Fish and fish oils - drop chances of metastases and dying of prostate cancer

[Admin]

Jim Marshall (not a doctor) said ...

Interested in the question of fish consumption and prostate cancer, these researchers looked for all the research, choosing only the highest quality papers. Then they looked at what they said when added together (a meta-analysis).

 

They found that total fish consumption 

did not protect against prostate cancer; 

but did drop your chances of dying of prostate cancer by 63%; probably because

43% fewer men develop metastases.

 

Note:

They only looked at total fish consumption.

They did not separate the fatty fish (which are perhaps the most helpful).

The did not look at how the fish are cooked (and we know deep fried fish, a big source of non-fish fat, are bad for your health).

 

They did say:

Although total fish consumption does not seem protective, this does not rule out a protective association with high consumption of marine fatty acids or fatty fish.

 

... end Jim

 

Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Nov;92(5):1223-33. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2010.29530. Epub 2010 Sep 15.

Fish consumption and prostate cancer risk: a review and meta-analysis.

Szymanski KM, Wheeler DC, Mucci LA.

Source

Division of Urology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada. szymanski.konrad@gmail.com

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Prostate cancer incidence varies 60-fold globally, which suggests the roles of lifestyle and dietary factors in its cause. To our knowledge, a comprehensive assessment of the association between fish consumption and prostate cancer incidence and mortality has not been reported.

OBJECTIVE:

We conducted a meta-analysis of fish intake and prostate cancer by focusing on the incidence of prostate cancer and prostate cancer-specific mortality and included subgroup analyses based on race, fish type, method of fish preparation, and high-grade and high-stage cancer.

DESIGN:

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (May 2009) for case-control and cohort studies that assessed fish intake and prostate cancer risk. Two authors independently assessed eligibility and extracted data.

RESULTS:

There was no association between fish consumption and a significant reduction in prostate cancer incidence [12 case-control studies (n = 5777 cases and 9805 control subjects), odds ratio (OR): 0.85; 95% CI: 0.72, 1.00; and 12 cohort studies (n = 445,820), relative risk (RR): 1.01; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.14]. It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis for high-grade disease (one case-control study, OR: 1.44; 95% CI: 0.58, 3.03), locally advanced disease (one cohort study, RR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.61, 1.13), or metastatic disease (one cohort study, RR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.37, 0.86). There was an association between fish consumption and a significant 63% reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality [4 cohort studies (n = 49,661), RR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.74].

CONCLUSION:

Our analyses provide no strong evidence of a protective association of fish consumption with prostate cancer incidence but showed a significant 63% reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality.

PMID: 20844069 

 

Full article free:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/92/5/1223.full.pdf

From the full article:

Based upon total fish consumption, which includes all fish - both fish with high marine fatty acids (like salmon and tuna) and those with low marine fatty acids (like cod and flounder). It also included all methods of preparation - including deep frying.

 

For prostate cancer progression, total fish intake was associated with a 44% reduction in metastatic disease.

Although our meta-analysis provided little evidence of a protective association between prostate cancer incidence and total fish consumption, it cannot rule out a protective association with high consumption of marine fatty acids or fatty fish.

 

This extract can be found on http://PubMed.com, and is in the public domain.

On PubMed.com there will be a link to the full paper (often $30, sometimes free).

 

Any highlighting (except the title) is not by the author, but by Jim Marshall.

Jim is not a doctor.