Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Chinese Medical Journal logoLink to Chinese Medical Journal
. 2017 Sep 20;130(18):2241–2250. doi: 10.4103/0366-6999.213968

High Spicy Food Intake and Risk of Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Case–control Studies

Yu-Heng Chen 1, Xiao-Nong Zou 2, Tong-Zhang Zheng 3, Qi Zhou 4, Hui Qiu 4, Yuan-Li Chen 2, Mei He 4, Jia Du 4, Hai-Ke Lei 4, Ping Zhao 1,✉
PMCID: PMC5598338  PMID: 28875961

Abstract

Background:

Studies on the association between spicy food intake and cancer risk have reported inconsistent results. We quantitatively assessed this association by conducting a meta-analysis based on evidence from case–control studies.

Methods:

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for eligible publications. Combined odds ratios (ORs) with their 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a random- or fixed-effects model. The methodological quality of the included articles was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS). All data were analyzed using STATA 11.0 software (version 11.0; StataCorp., College Station, TX, USA). Subgroup analyses were also performed with stratification by region, sex, number of cases, cancer subtype, source of the control group, and NOS score.

Results:

A total 39 studies from 28 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis (7884 patients with cancer and 10,142 controls). Comparison of the highest versus lowest exposure category in each study revealed a significant OR of 1.76 (95% CI = 1.35–2.29) in spite of significant heterogeneity (P < 0.001). In the subgroup analyses, this positive correlation was still found for gastric cancer, different regions, different numbers of cases, different sources of the control group, and high-quality articles (NOS score of ≥ 7). However, no statistically significant association was observed for women, esophageal cancer, gallbladder cancer, or low-quality articles (NOS score of <7). No evidence of publication bias was found.

Conclusions:

Evidence from case–control studies suggested that a higher level of spicy food intake may be associated with an increased incidence of cancer despite significant heterogeneity. More studies are warranted to clarify our understanding of the association between high spicy food intake and the risk of cancer.

Keywords: Cancer Incidence, Case–control Studies, Meta-analysis, Spicy Food

INTRODUCTION

Cancer is a major health problem worldwide and the leading cause of death in both more and less economically developed countries.[1,2] Based on GLOBOCAN estimates, about 14.1 million new cancer cases and 8.2 million cancer-related deaths occurred in 2012 worldwide.[3] Although many risk factors contribute to the development of cancer, including genetic variants,[4,5] obesity,[6] smoking,[7] poor diet,[8] physical inactivity,[9] and reproductive factors[10] (including lower parity and higher age at first birth), such risk factors account for only a small proportion of cancer cases. Thus, other unknown risk factors still need to be identified.

Capsaicin (trans-8-metil-vanillyl-6-nonenamida) is the main pungent active substance of spicy foods such as chili, pepper, and kimchi. Consumed worldwide, capsaicin has a long and controversial history with respect to whether its consumption or topical application is entirely safe.[11] Conflicting epidemiologic data and basic research study results suggest that capsaicin can act as a carcinogen, cancer preventive agent,[12,13] or tumor promoter,[14,15] while other data suggest that it has chemopreventive and chemotherapeutic properties.[16,17] Several animal studies have been conducted to identify the association between capsaicin and cancer risk. Researchers have found that approximately 60% of rats fed a semisynthetic diet containing 10% chilies developed neoplastic changes in the liver.[18] In another experiment, mice fed a ≤0.25% capsaicinoid mixture in the diet for 79 weeks showed no evidence of carcinogenicity.[19] In human studies, researchers from Korea proposed that capsaicin alters the metabolism of chemical carcinogens and might promote carcinogenesis at high doses.[20] Mahfouz et al. and Wu et al.[21,22] reported positive relationship between spicy food and the risk of digestive tract cancer, whereas other studies showed no such relationship.[23] In addition, in four case–control studies, researchers found negative relationships between spicy food intake and cancer risk.[24,25,26,27] To address these discrepancies, we performed a meta-analysis of the association between the consumption of spicy food and cancer risk.

METHODS

Search strategy

Two of the authors (Yu-Heng Chen and Xiao-Nong Zou) independently performed a systematic search of published articles using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases up to June 2017. We used the following search terms: “spicy or chili or chilli or pepper or capsaicin” and “cancer or carcinoma.” We also reviewed the reference lists from the retrieved articles and those from previous review studies to identify additional relevant studies that may not have been identified by our database searches.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria were (1) original articles, (2) case–control studies, (3) inclusion of odds ratio (OR) estimates with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for the association between spicy food intake and cancer, (4) publication in English, and (5) inclusion of at least two comparison groups. For duplicate publications, we only included the one with the most detailed and latest information for both the exposure and outcome. The exclusion criteria were (1) reviews, reports, clinical trials, and genetic and cell studies and (2) insufficient data.

