Postdiagnostic Red Meat, Poultry, and Egg Intake and Risk of Prostate Cancer Progression and Mortality: A Systematic Review.
Simran Sandhu, Haile Teshome, Erin L Van Blarigan et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This systematic review assessed prospective cohort evidence on postdiagnostic red meat, poultry, and egg intake and outcomes among men with prostate cancer. Six cohorts including more than 10,000 men were eligible. Findings for progression were limited and inconsistent: total red meat and poultry intake were generally not associated with progression, while results for eggs varied. Some studies linked processed red meat or poultry with skin to worse outcomes, and replacing red meat with poultry or fish was associated with lower risk in two studies. Evidence for all-cause mortality was somewhat stronger but remained inconsistent.
Key findings
- Across five studies, total red meat intake was not associated with prostate cancer progression; one of two studies found a positive association with all-cause mortality.
- Two studies associated replacing red meat with poultry or fish with lower risk of progression or all-cause mortality.
- Poultry with skin was linked to higher progression risk in two studies, with one statistically significant; skinless poultry was not associated with progression.
- Egg findings were inconsistent: one study reported higher progression with especially high intake (∼5.5 servings/wk), while four studies found no association at lower highest-category intakes.
Why it matters
Dietary choices after prostate cancer diagnosis may relate to progression or mortality, but the evidence does not establish consistent associations across foods or outcomes. The review highlights possible differences by food preparation and intake level, as well as potential relevance of food substitutions. These findings help frame dietary counseling as an area of uncertainty rather than a basis for definitive causal claims.
What to keep in mind
Evidence came from only six cohort studies, and findings were inconsistent across studies and outcomes. The observational design cannot establish that dietary intake or food substitution caused differences in outcomes.