{"product_id":"does-a-pro-inflammatory-diet-raise-cancer-risk-what-a-major-review-of-2-7-million-people-found","title":"Does a Pro-Inflammatory Diet Raise Cancer Risk? What a Major Review of 2.7 Million People Found","description":"\u003cp\u003eThis systematic review and meta-analysis combined 24 large prospective cohort studies. The studies included 2,683,350 participants and 37,091 cancer cases. The review examined whether a diet with higher inflammatory potential is linked to cancer risk and cancer-specific death. Inflammatory potential was measured by the Empirical Dietary Inflammatory Pattern, or EDIP. The pooled results showed that people who most closely followed a pro-inflammatory diet had a 10% higher risk of total cancer. Those people had a 19% higher risk of colorectal cancer. Those people had a 48% higher risk of liver cancer. The comparison group was people who followed the pro-inflammatory diet least. Higher EDIP adherence was also linked to an 18% higher risk of dying from cancer, but no significant link was found for ovarian or endometrial cancer.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eDoes a Pro-Inflammatory Diet Raise Cancer Risk? What a Major Review of 2.7 Million People Found\u003c\/h1\u003e\n\n\u003ch2\u003eTable of Contents\u003c\/h2\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"#ddn-key-points\"\u003eKey Points\u003c\/a\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\n  \u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"#background\"\u003eBackground: Why Diet and Inflammation Matter for Cancer\u003c\/a\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"#what-is-edip\"\u003eWhat Is the Empirical Dietary Inflammatory Pattern (EDIP)?\u003c\/a\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"#methods\"\u003eHow the Researchers Conducted the Study\u003c\/a\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"#included-studies\"\u003eThe Studies Included in the Analysis\u003c\/a\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"#key-findings\"\u003eKey Findings: Cancer Risk and Cancer-Specific Mortality\u003c\/a\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"#subgroups\"\u003eSubgroup and Sensitivity Analyses\u003c\/a\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"#implications\"\u003eWhat These Findings Mean for Patients\u003c\/a\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"#limitations\"\u003eLimitations of the Study\u003c\/a\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"#recommendations\"\u003ePractical Recommendations\u003c\/a\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"#ddn-faq\"\u003eFrequently Asked Questions\u003c\/a\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"#source\"\u003eSource Information\u003c\/a\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\n\u003c!-- ddn:keypoints:start --\u003e\n\u003ch2 id=\"ddn-key-points\"\u003eKey Points\u003c\/h2\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eA meta-analysis of 24 U.S. prospective cohort studies with over 2.6 million participants examined the link between the Empirical Dietary Inflammatory Pattern (EDIP) and cancer.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeople with the highest EDIP adherence had a 10% higher risk of total cancer, a 19% higher risk of colorectal cancer, and a 48% higher risk of liver cancer compared with those with the lowest adherence.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHigher EDIP adherence was also linked to an 18% higher risk of dying from cancer, but no significant association was found for ovarian or endometrial cancer.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe studies were observational, so they cannot prove that a pro-inflammatory diet causes cancer; they only show an association.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLimitations include that all studies were conducted in the United States, diet was self-reported, and some cancer types were examined in only one study.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c!-- ddn:keypoints:end --\u003e\n\n\n\u003ch2 id=\"background\"\u003eBackground: Why Diet and Inflammation Matter for Cancer\u003c\/h2\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eCancer is becoming more common worldwide at a worrying rate. In 2015, cancer was the second most common cause of death globally, causing more than 8.7 million deaths. Cancer also causes high rates of disability and premature death. It places a heavy economic burden on healthcare systems.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eResearchers have gathered strong evidence that long-term, low-grade inflammation plays a major role in cancer. This type of inflammation involves a persistent rise in inflammatory cells and pro-inflammatory mediators (substances that promote inflammation). Several of these mediators have been linked to cancer development. Examples include C-reactive protein (CRP) and cytokines (signaling molecules) such as interleukin-1 (IL-1), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α).\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThese inflammatory mediators can promote cancer through the activation of downstream signaling pathways (a chain of molecular signals inside cells). Activating these pathways may help tumors grow new blood vessels (angiogenesis) and may suppress the body's anti-tumor immune response.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eDiet plays an important role in regulating inflammation and the levels of inflammatory cytokines in the bloodstream. Because of this, researchers have developed ways to measure the inflammatory potential of a person's overall diet. These tools can help us understand how diet-related inflammation might be modified to manage health risks.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eOne widely used tool is the Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII). The DII was developed from a review of original articles published between 1950 and 2010. That review examined how 45 dietary components affect the six most established inflammatory markers: IL-1β, IL-4, IL-6, IL-10 (an anti-inflammatory component), TNF-α, and CRP.