Data extraction

Two reviewers independently extracted the relevant information from the identified studies, and disagreements were discussed and resolved by consensus. The following information was collected from each eligible study: first author's surname, publication year, country, study period, sex, exposure, numbers of cases and controls, types of cancer, comparison of exposure level (highest versus lowest), multivariate-adjusted OR with corresponding 95% CI for the highest and lowest categories of spicy food intake, and covariates adjusted in the statistical analysis.

Among the 28 articles included in our meta-analysis, 19 articles reported the associations between the two-level of spicy food intake and cancer risk and 9 articles[14,15,23,26,28,29,30,31,32] reported the associations between the multi-level of spicy food intake and cancer risk. Therefore, we distinguished two levels of spicy food intake in our study: highest and lowest. The categories of intake levels for spicy food were defined in accordance with the definition in the original articles. The lowest category was defined as the lowest level of spicy food intake (reference group), and in 18 articles, it was defined as low, bland, medium, <75 g·cu−1·month−1, or <1 time/week and so forth, while 10 articles[14,21,22,25,28,30,33,34,35,36] defined as “no” or never. The highest category was defined as the highest level of spicy food intake, and in 21 articles, it was defined as high, hot, ≥2 times/day, or 90–250 mg/d and so forth, while 7 articles[14,22,25,33,34,35,36] defined as “yes.”

Quality assessment of the studies

Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of the included case–control studies using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS).[37] Each study was broadly assessed based on selection, comparability, and exposure and was assigned a score ranging from 0 to 9. Studies with a score of ≥7 were considered to be of high quality.

Statistical analysis

We summarized the study-specific ORs and 95% CIs and compared the highest and lowest categories of spicy food intake for each study. Heterogeneity among the studies was estimated using the I2 statistic. Pooled ORs were obtained using either a fixed-effects model (used in the absence of heterogeneity, I2< 50%) or random-effects model (used in the presence of heterogeneity, I2 > 50%).[38]

To explore the potential heterogeneity among studies, we conducted subgroup analyses for population regions (Asian and non-Asian), sex (female and combined male/female), cancer subtypes (gastric cancer, esophageal cancer, gallbladder cancer, and other cancers), number of cases (≥200 and <200), source of the control group (community-based and hospital-based), NOS score (≥7 and <7), and the definition of spicy food (chili pepper and all spicy food).

We visually inspected the funnel plot symmetry and performed the Begg regression test and Egger linear regression test[39] to assess the potential of publication bias.[40] All statistical analyses were performed with STATA software (version 11.0; StataCorp., College Station, TX, USA). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Study selection and study characteristics

In this study, we investigated the cancer incidence associated with consumption of spicy food. Figure 1 outlines the initial search result of a total of 329 citations. After subjecting these citations to a series of exclusions, the meta-analysis included 28 articles.[14,15,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50] In addition, since 7 articles[25,28,35,43,46,48,50] reported spicy food and cancer risk in different types of cancer, different types of spicy food, and different genders, they were considered as separate studies in the following data analysis. Therefore, a total 28 articles including 39 studies (7884 cases and 10,142 controls) were included in the final meta-analysis.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Flowchart of meta-analysis for exclusion or inclusion of individual articles. OR: Odds ratio; CI: Confidence interval.

The characteristics of the 39 studies are shown in Table 1. All 39 studies involved case–control comparisons, including 17 community controls and 22 hospital controls. Twenty-eight studies were conducted among the residents of Asia, and 11 were from non-Asian regions. With respect to the number of cases, 18 studies included ≥200 subjects, and 21 included <200 subjects. In terms of cancer subtypes, 12, 9, 6, and 12 studies reported the association between spicy food and the risk of gastric cancer, esophageal cancer, gallbladder cancer, and other cancers, respectively. The NOS scores of all studies ranged from 5 to 9, and 29 studies had a score of ≥7.

Table 1.

Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis

Author, year Country Study period Sex* Exposure (all spicy food) Number of cases/controls Types of cancer† Comparison (highest vs. lowest) Adjusted OR (95% CI) Adjusted variables NOS score
Al-Qadasi et al., 2017 Yemen 2014 C Chili pepper 70/140 GC Yes versus no 1.20 (0.58–2.47) No description 6
Mahfouz et al., 2014 Egypt 2010–2011 C Consumption of spicy food (e.g., chili) 150/300 CRC Higher versus no 4.2 (1.7–9.9) Red meat, preserved food, artificial sweeteners, fast foods, smoking, soft drinks, processed meat, pickles, tea, obesity, alcohol 8
Wu et al., 2013 China 2009–2011 C Frequent ingestion of spicy food 501/523 GC Yes versus no 5.93 (3.73–9.42) No description 5
Zhivotovskiy et al., 2012 Siberia 2011–2012 C Spicy food 185/210 CRC Yes versus no 2.87 (1.9–4.33) No description 5
Ibiebele et al., 2010 Australia 2001–2005 C Frequency of consumption of spicy food (e.g., chili, curry, tabasco peppers) 286/1472 EAC 1 per week versus never 1.00 (0.51–1.97) Age, gender, cumulative history of smoking in pack-years, lifetime mean alcohol intake, heartburn and acid reflux symptoms, BMI in previous year, education status, aspirin use in previous 5 years, total fruit and vegetable intake, total energy intake in kilojoules 9
320/1472 EGJAC 0.75 (0.39–1.45)
238/1472 ESCC 0.86 (0.41–1.78)
Joshi et al., 2009 India 2005–2006 C Spicy food/snacks, etc. 94/94 EC Too spicy versus mild or almost nil 0.49 (0.34–1.57) No description 5
Nakadarira et al., 2009 Hungary F Hungarian sweet pepper 41/30 GBC Yes versus no 4.0 (0.7–22.3) Age 6
Hungarian hot pepper 41/30 8.4 (2.3–30.4)
Zhang et al., 2009 Korea 2000–2005 C Kimchi (containing red pepper power) 471/471 GC High versus low 3.27 (2.44–4.37) Age, sex, total energy intake 7
Shen et al., 2008 China 1985–1990 C Peppers 498/498 LC Frequently versus rarely and sometimes 0.36 (0.25–0.53) Age, sex, literacy, lung cancer in first-degree relatives, hours spent at home per day, nonmalignant lung disease history, coal mine work history, ever smoking, passive smoking, coal type at birth, having enough food 9
Do et al., 2007 Korea 1999–2003 Post-F Pepper 163/316 BC High versus low 0.62 (0.43–0.96) Age, education, age at menarche, family history of breast cancer, age at first live birth, age at menopause, total duration of breastfeeding, physical activity, total menstruation period, BMI, alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking, frequency of exercise, total energy intake, fat intake, fruit intake, vegetable intake, Vitamins A, C, E, and vitamin supplementation
Feng et al., 2007 Maghreb 2002–2005 C Spicy preserved meet 636/615 NPC ≥10 times/year versus <10 times/year 1.5 (0.6–3.8) Age, socioeconomic status, exposure to toxic substances 8
Wang et al., 2007 China 2004–2006 M
F		 Chili intake 223/252
132/156		 ESCC Often versus seldom 3.38 (2.12–5.39)
1.61 (0.66–3.89)		 Age, marital status, education years 8
Goh et al., 2007 Malaysia C Chili intake 87/174 GC Heavy versus low/none 0.18 (0.09–0.34) No description 5
Kapil et al., 2005 India 2000–2002 C Spicy food 305/305 LC Yes versus no 2.33 (1.65–3.29) No description 5
Hung et al., 2004 China 1996–2002 C Spicy condiments (containing red pepper) at age ≥40 years 266/443 EC ≥1 time/week versus <1 time/week 1.5 (0.9–2.4) Age, education levels, ethnicity, source of hospital, smoking, alcohol drinking, areca nut chewing 9
Lopez-Carrillo et al., 2003 Mexico 1994–1996 C Capsaicin intake (mg/d) 234/468 GC 90–250 versus 0–29.9 1.7 (0.76–3.88) Age, sex, energy, schooling, fruit intake, vegetable intake, processed meat consumption, tobacco smoking, alcohol consumption, other variables 8
Lee et al., 2003 Korea 1999 C Kimchi (containing red pepper) 69/199 GC ≥2/day versus <2/day 1.9 (1.3–2.8) Age, sex, education, family history of gastric cancer, smoking, drinking, Helicobacter pylori infection 7
Serra et al., 2002 Chile 1992–1995 C Red chili pepper 114/114 GBC >20 g/day versus <20 g/day 2.5 (1.2–5.2) Low socioeconomic status, fried foods, schooling 8
Green chili pepper 114/114 GBC 1.4 (0.6–3.5)
Petro-Nustas et al., 2002 Jordan 1996 F Spicy food 100/100 BC Always versus never 1.5 (0.31–5.13) No description 8
Kim et al., 2002 Korea 1997–1998 C Baechu kimchi 136/136 GC High versus low 0.50 (0.25–1.01) Sex, age, socioeconomic status, family history, refrigerator use 7
Pandey et al., 2002 India C Green chili 64/101 GBC Yes versus no 0.45 (0.21–0.94) No description 5
Red chili 64/101 1.29 (0.6–2.74)
Phukan et al., 2001 India 1997–1998 C Chili intake 502/1004 EC Very high versus moderate chili intake 3.6 (1.8–8.6) Education, income, chewing betel nuts and tobacco, smoking, alcohol use 9
Mathew et al., 2000 India 1988–1991 C Chillies 194/305 GC Very hot versus bland 7.4 (4.0–13.5) Age, sex, religion, education, smoking, alcohol habits 9
Gajalakshmi et al., 1996 India 1988–1990 C Chillies 388/388 GC Hot versus medium 2.8 (1.73–4.54) Chewing habit, factors significant in the multivariate model of dietary item analysis, income group, educational level, area of residence 7
Lee et al., 1995 Korea 1990–1991 C Hot pepper-soybean paste stew 213/213 GC ≥2–3 times/week versus none or 4–5 times/year 4.2 (1.5–12.0) Age, sex, education, economic status, residence, mutually adjusted for the other dietary factors 8
Lopez-Carrillo et al., 1994 Mexico 1989–1990 C Chili pepper consumption 220/752 GC Yes versus no 9.22 (3.84–22.12) Age, sex, fruit, vegetables, processed meat, beans, alcohol, salt added after cooking food, cigarette smoking, socioeconomic status, history of peptic ulcer, chili pepper consumption variable of internet 9
Notani et al., 1987 India 1976–1984 C Red chili powder use, g·cu−1·month−1 278/177 OC ≥75 versus <75 3.64 (2.1–6.4) Age, tobacco habits 8
225/177 PC 2.17 (1.2–3.9)
80/177 EC 2.20 (1.3–3.8)
215/177 LC 2.75 (1.2–6.3)
Tajima et al., 1985 Japan 1981–1983 C Green pepper 93/186 GC ≥1 per week versus <1 per week 2.01 (1.17–3.52) Age, sex 7
42/186 CC 1.70 (0.80–2.72)
51/186 RC 1.22 (0.94–1.49)
Open in a new tab

