, Simon R. Flexible regression models with cubic splines. Statistics in medicine 1989;8(5):551-61

    7. Orsini N, Bellocco R, Greenland S. Generalized least squares for trend estimation of summarized dose-response data. Stata Journal 2006;6(1):40-57

    8. Jackson D, White IR, Thompson SG. Extending DerSimonian and Laird's methodology to perform multivariate random effects meta-analyses. Statistics in medicine 2010;29(12):1282-97 doi: 10.1002/sim.3602[published Online First: Epub Date]|.

    9. Greenland S, Longnecker MP. Methods for trend estimation from summarized dose-response data, with applications to meta-analysis. American journal of epidemiology 1992;135(11):1301-9

    10. Andersson SO, Wolk A, Bergstrom R, et al. Energy, nutrient intake and prostate cancer risk: a population-based case-control study in Sweden. International journal of cancer. Journal international du cancer 1996;68(6):716-22 doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0215(19961211)68:6<716::aid- ijc4>3.0.co;2-6[published Online First: Epub Date]|.

    11. De Stefani E, Deneo-Pellegrini H, Boffetta P, Ronco A, Mendilaharsu M. Alpha-linolenic acid and risk of prostate cancer: a case- control study in Uruguay. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology 2000;9(3):335-8

    12. Ramon JM, Bou R, Romea S, et al. Dietary fat intake and prostate cancer risk: a case-control study in Spain. Cancer causes & control : CCC 2000;11(8):679-85

    13. Hedelin M, Chang ET, Wiklund F, et al. Association of frequent consumption of fatty fish with prostate cancer risk is modified by COX-2 polymorphism. International journal of cancer. Journal international du cancer 2007;120(2):398-405 doi: 10.1002/ijc.22319[published Online First: Epub Date]|.

    14. Fradet V, Cheng I, Casey G, Witte JS. Dietary omega-3 fatty acids, cyclooxygenase-2 genetic variation, and aggressive prostate cancer risk. Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research 2009;15(7):2559-66 doi: 10.1158/1078- 0432.ccr-08-2503[published Online First: Epub Date]|.

    15. Williams CD, Whitley BM, Hoyo C, et al. A high ratio of dietary n -6/n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids is associated with increased risk of prostate cancer. Nutrition research (New York, N.Y.) 2011;31(1):1-8 doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2011.01.002[published Online First: Epub Date]|.

    16. Giovannucci E, Rimm EB, Colditz GA, et al. A prospective study of dietary fat and risk of prostate cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1993;85(19):1571-9

    17. Schuurman AG, van den Brandt PA, Dorant E, Brants HA, Goldbohm RA. Association of energy and fat intake with prostate carcinoma risk: results from The Netherlands Cohort Study. Cancer 1999;86(6):1019-27

    18. Koralek DO, Peters U, Andriole G, et al. A prospective study of dietary alpha-linolenic acid and the risk of prostate cancer (United States). Cancer Causes & Control 2006;17(6):783-91

    19. Park SY, Murphy SP, Wilkens LR, Henderson BE, Kolonel LN. Fat and meat intake and prostate cancer risk: the multiethnic cohort study. International journal of cancer. Journal international du cancer 2007;121(6):1339-45 doi: 10.1002/ijc.22805[published Online First: Epub Date]|.

    20. Wallstrom P, Bjartell A, Gullberg B, Olsson H, Wirfalt E. A prospective study on dietary fat and incidence of prostate cancer (Malmo, Sweden). Cancer causes & control : CCC 2007;18(10):1107-21 doi: 10.1007/s10552-007-9050-4[published Online First: Epub Date]|.

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Submit response
« Parent article

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts to receive selected information relevant to your specialty interests and be the first to know when the latest research is published.