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, the DII has several limitations. It is based on nutrients that cannot be accurately estimated because food compositions vary. It also focuses on single nutrients, but people actually consume nutrients together in the form of food groups.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eBecause of these limitations, researchers developed newer indices. These include the Inflammatory Score of the Diet, the Anti-Inflammatory Diet Index, the Dietary and Lifestyle Inflammation Scores, and the Empirical Dietary Inflammatory Pattern (EDIP). The EDIP has attracted increasing attention in recent years.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eSeveral observational studies have examined whether following the EDIP is linked to cancer risk and cancer-specific mortality (death specifically from cancer). However, the results have been inconsistent. For example, in the Women's Health Initiative, greater adherence to the EDIP was significantly associated with a higher risk of total cancer. Greater adherence to the EDIP was also significantly associated with a higher risk of several specific cancers. These specific cancers included colorectal, endometrial, and breast cancer.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, two prospective studies — the Nurses' Health Study I and Nurses' Health Study II — found no significant association between greater EDIP adherence and endometrial cancer risk. For cancer-specific mortality, one study by Li et al. reported a significant association with greater EDIP adherence, but other studies found no significant association.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eBecause of these conflicting results, the researchers conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis. Their goal was to combine all available prospective studies to determine whether EDIP adherence is associated with an increased risk of cancer and cancer-specific mortality.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch2 id=\"what-is-edip\"\u003eWhat Is the Empirical Dietary Inflammatory Pattern (EDIP)?\u003c\/h2\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe EDIP was developed by Tabung and colleagues and published in 2016. It is an empirically data-driven dietary pattern score. This means it was derived from a regression model fitted to a particular dataset, rather than being based on expert opinion alone.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe EDIP identifies a dietary pattern based on 18 food groups. These 18 food groups are the ones most predictive of pro-inflammatory markers, including IL-6, TNF-α, and CRP. The EDIP has been validated as highly effective at predicting inflammation biomarkers in three Harvard cohorts.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eIn simple terms, the EDIP score reflects how much a person's usual diet tends to promote inflammation in the body. A higher EDIP score indicates a diet with greater inflammatory potential.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch2 id=\"methods\"\u003eHow the Researchers Conducted the Study\u003c\/h2\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was officially registered on the PROSPERO database with registration ID CRD42024496912. PROSPERO is an international registry for systematic reviews. The researchers followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines and the MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe research team used the PECO framework to guide their methods. PECO stands for Population, Exposure, Comparator, and Outcome. The population was adults aged 18 years and older. The exposure was highest adherence to the EDIP. The comparator was lowest adherence to the EDIP. The primary outcome was total cancer or site-specific cancer, and the secondary outcome was cancer-specific mortality.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eOne researcher searched three electronic databases: Scopus, PubMed\/MEDLINE, and ISI Web of Science. The search covered January 2016 to March 2024 and was limited to English-language publications. The researchers imposed a time restriction because the EDIP score was first developed and published in 2016. The same researcher also manually searched the reference lists of all included studies and relevant review articles to make sure no potentially relevant articles were missed.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eStudies were included if they met five conditions:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003eParticipants were 18 years of age or older.\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003eThe study design was prospective (participants were followed forward in time).\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003eAdherence to the EDIP was assessed as the exposure of interest.\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003eThe outcomes included risk of total cancer, site-specific cancer, or cancer-specific mortality.\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003eStudies reported adjusted estimates — including odds ratio (OR), hazard ratio (HR), or relative risk (RR) — with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ol\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eStudies were excluded if they were duplicate publications, systematic reviews or meta-analyses, clinical trials, case reports, case series, editorials, commentaries, notes, letters, or conference abstracts. Animal, in vivo, and in vitro studies were also excluded. Studies in newborns, children, adolescents, pregnant mothers, or breastfeeding women were excluded. Studies not available in full text, studies that examined the outcome in participants who already had the disease at the start, and studies with insufficient data were also excluded.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eTwo investigators independently performed a two-step selection process. First, they screened titles and abstracts. Second, they evaluated the full-length publications that seemed relevant. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third investigator.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe quality of each included study was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The NOS is a tool designed specifically for assessing the quality of non-randomized studies. It uses a star system based on three criteria: selection of study participants, comparability of the groups, and assessment of either the exposure or the outcome of interest. Each item can receive a maximum of one star, except for the comparability item, which can receive up to two stars. Publications scoring seven or higher were classified as high quality with low risk of bias. Those scoring below seven were classified as low quality with high risk of bias.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eTwo researchers independently extracted data from each eligible study. The extracted data included the author's name, publication year, and cohort identification (country and study name). The extracted data included sample characteristics (total and sex-stratified sample size), number of cases, baseline age, and body mass index (BMI). The extracted data included follow-up duration, person-years, dietary intake assessment method, and outcome assessment method. The extracted data included outcome type and variables adjusted in the multivariate analysis. The extracted data included the fully adjusted effect size with 95% CI.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eFor the statistical analysis, the researchers used the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. This model accounts for variation both within and between studies (heterogeneity). Hazard ratios reported in the original studies were considered equivalent to relative risks. Studies that reported odds ratios were converted to relative risks using a standard formula. The pooled effect sizes were calculated for the highest compared with the lowest EDIP adherence, as well as per-standard-deviation increases in EDIP adherence.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eHeterogeneity between studies was assessed using the Cochran Q test and the I2 statistic. For the I2 metric, 25%, 50%, and 75% heterogeneity correspond to low, medium, and high degrees of heterogeneity, respectively. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed to identify potential sources of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis using the one-study exclusion (leave-one-out) method was conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings. Publication bias was tested by visually inspecting the funnel plot and using Egger's regression test. All statistical analyses were performed using STATA 17.0 software. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch2 id=\"included-studies\"\u003eThe Studies Included in the Analysis\u003c\/h2\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe initial electronic database search identified 229 relevant studies. Of these, 106 were from PubMed\/MEDLINE, 63 from Scopus, and 60 from ISI Web of Science. After excluding 100 duplicate publications and screening titles and abstracts, 27 publications were identified as potentially relevant and underwent full-text evaluation.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eAfter the full-text evaluation, three studies were excluded: one because it lacked the exposure of interest, one because it lacked the outcome, and one because of insufficient data. Finally, 24 studies were included in the analysis.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eAll 24 included studies were conducted in the United States and were published between 2017 and 2023. Together, they involved a total of 2,683,350 participants. The majority of the included studies were high quality.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eOf the 24 included studies, 16 reported effect sizes for cancer risk, six reported effect sizes for cancer-specific mortality, and two reported effect sizes for both cancer risk and cancer-specific mortality.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCancer incidence studies:\u003c\/strong\u003e Eighteen studies evaluated the EDIP–cancer risk relationship. These studies covered seven categories of cancer types:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003eGastrointestinal cancers: colorectal cancer (six studies), liver cancer (three studies), and pancreatic cancer (one study)\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003eUrological cancers: prostate cancer (two studies), bladder cancer (one study), and kidney cancer (one study)\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003eOvarian cancer (three studies), endometrial cancer (two studies), breast cancer (one study), multiple myeloma (one study), and lung cancer (one study)\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThese 18 studies enrolled 2,662,531 participants, ranging from 1,048 to 485,931 participants per study. Over a 16- to 32-year follow-up period, a total of 37,091 cancer cases were documented. These cases included:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e13,196 cases of colorectal cancer\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e953 cases of liver cancer\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e850 cases of pancreatic cancer\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e10,105 cases of prostate cancer\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e1,042 cases of bladder cancer\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e429 cases of kidney cancer\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e478 cases of multiple myeloma\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e4,393 cases of breast cancer\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e1,968 cases of endometrial cancer\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e1,561 cases of ovarian cancer\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e176 cases of lung cancer\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eAll of these studies used a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) to calculate the EDIP score. The mean age at baseline ranged from 38.43 to 63.85 years, and the mean BMI at baseline ranged from 24.5 to 27.59. Cancer incidence was obtained from medical reports in nine studies and from pathology reports in nine studies.