Table 4.
Association between gastric adenocarcinoma incidence and total, white, red, and processed meat consumption by tumor subsite (cardia, non-cardia) and morphology (intestinal, diffuse).
| Tumor Subsite | Tumor Morphology | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Controls n = 2821 |
Cardia n = 65 |
Non-Cardia n = 199 |
Intestinal n = 106 |
Diffuse n = 66 |
||||||||||||||||
| Sv/Week a | n | n | RRR b | LL b | UL b | n | RRR b | LL b | UL b | p-Het b | n | RRR b | LL b | UL b | n | RRR b | LL b | UL b | p-Het b | |
| Weekly Intake | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Meat c | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Q1 d | <3.0 | 707 | 9 | 1 | 28 | 1 | 0.444 | 12 | 1 | 11 | 1 | 0.119 | ||||||||
| Q2 d | 3.0–4.3 | 700 | 8 | 0.66 | 0.24 | 1.77 | 45 | 1.49 | 0.90 | 2.46 | 22 | 1.74 | 0.83 | 3.66 | 17 | 1.36 | 0.62 | 2.99 | ||
| Q3 d | 4.3–5.9 | 716 | 20 | 1.20 | 0.52 | 2.78 | 54 | 1.70 | 1.04 | 2.80 | 33 | 2.80 | 1.37 | 5.70 | 13 | 0.92 | 0.39 | 2.13 | ||
| Q4 d | ≥5.9 | 698 | 28 | 1.04 | 0.43 | 2.48 | 72 | 1.95 | 1.16 | 3.27 | 39 | 3.23 | 1.53 | 6.84 | 25 | 1.29 | 0.56 | 2.95 | ||
| p-trend | 0.576 | 0.013 | 0.001 | 0.773 | ||||||||||||||||
| 1 serving/week increase | 1.08 | 0.98 | 1.19 | 1.11 | 1.04 | 1.18 | 0.651 | 1.17 | 1.08 | 1.28 | 0.99 | 0.89 | 1.10 | 0.011 | ||||||
| White Meat e | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Q1 d | <0.7 | 709 | 10 | 1 | 38 | 1 | 0.578 | 22 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 0.057 | ||||||||
| Q2 d | 0.7–1.1 | 716 | 12 | 1.41 | 0.58 | 3.41 | 49 | 1.19 | 0.75 | 1.88 | 28 | 1.08 | 0.58 | 2.02 | 23 | 3.06 | 1.26 | 7.41 | ||
| Q3 d | 1.1–1.5 | 698 | 23 | 1.38 | 0.63 | 3.04 | 46 | 0.89 | 0.56 | 1.42 | 23 | 0.55 | 0.29 | 1.05 | 19 | 2.55 | 1.02 | 6.37 | ||
| Q4 d | ≥1.5 | 698 | 20 | 1.32 | 0.59 | 2.98 | 66 | 1.39 | 0.89 | 2.16 | 33 | 0.89 | 0.48 | 1.65 | 17 | 2.34 | 0.93 | 5.91 | ||
| p-trend | 0.592 | 0.262 | 0.424 | 0.212 | ||||||||||||||||
| 1 serving/week increase | 1.03 | 0.81 | 1.31 | 1.14 | 0.99 | 1.32 | 0.438 | 1.05 | 0.84 | 1.32 | 1.13 | 0.93 | 1.38 | 0.626 | ||||||
| Red Meat e | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Q1 d | <1.1 | 710 | 6 | 1 | 32 | 1.00 | 0.908 | 10 | 1 | 16 | 1 | <0.001 | ||||||||
| Q2 d | 1.1–1.8 | 700 | 14 | 1.89 | 0.70 | 5.08 | 43 | 1.29 | 0.79 | 2.11 | 26 | 2.77 | 1.28 | 6.00 | 12 | 0.60 | 0.27 | 1.32 | ||
| Q3 d | 1.8–2.9 | 699 | 18 | 2.02 | 0.76 | 5.35 | 57 | 1.72 | 1.06 | 2.78 | 28 | 3.62 | 1.66 | 7.90 | 22 | 0.91 | 0.45 | 1.85 | ||
| Q4 d | ≥2.9 | 712 | 27 | 2.05 | 0.78 | 5.37 | 67 | 1.69 | 1.04 | 2.76 | 42 | 5.60 | 2.58 | 12.13 | 16 | 0.54 | 0.25 | 1.19 | ||
| p-trend | 0.223 | 0.023 | <0.001 | 0.310 | ||||||||||||||||
| 1 serving/week increase | 1.11 | 0.97 | 1.26 | 1.10 | 1.00 | 1.20 | 0.938 | 1.26 | 1.12 | 1.42 | 0.89 | 0.74 | 1.07 | 0.002 | ||||||
| Processed Meat e | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Q1 d | <1.4 | 700 | 8 | 1 | 32 | 1.00 | 0.767 | 21 | 1 | 10 | 1 | 0.805 | ||||||||
| Q2 d | 1.4–2.6 | 706 | 14 | 1.50 | 0.61 | 3.72 | 45 | 1.34 | 0.82 | 2.17 | 22 | 0.89 | 0.47 | 1.72 | 13 | 1.14 | 0.48 | 2.67 | ||
| Q3 d | 2.6–4.3 | 718 | 16 | 1.23 | 0.50 | 3.02 | 49 | 1.35 | 0.83 | 2.19 | 26 | 0.96 | 0.51 | 1.81 | 18 | 1.58 | 0.70 | 3.55 | ||
| Q4 d | ≥4.3 | 697 | 27 | 1.29 | 0.53 | 3.16 | 73 | 1.79 | 1.10 | 2.92 | 37 | 1.21 | 0.63 | 2.31 | 25 | 1.78 | 0.77 | 4.09 | ||
| p-trend | 0.751 | 0.029 | 0.539 | 0.078 | ||||||||||||||||
| 1 serving/week increase | 1.03 | 0.95 | 1.11 | 1.05 | 1.00 | 1.10 | 0.605 | 1.05 | 0.99 | 1.12 | 1.02 | 0.96 | 1.10 | 0.589 | ||||||
a One serving (sv) of total, white, and red meat was a portion of 125 g. One serving of processed meat was a portion of 50 g. b RRR: relative risk ratio; LL: Lower limit of the 95% confidence interval; UL: Upper limit of the 95% confidence interval; p-het: p value for the heterogeneity of effects among subtypes. c For total meat, multinomial logistic regression models are adjusted by sex, age, education, family history of stomach cancer, physical activity (METs), smoking, BMI and energy, alcohol, fruits, salty fish and olives intake and province of residence. d Quartiles calculated among controls. e For white, red and processed meat, multinomial logistic regression models are adjusted by sex, age, education, family history of stomach cancer, physical activity (METs), smoking, BMI, energy, alcohol, fruits, salty fish and olives intake, the consumption of other types of meat and province of residence.