Coffee may influence colorectal cancer (CRC) survival, but prior studies had limited generalizability. We analyzed 1,098 participants from the Multiethnic Cohort study diagnosed with CRC between 1993–2008 who completed a food frequency questionnaire after diagnosis and were followed through 2019. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to examine coffee (total, caffeinated, decaffeinated) in relation to all-cause and CRC-specific mortality. Secondarily, we examined caffeine intake and explored associations by race and ethnicity. Overall, coffee intake was not associated with risk of mortality. However, decaffeinated coffee was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR ≥1 vs. 0 cups/day: 0.71; 95% CI [0.55 – 0.91]). Additionally, associations were observed between total and caffeinated coffee in relation to all-cause mortality among Native Hawaiian participants (HR per 1 cup/day: 0.62 [0.41 – 0.94] and 0.55 [0.31 – 0.97], respectively); and with CRC-specific mortality among White participants (HR per 1 cup/day: 0.48 [0.25–0.94] and 0.45 [0.23 – 0.90], respectively). In the total cohort, caffeine intake was associated with 22% lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 4th quartile vs. 1st quartile: 0.78 [0.62—0.99]) and 52% lower risk of CRC-specific mortality (HR 0.48 [0.27—0.87]). Overall, coffee intake after CRC diagnosis was not associated with all-cause or CRC-specific mortality. Decaffeinated coffee was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, and caffeine was associated with lower risk of all-cause and CRC-specific mortality.
Kathryn R. K. Benson, Irina Tolstykh, June M. Chan et al.· Cancer Causes and Control· 0 citations
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review evidence on associations of post-diagnostic consumption of red meat, poultry, and eggs with prostate cancer outcomes among men diagnosed with prostate cancer.
METHODS
We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE through July 17, 2025, with no date restrictions. Eligible studies included prospective cohorts examining post-diagnostic consumption of red meat, poultry, and eggs in relation to prostate cancer progression (e.g., biochemical recurrence, initiation of secondary treatment, metastases, prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM)) and/or all-cause mortality (ACM) in men with prostate cancer. Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.
RESULTS
Six cohort studies including >10,000 men with prostate cancer met inclusion criteria. Across five studies, total red meat consumption was not associated with progression outcomes, while one of two studies evaluating ACM reported a positive relationship. However, two studies indicated that replacement of red meat with poultry or fish was associated with lower risk of progression or ACM. One study reported a positive association between processed red meat intake and both PCSM and ACM, although four other studies reported no significant association. Total poultry intake was not significantly associated with progression. By contrast, poultry with skin was linked to higher risk in two studies (one significant), whereas poultry without skin was not associated with progression. Poultry intake was associated with lower ACM risk in the only study evaluating this relationship. Evidence for egg consumption was inconsistent; a positive association with progression was observed in one study with especially high intake in the highest category (∼5.5 servings/week), whereas no associations were found in four studies where intakes were lower in the highest categories (≥2.5-3 servings/week). One out of two demonstrated a positive relationship with ACM.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence linking post-diagnostic intake of red meat, poultry, and eggs with prostate cancer progression remain limited and inconsistent, while stronger statistical evidence was observed for ACM. Prostate cancer progression risk may be specific to preparation methods (e.g., poultry with skin) and higher egg intake (>3-5 servings/week), while replacing red meat with skinless poultry or fish may offer clinical benefit. Additional well-designed prospective studies are needed.
S. Sandhu, Haile Teshome, E. V. Van Blarigan et al.· Journal of Urology· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