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe majority of the included studies controlled for conventional risk factors. Specifically, 17 studies controlled for total energy intake, nine for supplement use, 11 for alcohol consumption, 15 for smoking, 13 for physical activity, and 13 for family history of cancer.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCancer-specific mortality studies:\u003c\/strong\u003e Nine studies assessed the association between EDIP adherence and the risk of cancer-specific mortality. These studies covered seven categories of cancer-specific mortality. The categories were colorectal cancer (two studies), prostate cancer (two studies), and pancreatic cancer (one study). The categories also were multiple myeloma (one study), ovarian cancer (one study), and kidney cancer (one study).\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThese nine studies included a total of 20,819 participants, ranging from 423 to 117,870 participants per study. During a follow-up period spanning 16 to 40 years, a total of 5,006 cancer-specific mortality cases were recorded. These cases included:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e570 cases of colorectal cancer mortality\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e740 cases of prostate cancer mortality\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e1,118 cases of pancreatic cancer mortality\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e295 cases of multiple myeloma mortality\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e1,102 cases of ovarian cancer mortality\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e113 cases of kidney cancer mortality\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eOf the nine studies that evaluated the EDIP–cancer-specific mortality relationship, eight used a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) and one used a 24-hour recall questionnaire to calculate the EDIP. The mean age of participants at baseline ranged from 47.3 to 72.3 years.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch2 id=\"key-findings\"\u003eKey Findings: Cancer Risk and Cancer-Specific Mortality\u003c\/h2\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe pooled results showed a significant association between higher adherence to the EDIP and an increased risk of total cancer. The effect size was 1.10 (95% CI: 1.05–1.15), with an I2 of 41.1. In plain language, this means that people with the highest EDIP adherence had a 10% higher risk of developing any cancer compared with people with the lowest EDIP adherence. The I2 value of 41.1 indicates moderate heterogeneity between the studies.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe results also showed a significant association between higher EDIP adherence and colorectal cancer risk. The effect size was 1.19 (95% CI: 1.11–1.27), with an I2 of 41.1. This means that people with the highest EDIP adherence had a 19% higher risk of colorectal cancer compared with those with the lowest adherence.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe strongest association was found for liver cancer. The effect size was 1.48 (95% CI: 1.14–1.94), with an I2 of 36.9. This means that people with the highest EDIP adherence had a 48% higher risk of liver cancer compared with those with the lowest adherence. The I2 value of 36.9 indicates low-to-moderate heterogeneity.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, the researchers found no significant association between increased EDIP adherence and increased risk of ovarian cancer or endometrial cancer.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eFor cancer-specific mortality, greater adherence to the EDIP was significantly associated with an increased risk. The effect size was 1.18 (95% CI: 1.05–1.33), with an I2 of 45.4. This means that people with the highest EDIP adherence had an 18% higher risk of dying from cancer compared with those with the lowest adherence. The I2 value of 45.4 indicates moderate heterogeneity.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch2 id=\"subgroups\"\u003eSubgroup and Sensitivity Analyses\u003c\/h2\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe researchers performed subgroup analyses to identify potential sources of heterogeneity between studies. These analyses were based on several factors:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003eAge (under 55 years versus over 55 years)\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003eGender (men versus women)\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003eNumber of participants (under 100,000 versus over 100,000)\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003eOutcome assessment method (medical record versus pathology report)\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003eBody mass index (normal weight versus overweight or obese)\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003eBaseline type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) status (yes versus no)\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003eAdjustment for major confounders (total energy intake, supplement use, alcohol consumption, smoking status, physical activity, and family history of cancer)\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe researchers also conducted a sensitivity analysis using the one-study exclusion (leave-one-out) method. This analysis evaluated whether the final pooled effect sizes were influenced by any single publication. The purpose was to test the robustness of the findings.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003ePublication bias was tested by visually inspecting the funnel plot and by using Egger's regression test.