*M: Male; F: Female; Post-F: Postmenopausal females; C: Combined males and females. †Types of cancer: BC; GC; CRC; EAC; EGJAC; ESCC; EC; GBC; NPC; LC; OC; PC; CC; RC. BC: Breast cancer; GC: Gastric cancer; CRC: Colorectal cancer; EAC: Esophageal adenocarcinoma; EGJAC: Esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma; ESCC: Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; EC: Esophageal cancer; GBC: Gallbladder cancer; NPC: Nasopharyngeal carcinoma; LC: Laryngeal cancer; OC: Oral cancer; PC: Pharyngeal cancer; CC: Colon cancer; RC: Rectal cancer; BMI: Body mass index; NOS: Newcastle–Ottawa scale; CI: Confidence interval; OR: Odds ratio.

Highest versus lowest intake of spicy food

Among the 39 studies included in the meta-analysis, 30 studies reported the associations between spicy food and cancer risk after adjustments and 9 studies[22,24,25,29,30,33,34,36] did not clarify whether adjustments have been done or not. Therefore, we extracted the adjusted data if possible and the data that was not specified as the crude or the adjusted in the 9 original studies was also extracted and included in the meta-analysis. The OR and 95% CI of each study in terms of the highest versus lowest spicy food intake is shown in Table 1. A forest plot of the 39 studies is shown in Figure 2. A random-effects model was applied, and it revealed a significantly positive association (OR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.35–2.29). However, high heterogeneity was found among the studies (I2 = 88.3%, P for heterogeneity <0.001).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of association between high spicy food intake and cancer risk.

Subgroup analyses

All spicy food

The categories of spicy food were defined in accordance with the definition in the original articles. In our study, “all spicy food” was defined as including chili pepper, undefined spicy food, spicy snacks, kimchi, spicy preserved meat, capsaicin, pepper-soybean in 39 studies. We conducted subgroup analyses for all spicy food. The highest category of spicy food intake was associated with cancer risk between the two different regions (Asian: OR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.22–2.27; non-Asian: OR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.25–3.43), numbers of cases (≥200: OR = 2.15, 95% CI = 1.45–3.18;< 200: OR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.03–2.08), and sources of the control group (community based: OR = 1.91, 95% CI = 1.19–3.07; hospital based: OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.20–2.29). We also found this positive association for gastric cancer (OR = 2.16, 95% CI = 1.26–3.71) and in high-quality studies (OR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.40–2.48). There was no significant association between the highest category of spicy food intake and cancer in women (OR = 1.93, 95% CI = 0.72–5.23), esophageal cancer (OR = 1.43, 95% CI = 0.92–2.22), gallbladder cancer (OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 0.83–3.83), or low-quality studies (OR = 1.48, 95% CI = 0.74–2.97).

Chili pepper

The association between chili pepper consumption and the incidence of cancer was evaluated in 23 studies, which directly assessed chili peppers as a food item. Chili pepper included peppers, Hungarian sweet/hot pepper, red/green/undefined chili pepper, and chili/chillies. As shown in Table 2, chili pepper consumption showed a consistently positive association with both regions, case numbers of >200, esophageal cancer, community-based studies, and high-quality studies. However, no statistically significant association was observed between the highest category of spicy food consumption and cancer risk among women, a case number of <200, gastric cancer, gallbladder cancer, other cancer types, hospital-based studies, or low-quality articles.

Table 2.

