SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2011
Lycopene for the prevention of prostate cancer.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.
- Should We 'Eat a Rainbow'? An Umbrella Review of the Health Effects of Colorful Bioactive Pigments in Fruits and Vegetables.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Pooled it
- Increased dietary and circulating lycopene are associated with reduced prostate cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Investigating the effects of lycopene and green tea on the metabolome of men at risk of prostate cancer: The ProDiet randomised controlled trial.International journal of cancer · 2019Trial
- Plasma carotenoids and tocopherols in relation to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels among men with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer.Cancer epidemiology · 2015Trial
- Adherence to dietary and lifestyle recommendations and prostate cancer risk in the prostate testing for cancer and treatment (ProtecT) trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2014Trial
- Carotenoids and Their Interaction with the Immune System.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Nutrition and Diet in the Prevention and Management of Prostate Cancer in Mexico: A Narrative Review.Nutrients · 2025Review
- The Efficacy of Dietary Intake, Supplementation, and Blood Concentrations of Carotenoids in Cancer Prevention: Insights from an Umbrella Meta-Analysis.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Patients and general practitioner knowledge and perception of testicular self-examination for cancer.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Evaluation of physicochemical, antioxidant, antibacterial activity, and sensory properties of watermelon rind candy.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Awareness of testicular cancer among adult Polish men and their tendency for prophylactic self-examination: conclusions from Movember 2020 event.BMC urology · 2022Article
- Multifaceted Effects of Lycopene: A Boulevard to the Multitarget-Based Treatment for Cancer.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Misconduct in research integrity: Assessment the quality of systematic reviews in Cochrane urological cancer review group.Turkish journal of urology · 2021Article
- Natural Compounds in Glioblastoma Therapy: Preclinical Insights, Mechanistic Pathways, and Outlook.Cancers · 2021Review
- Review
- Association Among Dietary Supplement Use, Nutrient Intake, and Mortality Among U.S. Adults: A Cohort Study.Annals of internal medicine · 2019Article
- The Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2018Review
- Lycopersicon esculentum Extract Enhances Cognitive Function and Hippocampal Neurogenesis in Aged Mice.Nutrients · 2016Article
- Dietary phytochemicals and cancer chemoprevention: a review of the clinical evidence.Oncotarget · 2016Review
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProstate cancer is a common cause of death in developed countries, yet the benefits of screening for prostate cancer still remain controversial. A prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test result greater than 4 ng/mL (nanograms/millilitre) has commonly been used as the cut-off level for seeking further tests to diagnose the presence (or absence) of prostate cancer. An increase in PSA levels may not necessarily be associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer, as PSA levels may also be increased in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostatitis. Despite the uncertainty of the net benefit of early detection and treatment, safe and effective methods to prevent prostate cancer are of value. Consumers, seeking greater involvement in their healthcare, are increasingly turning to lifestyle modification and complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) to maintain their health and prevent disease. Lycopene is a member of the carotenoid family, which is found abundantly in tomatoes, tomato-based products, strawberries, and watermelon. It has been hypothesised that lycopene is a strong antioxidant, which may lower the risk of cancer (including prostate cancer) in people who have diets rich in lycopene.
objectivesTo determine whether lycopene reduces the incidence of prostate cancer and prostate cancer-specific mortality. Secondary objectives include changes in PSA levels, prostate symptoms and the nature of adverse events associated with lycopene use. SEARCH
methodsElectronic searches were conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases. No language or other limitations were imposed. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the use of lycopene for the prevention of prostate cancer were eligible for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A search of electronic databases, performed in August 2011, identified 64 citations. All articles were selected for full-text review. From these citations, three studies were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. Handsearching did not provide any additional studies. MAIN
resultsThree RCTs, with a total of 154 participants were included in this review. None of the studies reported data on prostate cancer mortality. All of the included studies differed with respect to design, participants included and allocation of lycopene. This clinical heterogeneity limits the value on the pooled estimated of the meta-analyses. The methodological quality of two of the three included studies was assessed as posing a 'high' risk of bias. Meta-analysis indicated no statistical difference in PSA levels between men randomised to receive lycopene and the comparison group (MD (mean difference) -0.34, 95% CI (confidence interval) -2.01, 1.32). Only one study reported incidence of prostate cancer (10% in the lycopene group versus 30% in control group). The level of lycopene was also not statistically different in men randomised to receive lycopene and the comparison group (MD 0.39 µg/mL (micrograms/millilitre), 95% CI -0.19, 0.98). No other meta-analyses were possible since other outcomes assessed only had one study contributing data. AUTHORS'
conclusionsGiven that only three RCTs were included in this systematic review, and the high risk of bias in two of the three studies, there is insufficient evidence to either support, or refute, the use of lycopene for the prevention of prostate cancer. Similarly, there is no robust evidence from RCTs to identify the impact of lycopene consumption upon the incidence of prostate cancer, prostate symptoms, PSA levels or adverse events.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.