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch2 id=\"implications\"\u003eWhat These Findings Mean for Patients\u003c\/h2\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThis study provides strong evidence that a diet with higher inflammatory potential is associated with an increased risk of cancer and cancer-specific mortality. The findings are based on 24 large prospective cohort studies with more than 2.6 million participants, which makes the results robust and generalizable to adults in the United States.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe link was strongest for liver cancer, where the highest EDIP adherence was associated with a 48% higher risk. Colorectal cancer showed a 19% higher risk, and total cancer showed a 10% higher risk. These are meaningful differences at the population level.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eImportantly, the study found no significant association between EDIP adherence and ovarian or endometrial cancer. This suggests that the effect of diet-related inflammation may differ by cancer type. Not all cancers respond to inflammation in the same way.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe finding that higher EDIP adherence was associated with an 18% higher risk of cancer-specific mortality is also significant. This means that diet-related inflammation may not only influence whether cancer develops but also how likely a person is to die from it.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThese results support the idea that reducing the inflammatory potential of your diet could be a useful strategy for lowering cancer risk. However, because this is an observational study, it cannot prove that a pro-inflammatory diet directly causes cancer. It can only show an association.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch2 id=\"limitations\"\u003eLimitations of the Study\u003c\/h2\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThis study has several limitations that patients should understand. First, all included studies were conducted in the United States. This means the findings may not apply to populations in other countries with different dietary patterns and lifestyles.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, all studies used food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) or 24-hour recall questionnaires to assess diet. These methods rely on participants' memory and self-reporting, which can introduce measurement error.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThird, the studies showed moderate heterogeneity (I2 values ranging from 36.9 to 45.4). This means that the studies were not entirely consistent with each other. The researchers attempted to address this through subgroup and meta-regression analyses, but some unexplained variation remains.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eFourth, as with all observational studies, residual confounding is possible. Even though most studies adjusted for major risk factors such as smoking, physical activity, and family history of cancer, other unmeasured factors could influence the results.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eFifth, the number of studies for some cancer types was small. For example, only one study each examined pancreatic cancer, bladder cancer, kidney cancer, breast cancer, multiple myeloma, and lung cancer risk. This limits the strength of conclusions for those specific cancers.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, the study only included English-language publications, which could introduce language bias.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch2 id=\"recommendations\"\u003ePractical Recommendations\u003c\/h2\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the findings of this study, here are some practical steps patients can consider:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003col\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eBe aware of the inflammatory potential of your diet.\u003c\/strong\u003e The EDIP is based on 18 food groups that are most predictive of inflammatory markers in the body. While the specific food groups are not listed in this article, the general principle is that some foods promote inflammation and others reduce it.\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eFocus on overall dietary patterns, not single nutrients.\u003c\/strong\u003e The EDIP was designed to capture how foods are consumed together, which is more realistic than looking at single nutrients in isolation.\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eDiscuss your cancer risk with your healthcare provider.\u003c\/strong\u003e If you have a family history of cancer or other risk factors, talk to your doctor about how diet might affect your risk.\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eConsider a diet with lower inflammatory potential.\u003c\/strong\u003e While this study cannot prove cause and effect, the consistent association across 24 studies suggests that reducing dietary inflammation may be beneficial.\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eStay informed about ongoing research.\u003c\/strong\u003e The EDIP is a relatively new tool, and more studies are needed to confirm these findings and to determine whether changing your diet can actually lower cancer risk.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ol\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eIt is important to remember that cancer is a complex disease with many causes. Diet is just one factor. Other important factors include genetics, smoking, physical activity, alcohol consumption, and environmental exposures.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003c!-- ddn:faq:start --\u003e\n\u003ch2 id=\"ddn-faq\"\u003eFrequently Asked Questions\u003c\/h2\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eWhat is the Empirical Dietary Inflammatory Pattern (EDIP)?