Drinking coffee may help prevent liver cancer, study suggests

People who drink more coffee are less likely to develop liver cancer, an analysis of data from 26 studies has found | Story via The Guardian | BMJ

coffee-2178431_1920

Researchers have found that people who drink more coffee are less likely to develop hepatocellular cancer (HCC), the most common form of primary liver cancer – and the effect was also found in decaffeinated coffee.

Experts from the University of Southampton and the University of Edinburgh examined data from 26 studies involving more than 2.25 million participants.  Compared with people who drank no coffee, those who drank one cup a day had a 20% lower risk of developing HCC, according to the study, published in the journal BMJ Open.

Those who consumed two cups a day had a 35% reduced risk and for those who drank five cups, the risk was halved. They found the protective effect for decaf was “smaller and less certain than for caffeinated coffee”

Full story via The Guardian

Full reference: Kennedy OJ, Roderick P, Buchanan R, et al. Coffee, including caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee, and the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis

Diet, nutrition, physical activity and breast cancer

The report analysed 119 studies and including data on 12 million women and 260,000 cases of breast cancer | World Cancer Research Fund

WCRF

Image source: WCRF

Many epidemiologic studies have classified breast cancer cases by menopausal status at time of diagnosis, and therefore in this report we chose to highlight associations between diet, weight, and physical activity separately in premenopausal and postmenopausal breast cancer, where possible.

Key findings: premenopausal breast cancer

There is strong evidence that:

  • consuming alcoholic drinks increases risk
  • undertaking vigorous physical activity decreases risk
  • being overweight or obese between the ages of about 18 and 30 years decreases risk
  • being overweight or obese in adulthood before the menopause decreases risk
  • developmental factors leading to greater linear growth (marked by adult attained height) increase risk
  • factors that lead to greater birthweight, or its consequences, increase risk
  • breastfeeding decreases risk (breast cancer type unspecified) in the mother
cup20breast20matrix_pre2028shortened29

Image Source: WCRF

Key findings: postmenopausal breast cancer

There is strong evidence that:

  • consuming alcoholic drinks increases risk
  • being physically active (including vigorous physical activity) decreases risk
  • being overweight or obese between the ages of about 18 and 30 years decreases risk
  • being overweight or obese throughout adulthood increases risk
  • greater weight gain in adulthood increases risk
  • developmental factors leading to greater linear growth (marked by adult attained height) increase risk
  • breastfeeding decreases risk (breast cancer type unspecified) in the mother
cup20breast20matrix_post2028shortened29

Image source: WCRF

Benefits and harms of breast cancer screening in women aged 40-49 years

Early detection of breast cancer through screening can lower breast cancer mortality rates and reduce the burden of this disease in the population | International Journal of Cancer

balance-2027701_960_720.png

In most western countries, mammography screening starting from age 50 is recommended. However, there is debate about whether breast cancer screening should be extended to younger women. This systematic review provides an overview of the evidence from RCT’s on the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening with mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was appraised using the GRADE approach.

Four articles reporting on two different trials, the Age trial and the Canadian National Breast Screening Study-I (CNBSS-I), were included. The results showed no significant effect on breast cancer mortality (Age trial: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.80-1.09; CNBSS-I: HR 1.10 (95% CI 0.86-1.40) nor on all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93-1.03) in women aged 40 to 49 years offered screening. Among regularly attending women the cumulative risk of experiencing a false-positive recall was 20.5%. Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer at five years post cessation of screening for women aged 40to 49 years was estimated to be 32%; 20 years post cessation of screening 48%. Including ductal carcinoma in situ, these numbers were 41% and 55%.

Based on the current evidence from randomised trials, extending mammography screening to younger age groups cannot be recommended. However there were limitations including relatively low sensitivity of screening and screening attendance, insufficient power, and contamination, which may explain the non-significant results.

Full reference: van den Ende, C. et al. (2017) Benefits and harms of breast cancer screening with mammography in women aged 40-49 years: A systematic review. International Journal of Cancer. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.30794

Clinics should choose women’s breast screening appointment times to improve attendance

For women who miss a breast screening appointment, giving a fixed date and time for a new appointment could improve poor attendance and be a cost-effective way to shift national participation trends | ScienceDaily

time-2189800_960_720.jpg

In England, participation in breast cancer screening has been falling in the last ten years, getting close to the national minimum standard of 70 per cent, with screening particularly low in areas of socioeconomic deprivation.

The NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) invites women aged 50-70 to mammographic screening every three years. The usual practice for those who don’t attend their first offered appointment is to issue them with a second invitation letter. Some centres supply ‘open’ invitations, asking women to telephone to make an appointment, while others send an invitation with a fixed date and time, requiring no effort from the invitee to book an appointment.

Read the full overview via ScienceDaily here

Read the original research article here

Bowel cancer screening: benefits and risks

This leaflet explains the benefits and risks of bowel cancer screening in English, large print, 20 other languages and mp3 audio format | PHE

cancer screening

Image source: PHE

Bowel cancer screening, the facts (Bengali)

Bowel cancer screening, the facts (Chinese)

Obesity linked to heightened risk of certain cancers

Obesity is strongly linked to the risk of developing certain major cancers, according to a re-analysis of research published in The BMJ | OnMedica | BMJ

apple-1676634_1920

Links between obesity and cancer risk are strongest for 11 cancers related to digestive organs and hormones, says the review. Obesity could also be linked to other cancers, but the quality of the evidence is not sufficiently strong to draw those conclusions yet.

Obesity prevalence has more than doubled over the past 40 years, and the evidence to date suggests that it is linked to a heightened risk of developing particular cancers, but methodological flaws in some published studies have weakened the strength of the associations found.

To better gauge the quality of the evidence and the strength of these associations, the researchers comprehensively reviewed published studies looking at obesity and cancer risk.

From among 204 reviews that analysed obesity measurements, such as body mass index (BMI), weight gain, and waist circumference, and the risk of 36 cancers, 95 included continuous measures of obesity.

Only 13% of the associations for nine cancers were based on strong evidence, meaning the results were statistically significant and excluded bias.

Strong associations were found in studies that looked at heightened risk of oesophageal, bone marrow, colon (in men), rectal (in men), biliary tract system, pancreatic, endometrial (in premenopausal women), and kidney cancers.

Read more via OnMedica

Link to the research: Kyrgiou M, Kalliala I, Markozannes G, et al. Adiposity and cancer at major anatomical sites: umbrella review of the literature. BMJ 2017;356:j477. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j477