Subgroup analyses of association between high spicy food intake and cancer risk

Subgroups All spicy food Chili pepper
Number of studies OR (95% CI) I2 (%) PHeterogeneity Number of studies OR (95% CI) I2 (%) PHeterogeneity
Regions
 Asian 28 1.66 (1.22–2.27) 90.6 <0.001 18 1.53 (1.01–2.32) 91.1 <0.001
 Non-Asian 11 2.07 (1.25–3.43) 73.7 <0.001 5 3.84 (1.77–8.33) 65.1 0.022
Sex*
 F 5 1.93 (0.72–5.23) 79.7 0.001 4 2.10 (0.63–6.97) 84.4 <0.001
 C 33 1.71 (1.29–2.27) 88.8 <0.001 18 1.72 (1.12–2.65) 90.6 <0.001
Number of cases
 ≥200 18 2.15 (1.45–3.18) 89.4 <0.001 8 2.59 (1.19–5.61) 93.3 <0.001
 <200 21 1.46 (1.03–2.08) 86.0 <0.001 15 1.48 (0.96–2.28) 86.8 <0.001
Cancer type†
 GC 12 2.16 (1.26–3.71) 91.3 <0.001 6 2.07 (0.73–5.91) 94.0 <0.001
 EC 9 1.43 (0.92–2.22) 77.1 <0.001 4 2.75 (2.04–3.70) 9.6 0.345
 GBC 6 1.78 (0.83–3.83) 75.0 0.001 6 1.78 (0.83–3.83) 75.0 0.001
 Others 12 1.67 (1.07–2.60) 90.0 <0.001 7 1.34 (0.75–2.40) 91.7 <0.001
Controls
 Community-based 17 1.91 (1.19–3.07) 89.4 <0.001 10 2.69 (1.34–5.38) 92.6 <0.001
 Hospital-based 22 1.65 (1.20–2.29) 87.9 <0.001 13 1.30 (0.85–1.99) 84.9 <0.001
NOS score
 ≥7 29 1.87 (1.40–2.48) 86.9 <0.001 17 2.13 (1.42–3.19) 90.1 <0.001
 <7 10 1.48 (0.74–2.97) 91.9 <0.001 6 1.12 (0.41–3.09) 87.5 <0.001
Open in a new tab

*F: Females; C: Combined males and females. †Cancer type: GC; EC; GBC; Others included breast cancer, colorectal cancer, laryngeal cancer, oral cancer, and pharyngeal cancer. GC: Gastric cancer; EC: Esophageal cancer; GBC: Gallbladder cancer; OR: Odds ratio; CI: Confidence interval; NOS: Newcastle–Ottawa scale.

Sensitivity analysis and publication bias

Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the effect of excluding any individual study. The pooled OR was not altered by exclusion of one study at a time in turn (data not shown). No publication bias was detected for spicy food (Egger's test: P = 0.714; Begg's test: P = 0.942) in the selected studies. The funnel plot was symmetrical [Figure 3].

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Funnel plot of studies evaluating the association between high spicy food intake and cancer risk. Dotted lines indicate 95% pseudo-confidence interval. SE: Standard error; OR: Odds ratio. Egger's test (P = 0.714) Begg's test (P = 0.942).

DISCUSSION

To the best of our knowledge, the current study represents the most comprehensive and up-to-date meta-analysis (39 case–control studies) of the association between high spicy food intake and cancer risk. The results showed that a high level of spicy food intake was significantly associated with cancer risk, and the association was consistent in most subgroup analyses. We found no association in women, esophageal cancer, or gallbladder cancer because of the limited numbers of such studies. Interestingly, in terms of cancer subtypes, high spicy food intake was only found to be associated with gastric cancer. We also assessed chili pepper as a food item to identify the association between chili pepper consumption and cancer risk. Consistent associations were found in different regions, case numbers of >200, esophageal cancer, community-based studies, and high-quality articles. Several possible underlying mechanisms may link the consumption of spicy food and the incidence of cancer. Capsaicin is a primary pungent and irritating agent found in chilies and red peppers, which are widely used as spices in many cultures worldwide.[16] Several animal studies have shown a carcinogenic dose–effect relationship. For example, chili extract has been shown to promote the development of stomach and liver tumors in BALB/c mice initiated by methyl (acetoxymethyl) nitrosamine and benzene hexachloride. Capsaicin also has a cocarcinogenic effect on TPA-promoted skin carcinogenesis in vivo; this is mediated through the transient receptor potential vanilloid subfamily number 1 and the tyrosine kinase epidermal growth factor receptor. In the present meta-analysis, 19 studies indicated that high-level consumption of capsaicin-containing foods was associated with an increased risk of cancer. We believe that these results are credible because the pooled ORs from 39 articles and subgroup analyses indicated a significantly positive association between high spicy food intake and cancer risk.

In past decades, the anticancer activity of capsaicin has been broadly investigated for a variety of cancer types. Briefly, the anticancer mechanisms of capsaicin include activation of apoptosis,[51] cell growth arrest,[52] and inhibition of angiogenesis[53] and metastasis.[54] Capsaicin stimulates the anti-tumorigenic/tumor-suppressive signaling pathway and related transcription factors, whereas it inhibits oncogenic signaling pathways and tumor promoters. In addition, capsaicin synergistically interacts with other cancer-preventive agents, providing the possibility for the use of capsaicin in cancer therapy with other chemotherapeutic agents.[55] In the population-based prospective cohort study in China by Lv et al.,[56] compared with those who ate spicy food less than once a week, those who consumed spicy food almost every day had a 14% lower risk of death, and inverse association was also observed for deaths due to cancer. Among the 39 studies included in our meta-analysis, 4 studies reported a negative association; however, when we summarized the estimate of high spicy food intake and cancer risk, this negative association was no longer present. These intrinsic differences in different populations and different research emphases may partly explain the above controversies.

