ReviewCancers2024
Long-Term Randomized Controlled Trials of Diet Intervention Reports and Their Impact on Cancer: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Letter to the editor on: "Adherence to the low-fat diet pattern reduces the risk of lung cancer in American adults aged 55 years and above: a prospective cohort study".The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the impact of diet on cancer have been short term (<1 year), mostly evaluating breast cancer survivors. Given the many-year interval that is generally required for an intervention to have an impact on cancer risk or prognosis, as well as the fact that lifestyle strategies such as diet modification frequently fail due to lack of adherence over the long term, we focused this systematic review only on longer-term (≥1 year) intervention reports. Diet intervention reports focused on reducing cancer risk in overweight and obese individuals target caloric restriction (every day, some days, or most hours of each day).
methodsThis study is a systematic review of RCTs lasting at least 1 year, testing dietary interventions with a primary or secondary endpoint of cancer or a biomarker linked to cancer.
resultsFifty-one reports met our review criteria. Twenty of fifty-one (39%) reports are RCTs where the primary endpoint was cancer or a cancer-related biomarker, while the other reports evaluated reports where cancer or a cancer-related biomarker was a secondary endpoint. Thirteen of twenty (65%) primary reports evaluated isocaloric, and the remaining eight evaluated low-calorie diets. All but one of the primary and two secondary isocaloric diet reports evaluated the benefit of a low-fat diet (LFD), with the other three evaluating a Mediterranean diet (MedD). More LCD vs. isocaloric diet primary reports (71% vs. 38%) demonstrated cancer or cancer-related biomarker benefit; the difference in chance of benefit with secondary reports was 85% for LCD vs. 73% for isocaloric diets. Three of three MedD reports demonstrated benefit. Sixty-nine percent (20/29) of the secondary reports came from two large reports: the WHI diet modification trial (15 secondary reports) and the polyp prevention trial (5 secondary reports). Nineteen of twenty-two (86%) primary reports enrolled only women, and three enrolled both men and women. No study that met our criteria enrolled only men, comprising 1447 men in total vs. 62,054 women. Fifteen of twenty (75%) primary reports focus on healthy women or women with breast cancer. Adherence findings are discussed when provided.
conclusionsMore long-term RCTs evaluating cancer and cancer-related biomarker endpoints are needed, especially for cancers at sites other than the breast.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.