Carbohydrates, Glycemic Index, and Glycemic Load in Relation to Bladder Cancer Risk

Abstract

Objective: Epidemiologic studies investigating the association between dietary carbohydrates as well as glycemic index and glycemic load (markers of carbohydrate quality) and bladder cancer risk have yielded inconsistent results. The aim of the present meta-analysis is to summarize the evidence on this association. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive literature search of articles published by December 2019 was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. A random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled odds ratios (ORs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Twelve observational studies were included in the final analysis. There was no evidence of an association between consumption of carbohydrates and bladder cancer risk (pooled OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.92-1.17). No statistically significant association between glycemic load and bladder cancer was likewise found (pooled OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.85-1.42). However, there was a significant positive association between glycemic index and bladder cancer risk (pooled OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.11-1.41). In the dose-response analysis, the pooled OR (95% CI) per 10 units of glycemic index per day was 1.02 (95% CI, 1.01-1.04). Conclusion: In this meta-analysis, glycemic index showed a positive linear association with bladder cancer risk.

Fecal Microbiota Transplantation and Health Outcomes: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials

“…Dysbiosis is disturbances in the function and composition of the microbiota driven by environmental and host-related factors ( Leshem et al., 2019 ). This process may be involved in the pathogenesis of many diseases, such as IBD, IBS ( Cui et al., 2021 ), multiple sclerosis ( Engen et al., 2020 ; Li et al., 2020 ), hepatic encephalopathy ( Kao et al., 2016 ; Madsen et al., 2021 ), cancer ( Chen et al., 2019 ; Kaźmierczak-Siedlecka et al., 2020 ; Zhu H. et al, 2020 ) and metabolic syndrome ( Yu et al., 2020 ). Targeting the disturbed microbiota, which may be achieved by dietary interventions, probiotics, prebiotics, antibiotics, and FMT, might affect the progress of these conditions.…”

“…We used the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models to recalculate the pooled effect sizes using STATA V.14. ( Zhu J. et al, 2020 ). We did not review the primary study included in each meta-analysis.…”

“…Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using I 2 statistics. Values < 50% indicate acceptable heterogeneity, values > 50% suggest moderate heterogeneity, and values > 75% are indicative of high heterogeneity ( Zhu J. et al, 2020 ). Egger’s regression asymmetry test was used to calculate an estimate of publication bias for any reanalysis that included at least 10 studies, which was considered indicative of small-study effects ( Demurtas et al., 2020 ).…”

The clinical efficacy of faecal microbiota transplantation: An umbrella review of randomized controlled trials

“…Dysbiosis is disturbances in the function and composition of the microbiota driven by environmental and host-related factors 12 . This process may be involved in the pathogenesis of many diseases, such as IBD, IBS 44 , multiple sclerosis 45, 46 , hepatic encephalopathy 47, 48 , cancer 49-51 and metabolic syndrome 52 . Targeting the disturbed microbiota, which may be achieved by dietary interventions, probiotics, prebiotics, antibiotics, and FMT, might affect the progress of these conditions.…”

Glycemic index, glycemic load, and lung cancer risk: A meta-analysis of cohort and case-control studies

“…However, previous publications of different cancers showed discrepant results. For example, some studies reported that GI and GL might be associated with the risk of bladder, breast, gastric, colorectal, and ovarian cancers; however, no significant association for pancreatic cancers [15][16][17][18][19][20]. Two meta-analyses have examined the relationship between GI or GL and lung cancer risk [21,22]; however, these articles have limitations, such as insufficient included studies, unexplained heterogeneity sources, and excluded case-controlled studies.…”