Socio-economic inequalities in the effect of public policies and the COVID-19 pandemic on exclusive breastfeeding in Chile.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the addition of 12 maternity leave (ML) weeks (2011), a pay for performance (P4P) exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) promotion strategy (2015), and the COVID-19 pandemic in EBF inequalities in Chile. STUDY DESIGN: Interrupted time-series analyses (ITSAs). METHODS: Aggregated national EBF data by municipality and month were collected from 2009 to 2020. We assess the impact of the three events in EBF inequalities using two procedures: 1. ITSA stratified by municipal SES quintiles (Q1-Q5); 2. Calculating the EBF slope index of inequality (SII). RESULTS: The EBF prevalence was higher in lower SES municipalities before and after the three time-events. No impact in EBF inequalities was observed after the extended ML. The P4P strategy increased EBF at six months in all SES quintiles (effect size between 4% and 5%), but in a higher level in poorer municipalities (SII: -0.36% and -1.05%). During COVID-19, wealthier municipalities showed a slightly higher EBF at six months prevalence (SII: 1.44%). CONCLUSION: The null impact of the extended ML in EBF inequalities could be explained by a low access to ML among affiliated to the public health system (20%). The P4P strategy includes multiple interventions that seemed effective in increasing EBF across all SES quintiles, but further in lower quintiles. The restrictions in healthcare access in poorer municipalities could explain EBF inequalities during COVID-19.

An update of the WCRF/AICR systematic literature review and meta-analysis on dietary and anthropometric factors and esophageal cancer risk.

BACKGROUND: In the 2007 World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research Second Expert Report, the expert panel judged that there was strong evidence that alcoholic drinks and body fatness increased esophageal cancer risk, whereas fruits and vegetables probably decreased its risk. The judgments were mainly based on case-control studies. As part of the Continuous Update Project, we updated the scientific evidence accumulated from cohort studies in this topic. METHODS: We updated the Continuous Update Project database up to 10 January 2017 by searching in PubMed and conducted dose-response meta-analyses to estimate summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random effects model. RESULTS: A total of 57 cohort studies were included in 13 meta-analyses. Esophageal adenocarcinoma risk was inversely related to vegetable intake (RR per 100 g/day: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.80-0.99, n = 3) and directly associated with body mass index (RR per 5 kg/m2: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.34-1.61, n = 9). For esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, inverse associations were observed with fruit intake (RR for 100 g/day increment: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.75-0.94, n = 3) and body mass index (RR for 5 kg/m2 increment: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.56-0.73, n = 8), and direct associations with intakes of processed meats (RR for 50 g/day increment: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.11-2.28, n = 3), processed and red meats (RR for 100 g/day increment: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.04-1.82, n = 3) and alcohol (RR for 10 g/day increment: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.12-1.41, n = 6). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from cohort studies suggested a protective role of vegetables and body weight control in esophageal adenocarcinomas development. For squamous cell carcinomas, higher intakes of red and processed meats and alcohol may increase the risk, whereas fruits intake may play a protective role.

Fruits, vegetables and lung cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death. Fruits and vegetables containing carotenoids and other antioxidants have been hypothesized to decrease lung cancer risk. As part of the World Cancer Research Fund International Continuous Update Project, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. METHODS: We searched PubMed and several databases up to December 2014 for prospective studies. We conducted meta-analyses comparing the highest and lowest intakes and dose-response meta-analyses to estimate summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and examine possible non-linear associations. We combined results from the Pooling Project with the studies we identified to increase the statistical power of our analysis. RESULTS: When comparing the highest with the lowest intakes, the summary RR estimates were 0.86 [95% CI 0.78-0.94; n (studies) = 18] for fruits and vegetables, 0.92 (95% CI 0.87-0.97; n = 25) for vegetables and 0.82 (95% CI 0.76-0.89; n = 29) for fruits. The association with fruit and vegetable intake was marginally significant in current smokers and inverse but not significant in former or never smokers. Significant inverse dose-response associations were observed for each 100 g/day increase: for fruits and vegetables [RR: 0.96; 95% CI 0.94-0.98, I(2) = 64%, n = 14, N (cases) = 9609], vegetables (RR: 0.94; 95% CI 0.89-0.98, I(2) = 48%, n = 20, N = 12 563) and fruits (RR: 0.92; 95% CI 0.89-0.95, I(2) = 57%, n = 23, N = 14 506). Our results were consistent among the different types of fruits and vegetables. The strength of the association differed across locations. There was evidence of a non-linear relationship (P < 0.01) between fruit and vegetable intake and lung cancer risk showing that no further benefit is obtained when increasing consumption above ∼400 g per day. CONCLUSIONS: Eliminating tobacco smoking is the best strategy to prevent lung cancer. Although residual confounding by smoking cannot be ruled out, the current evidence from prospective studies is consistent with a protective role of fruit and vegetables in lung cancer aetiology.

Anthropometric factors and endometrial cancer risk: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies.