\u003c\/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe EDIP is a dietary pattern score developed by Tabung and colleagues in 2016. It is based on 18 food groups that most predict pro-inflammatory markers such as IL-6, TNF-α, and CRP. A higher EDIP score means a diet with greater potential to promote inflammation in the body. It has been validated in three Harvard cohorts.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eHow much does a pro-inflammatory diet raise cancer risk?\u003c\/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a meta-analysis of 24 prospective cohort studies with over 2.6 million participants, people with the highest EDIP adherence had a 10% higher risk of total cancer compared with those with the lowest adherence. They also had a 19% higher risk of colorectal cancer and a 48% higher risk of liver cancer.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDoes a pro-inflammatory diet affect the risk of dying from cancer?\u003c\/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eYes. The same meta-analysis found that people with the highest EDIP adherence had an 18% higher risk of dying from cancer compared with those with the lowest adherence. This suggests that diet-related inflammation may influence not only whether cancer develops but also survival after diagnosis.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eWere all cancer types affected by a pro-inflammatory diet?\u003c\/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo. The meta-analysis found no significant link between higher EDIP adherence and ovarian or endometrial cancer risk. The strongest association was for liver cancer, followed by colorectal cancer. This suggests that the effect of diet-related inflammation may differ by cancer type.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eWhat are the limitations of this research?\u003c\/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll included studies were conducted in the United States, so findings may not apply elsewhere. Diet was assessed by food frequency questionnaires or 24-hour recalls, which rely on memory and can introduce error. The studies showed moderate heterogeneity, and residual confounding is possible. Some cancer types were examined in only one study.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCan reducing dietary inflammation lower my cancer risk?\u003c\/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe meta-analysis cannot prove cause and effect because it is observational. However, the consistent association across 24 studies suggests that reducing the inflammatory potential of your diet may be beneficial. Discuss your individual cancer risk and diet with your healthcare provider before making changes.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eWhat should I do with this information?\u003c\/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBe aware that some foods promote inflammation and others reduce it. Focus on overall dietary patterns rather than single nutrients. If you have a family history of cancer or other risk factors, talk to your doctor about how diet might affect your risk. Stay informed as more research on the EDIP becomes available.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eIf a pro-inflammatory diet is linked to higher cancer risk, when should someone with cancer or a strong family history seek a second opinion?\u003c\/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA second opinion can be useful when you want your individual risk and situation reviewed against this evidence. A pro-inflammatory dietary pattern is associated with a 10% higher risk of total cancer, a 19% higher risk of colorectal cancer, a 48% higher risk of liver cancer, and an 18% higher risk of dying from cancer, with no significant link for ovarian or endometrial cancer. Because these are population-level associations from observational studies, they cannot predict any one person's outcome. Diagnostic Detectives Network provides independent expert second opinions.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c!-- ddn:faq:end --\u003e\n\n\u003ch2 id=\"source\"\u003eSource Information\u003c\/h2\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOriginal article title:\u003c\/strong\u003e The association between empirical dietary inflammatory pattern and risk of cancer and cancer-specific mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors:\u003c\/strong\u003e Fatemeh S. Hosseini, Ali Nikparast, Elahe Etesami, Fatemeh Javaheri-Tafti, and Golaleh Asghari.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAffiliations:\u003c\/strong\u003e Department of Nutrition, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran; Department of Clinical Nutrition \u0026amp; Dietetics, Faculty of Nutrition Science and Food Technology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; Cancer Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eJournal:\u003c\/strong\u003e Frontiers in Nutrition, volume 11, article 1462931.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublication date:\u003c\/strong\u003e 18 October 2024.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDOI:\u003c\/strong\u003e 10.3389\/fnut.2024.1462931\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSystematic review registration:\u003c\/strong\u003e PROSPERO registration no. CRD42024496912.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding and conflicts of interest:\u003c\/strong\u003e The original article is published as open access under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThis patient-friendly article is based on peer-reviewed research. It is intended for educational purposes only and should not replace professional medical advice. Always consult your healthcare provider about your individual health concerns.\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e","brand":"DiagnosticDetectives.Com","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":47807315509404,"sku":null,"price":0.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"url":"https:\/\/diagnosticdetectives.com\/sv\/products\/does-a-pro-inflammatory-diet-raise-cancer-risk-what-a-major-review-of-2-7-million-people-found","provider":"DiagnosticDetectives.Com","version":"1.0","type":"link"}