Our meta-analysis has several limitations. First, because the data were obtained from case–control studies, confounding bias may be present, such as selection bias and recall bias due to the contribution of different results obtained from different populations or hospital designs. Although we attempted to include adjusted estimates from multivariate models from each contributing study and apply a stratified analysis, we still cannot explain the potential effects of other dietary habits or behavior or the etiologic relationship between spicy food intake and cancer events. Second, the definition of spicy food and the highest and lowest categories of spicy food intake were inconsistent. People of different races and dietary cultures have eating preferences, such as kimchi in Korea or spicy preserved meat in the Maghreb. Third, 9 studies did not adjust for confounding factors, confounders that were adjusted for in each study were different, and there were some unknown confounders. Fourth, relatively low sample sizes were included in the subgroup analyses by sex, region, and cancer subtype, which may have rendered chance effects more likely. In addition, only 7 articles (including 11 studies) with subgroup analyses conducted in non-Asian regions were included in our meta-analysis. The small sample size may have contributed to the heterogeneity.

In conclusion, our meta-analysis suggests a positive association between a high level of spicy food or chili pepper intake and cancer risk. Furthermore, no statistically significant effect was observed among females after application of a stratified analysis by sex because of the limited number of studies. Studies with larger sample sizes, longer follow-up periods, more cancer types, and more detailed measures of spicy food intake are necessary to confirm these results.

Financial support and sponsorship

This study was supported by the International Science and Technology Cooperation Program of China (No. 2010DFB34180).