BACKGROUND: Greater body mass index (BMI) has been convincingly related to increased endometrial cancer risk, however, whether adiposity earlier in life or abdominal fatness is an independent risk factor and whether weight gain or greater height increases the risk is not clear. METHODS: As part of the Continuous Update Project of the World Cancer Research Fund International, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies of the association between anthropometric measures and endometrial cancer risk and searched PubMed and several other databases up to February 2015. Summary relative risks (RRs) were calculated using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Thirty prospective studies of BMI and endometrial cancer risk with 22 320 cases among 6 445 402 participants were included. The summary RR for a 5-unit increment was 1.54 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.47-1.61, I(2) = 81%]. Although the test for non-linearity was significant, Pnon-linearity < 0.0001, and the curve was steeper within the overweight and obese BMI ranges, there was evidence of increased risk even within the high normal BMI range. The summary RR was 1.45 (95% CI 1.28-1.64, I(2) = 76%) per 5 BMI units for BMI in young adulthood, 1.18 (95% CI 1.14-1.23, I(2) = 67%) per 5 kg increase of weight, and 1.16 (95% CI 1.12-1.20, I(2) = 51%) per 5 kg of weight gained between young adulthood and study baseline, 1.27 (95% CI 1.17-1.39, I(2) = 71%) per 10 cm increase in waist circumference, 1.21 (95% CI 1.13-1.29, I(2) = 0%) per 0.1-unit increment in waist-to-hip ratio and 1.30 (95% CI 1.19-1.41, I(2) = 0%) per 10-cm increase in hips circumference. The summary RR was 1.15 (95% CI 1.09-1.22, I(2) = 61%) for a 10-cm increase in height. CONCLUSIONS: All measures of adiposity were associated with increased risk of endometrial cancer, and in addition increasing height was associated with increased risk.

Body mass index and survival in women with breast cancer-systematic literature review and meta-analysis of 82 follow-up studies.

BACKGROUND: Positive association between obesity and survival after breast cancer was demonstrated in previous meta-analyses of published data, but only the results for the comparison of obese versus non-obese was summarised. METHODS: We systematically searched in MEDLINE and EMBASE for follow-up studies of breast cancer survivors with body mass index (BMI) before and after diagnosis, and total and cause-specific mortality until June 2013, as part of the World Cancer Research Fund Continuous Update Project. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to explore the magnitude and the shape of the associations. RESULTS: Eighty-two studies, including 213 075 breast cancer survivors with 41 477 deaths (23 182 from breast cancer) were identified. For BMI before diagnosis, compared with normal weight women, the summary relative risks (RRs) of total mortality were 1.41 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29-1.53] for obese (BMI >30.0), 1.07 (95 CI 1.02-1.12) for overweight (BMI 25.0-<30.0) and 1.10 (95% CI 0.92-1.31) for underweight (BMI <18.5) women. For obese women, the summary RRs were 1.75 (95% CI 1.26-2.41) for pre-menopausal and 1.34 (95% CI 1.18-1.53) for post-menopausal breast cancer. For each 5 kg/m(2) increment of BMI before, <12 months after, and ≥12 months after diagnosis, increased risks of 17%, 11%, and 8% for total mortality, and 18%, 14%, and 29% for breast cancer mortality were observed, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Obesity is associated with poorer overall and breast cancer survival in pre- and post-menopausal breast cancer, regardless of when BMI is ascertained. Being overweight is also related to a higher risk of mortality. Randomised clinical trials are needed to test interventions for weight loss and maintenance on survival in women with breast cancer.

Dietary fructose, carbohydrates, glycemic indices and pancreatic cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: Dietary carbohydrates, glycemic load and glycemic index have been hypothesized to influence pancreatic cancer risk, but epidemiological studies have been inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies to clarify these results. METHODS: PubMed and several other databases were searched for prospective studies of intake of carbohydrates, glycemic index and glycemic load and pancreatic cancer up to September 2011. Summary relative risks were estimated using a random effects model. RESULTS: Ten cohort studies (13 publications) were included in the meta-analysis. The summary relative risk (RR) per 10 glycemic index units was 1.02 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93-1.12, I(2) = 0%], per 50 glycemic load units was 1.03 (95% CI: 0.93-1.14, I(2) = 10%), per 100 g/day of total carbohydrates was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.81-1.16, I(2) = 35%), and per 25 g/day of sucrose intake was 1.05 (95% CI: 0.85-1.23, I(2) = 53%). A positive association was observed with fructose intake, summary RR = 1.22 (95% CI: 1.08-1.37, I(2) = 0%) per 25 g/day. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis does not support an association between diets high in glycemic index, glycemic load, total carbohydrates or sucrose and pancreatic cancer risk. The finding of an increased risk with fructose intake warrants further investigation in studies with better adjustment for confounding and in non-American populations.

Body mass index, abdominal fatness and pancreatic cancer risk: a systematic review and non-linear dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies.

BACKGROUND: Questions remain about the shape of the dose-response relationship between body mass index (BMI) and pancreatic cancer risk, possible confounding by smoking, and differences by gender or geographic location. Whether abdominal obesity increases risk is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies of the association between BMI, abdominal fatness and pancreatic cancer risk and searched PubMed and several other databases up to January 2011. Summary relative risks (RRs) were calculated using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Twenty-three prospective studies of BMI and pancreatic cancer risk with 9504 cases were included. The summary RR for a 5-unit increment was 1.10 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.14, I(2) = 19%] and results were similar when stratified by gender and geographic location. There was evidence of a non-linear association, P(non-linearity) = 0.005; however, among nonsmokers, there was increased risk even within the 'normal' BMI range. The summary RR for a 10-cm increase in waist circumference was 1.11 (95% CI 1.05-1.18, I(2) = 0%) and for a 0.1-unit increment in waist-to-hip ratio was 1.19 (95% CI 1.09-1.31, I(2) = 11%). CONCLUSIONS: Both general and abdominal fatness increases pancreatic cancer risk. Among nonsmokers, risk increases even among persons within the normal BMI range.