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Edited by: Li-Min Chen

REFERENCES

  • 1.Chen W, Zheng R, Baade PD, Zhang S, Zeng H, Bray F, et al. Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:115–32. doi: 10.3322/caac.21338. doi: 10.3322/caac.21338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:7–30. doi: 10.3322/caac.21332. doi: 10.3322/caac.21332. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65:87–108. doi: 10.3322/caac.21262. doi: 10.3322/caac.21262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Liu X, Zhang X, Wang Z, Chang J, Wu Z, Zhang Z, et al. Genetic polymorphism of the phospholipase C epsilon 1 gene and risk of gastric cancer. Chin Med J (Engl) 2014;127:2511–7. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.20133123. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Zhang BB, Wang DG, Xuan C, Sun GL, Deng KF. Genetic 135G/C polymorphism of RAD51 gene and risk of cancer: A meta-analysis of 28,956 cases and 28,372 controls. Fam Cancer. 2014;13:515–26. doi: 10.1007/s10689-014-9729-0. doi: 10.1007/s10689-014-9729-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Keum N, Giovannucci E. Association between obesity and postmenopausal breast cancer risk: Modification by hormone therapy use. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:1170–1. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.3299. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.3299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Fasanelli F, Baglietto L, Ponzi E, Guida F, Campanella G, Johansson M, et al. Hypomethylation of smoking-related genes is associated with future lung cancer in four prospective cohorts. Nat Commun. 2015;6:10192. doi: 10.1038/ncomms10192. doi: 10.1038/ncomms. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Canchola AJ, Lacey JV, Jr, Bernstein L, Horn-Ross PL. Dietary patterns and endometrial cancer risk in the California teachers study cohort. Cancer Causes Control. 2015;26:627–34. doi: 10.1007/s10552-015-0552-1. doi: 10.1007/s10552-015-0552-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ekenga CC, Parks CG, Sandler DP. A prospective study of occupational physical activity and breast cancer risk. Cancer Causes Control. 2015;26:1779–89. doi: 10.1007/s10552-015-0671-8. doi: 10.1007/s10552-015-0671-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Palmer JR, Viscidi E, Troester MA, Hong CC, Schedin P, Bethea TN, et al. Parity, lactation, and breast cancer subtypes in African American women: Results from the AMBER consortium. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106 doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju237. pii: dju237. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bode AM, Dong Z. The two faces of capsaicin. Cancer Res. 2011;71:2809–14. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-3756. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-3756. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.López-Carrillo L, Camargo MC, Schneider BG, Sicinschi LA, Hernández-Ramírez RU, Correa P, et al. Capsaicin consumption, helicobacter pylori CagA status and IL1B-31C>T genotypes: A host and environment interaction in gastric cancer. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012;50:2118–22. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2012.02.043. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2012.02.043. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Pabalan N, Jarjanazi H, Ozcelik H. The impact of capsaicin intake on risk of developing gastric cancers: A meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Cancer. 2014;45:334–41. doi: 10.1007/s12029-014-9610-2. doi: 10.1007/s12029-014-9610-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.López-Carrillo L, Hernández Avila M, Dubrow R. Chili pepper consumption and gastric cancer in Mexico: A case-control study. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;139:263–71. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116993. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116993. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mathew A, Gangadharan P, Varghese C, Nair MK. Diet and stomach cancer: A case-control study in South India. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2000;9:89–97. doi: 10.1097/00008469-200004000-00004. doi: 10.1097/00008469-200004000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Surh YJ, Lee SS. Capsaicin, a double-edged sword: Toxicity, metabolism, and chemopreventive potential. Life Sci. 1995;56:1845–55. doi: 10.1016/0024-3205(95)00159-4. doi: 10.1016/0024-3205(95)00159-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Buiatti E, Palli D, Decarli A, Amadori D, Avellini C, Bianchi S, et al. Acase-control study of gastric cancer and diet in Italy. Int J Cancer. 1989;44:611–6. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910440409. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910440409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hoch-Ligeti C. Production of liver tumours by dietary means; effect of feeding chilies [Capsicum frutescens and annuum (Linn.)] to rats. Acta Unio Int Contra Cancrum. 1951;7:606–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Akagi A, Sano N, Uehara H, Minami T, Otsuka H, Izumi K, et al. Non-carcinogenicity of capsaicinoids in B6C3F1 mice. Food Chem Toxicol. 1998;36:1065–71. doi: 10.1016/s0278-6915(98)00077-5. doi: 10.1016/s0278-6915(98)00077-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lee BM, Park KK. Beneficial and adverse effects of chemopreventive agents. Mutat Res. 2003;523-524:265–78. doi: 10.1016/s0027-5107(02)00342-1. doi: 10.1016/s0027-5107(02)00342-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Mahfouz EM, Sadek RR, Abdel-Latief WM, Mosallem FA, Hassan EE. The role of dietary and lifestyle factors in the development of colorectal cancer: Case control study in Minia, Egypt. Cent Eur J Public Health. 2014;22:215–22. doi: 10.21101/cejph.a3919. doi: 10.21101/cejph.a3919. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wu Y, Fan Y, Jiang Y, Wang Y, Liu H, Wei M, et al. Analysis of risk factors associated with precancerous lesion of gastric cancer in patients from Eastern China: A comparative study. J Cancer Res Ther. 2013;9:205–9. doi: 10.4103/0973-1482.113351. doi: 10.4103/0973-1482.113351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.López-Carrillo L, López-Cervantes M, Robles-Díaz G, Ramírez-Espitia A, Mohar-Betancourt A, Meneses-García A, et al. Capsaicin consumption, helicobacter pylori positivity and gastric cancer in Mexico. Int J Cancer. 2003;106:277–82. doi: 10.1002/ijc.11195. doi: 10.1002/ijc.11195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Goh KL, Cheah PL, Md N, Quek KF, Parasakthi N. Ethnicity and H. pylori as risk factors for gastric cancer in Malaysia: A prospective case control study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:40–5. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00885.x. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00885.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Pandey M, Shukla VK. Diet and gallbladder cancer: A case-control study. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2002;11:365–8. doi: 10.1097/00008469-200208000-00008. doi: 10.1097/00008469-200208000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Do MH, Lee SS, Kim JY, Jung PJ, Lee MH. Fruits, vegetables, soy foods and breast cancer in pre- and postmenopausal Korean women: A case-control study. Int J Vitam Nutr Res. 2007;77:130–41. doi: 10.1024/0300-9831.77.2.130. doi: 10.1024/0300-9831.77.2.130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Shen M, Chapman RS, He X, Liu LZ, Lai H, Chen W, et al. Dietary factors, food contamination and lung cancer risk in Xuanwei, China. Lung Cancer. 2008;61:275–82. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2007.12.024. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2007.12.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ibiebele TI, Taylor AR, Whiteman DC, van der Pols JC. Australian Cancer Study. Eating habits and risk of esophageal cancers: A population-based case-control study. Cancer Causes Control. 2010;21:1475–84. doi: 10.1007/s10552-010-9576-8. doi: 10.1007/s10552-010-9576-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Joshi SC, Saxena SR, Satyawali VN, Joshi A, Nigam P, Singh VK, et al. Oesophageal carcinoma – A study of risk factors (emphasis on nutrition) in a teaching hospital of Kumaon region of Uttarakhand. J Assoc Physicians India. 2009;57:631–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Petro-Nustas W. Health-related behaviors and lifestyle factors of patients with breast cancer. Cancer Nurs. 2002;25:219–29. doi: 10.1097/00002820-200206000-00009. doi: 10.1097/00002820-200206000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Phukan RK, Chetia CK, Ali MS, Mahanta J. Role of dietary habits in the development of esophageal cancer in Assam, the north-eastern region of India. Nutr Cancer. 2001;39:204–9. doi: 10.1207/S15327914nc392_7. doi: 10.1207/S15327914nc392_7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Lee JK, Park BJ, Yoo KY, Ahn YO. Dietary factors and stomach cancer: A case-control study in Korea. Int J Epidemiol. 1995;24:33–41. doi: 10.1093/ije/24.1.33. doi: 10.1093/ije/24.1.33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Al-Qadasi FA, Shah SA, Ghazi HF. Tobacco chewing and risk of gastric cancer: A case-control study in Yemen. East Mediterr Health J. 2017;22:719–26. doi: 10.26719/2016.22.10.719. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Zhivotovskiy AS, Kutikhin AG, Azanov AZ, Yuzhalin AE, Magarill YA, Brusina EB, et al. Colorectal cancer risk factors among the population of South-East Siberia: A case-control study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13:5183–8. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2012.13.10.5183. doi: 10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.10.5183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Nakadaira H, Lang I, Szentirmay Z, Hitre E, Kaster M, Yamamoto M, et al. Acase-control study of gallbladder cancer in Hungary. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2009;10:833–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kapil U, Singh P, Bahadur S, Dwivedi SN, Singh R, Shukla N, et al. Assessment of risk factors in laryngeal cancer in India: A case-control study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2005;6:202–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Stang A. Critical evaluation of the newcastle-ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25:603–5. doi: 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z. doi: 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009;172:137–59. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2008.00552.x. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2008.00552.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–34. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50:1088–101. doi: 10.2307/2533446. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Zhang YW, Eom SY, Kim YD, Song YJ, Yun HY, Park JS, et al. Effects of dietary factors and the NAT2 acetylator status on gastric cancer in Koreans. Int J Cancer. 2009;125:139–45. doi: 10.1002/ijc.24328. doi: 10.1002/ijc.24328. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Feng BJ, Jalbout M, Ayoub WB, Khyatti M, Dahmoul S, Ayad M, et al. Dietary risk factors for nasopharyngeal carcinoma in Maghrebian countries. Int J Cancer. 2007;121:1550–5. doi: 10.1002/ijc.22813. doi: 10.1002/ijc.22813. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Wang JM, Xu B, Rao JY, Shen HB, Xue HC, Jiang QW, et al. Diet habits, alcohol drinking, tobacco smoking, green tea drinking, and the risk of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in the Chinese population. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;19:171–6. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0b013e32800ff77a. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0b013e32800ff77a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Hung HC, Huang MC, Lee JM, Wu DC, Hsu HK, Wu MT, et al. Association between diet and esophageal cancer in Taiwan. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;19:632–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2004.03346.x. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2004.03346.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Lee SA, Kang D, Shim KN, Choe JW, Hong WS, Choi H, et al. Effect of diet and helicobacter pylori infection to the risk of early gastric cancer. J Epidemiol. 2003;13:162–8. doi: 10.2188/jea.13.162. doi: 10.2188/jea.13.162. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Serra I, Yamamoto M, Calvo A, Cavada G, Báez S, Endoh K, et al. Association of chili pepper consumption, low socioeconomic status and longstanding gallstones with gallbladder cancer in a Chilean population. Int J Cancer. 2002;102:407–11. doi: 10.1002/ijc.10716. doi: 10.1002/ijc.10716. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kim HJ, Chang WK, Kim MK, Lee SS, Choi BY. Dietary factors and gastric cancer in Korea: A case-control study. Int J Cancer. 2002;97:531–5. doi: 10.1002/ijc.10111. doi: 10.1002/ijc.10111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Notani PN, Jayant K. Role of diet in upper aerodigestive tract cancers. Nutr Cancer. 1987;10:103–13. doi: 10.1080/01635588709513945. doi: 10.1080/01635588709513945. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Gajalakshmi CK, Shanta V. Lifestyle and risk of stomach cancer: A hospital-based case-control study. Int J Epidemiol. 1996;25:1146–53. doi: 10.1093/ije/25.6.1146. doi: 10.1093/ije/25.6.1146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Tajima K, Tominaga S. Dietary habits and gastro-intestinal cancers: A comparative case-control study of stomach and large intestinal cancers in Nagoya, Japan. Jpn J Cancer Res. 1985;76:705–16. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: The next generation. Cell. 2011;144:646–74. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Kastan MB, Bartek J. Cell-cycle checkpoints and cancer. Nature. 2004;432:316–23. doi: 10.1038/nature03097. doi: 10.1038/nature03097. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Chakraborty S, Adhikary A, Mazumdar M, Mukherjee S, Bhattacharjee P, Guha D, et al. Capsaicin-induced activation of p53-SMAR1 auto-regulatory loop down-regulates VEGF in non-small cell lung cancer to restrain angiogenesis. PLoS One. 2014;9:e99743. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099743. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099743. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Talmadge JE, Fidler IJ. AACR centennial series: The biology of cancer metastasis: Historical perspective. Cancer Res. 2010;70:5649–69. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-1040. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-1040. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Clark R, Lee SH. Anticancer properties of capsaicin against human cancer. Anticancer Res. 2016;36:837–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Lv J, Qi L, Yu C, Yang L, Guo Y, Chen Y, et al. Consumption of spicy foods and total and cause specific mortality: Population based cohort study. BMJ. 2015;351:h3942. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h3942. doi: 10.1136/bmj. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Chinese Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES