Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26287411›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2015

Lycopene and Risk of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Ping Chen, Wenhao Zhang, Xiao Wang, Keke Zhao, Devendra Singh Negi, Li Zhuo, Mao Qi, Xinghuan Wang, Xinhua Zhang

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02886832 (A Pilot, Open-label Study to Evaluate the Effects of a Prostate Health Formulation on Scores Attained From the International Prostate Symptom Score), which is not on this map. Cited by 60 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02886832 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

A Pilot, Open-label Study to Evaluate the Effects of a Prostate Health Formulation on Scores Attained From the International Prostate Symptom Score (I-PSS) Questionnaire Among Overall Healthy Male Participants Who Report Lower Urinary Tract Complaints

TypeinterventionalSponsorSupplement Formulators, Inc.Ran2016 to 2018Enrolled30ConditionsProstate HealthArmsProstate Health formulation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 137 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Comparison ofFrontiers in urology · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.

Ping ChenFrom the Department of Urology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China (PC, WZ, XW, KZ, DSN, LZ, MQ, XW, XZ).
Wenhao Zhang
Xiao Wang
Keke Zhao
Devendra Singh Negi
Li Zhuo
Mao Qi
Xinghuan Wang
Xinhua Zhang
National Natural Science Foundation of China · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a common illness for aging males. Lycopene has been identified as an antioxidant agent with potential anticancer properties. Studies investigating the relation between lycopene and PCa risk have produced inconsistent results. This study aims to determine dietary lycopene consumption/circulating concentration and any potential dose-response associations with the risk of PCa. Eligible studies published in English up to April 10, 2014, were searched and identified from Pubmed, Sciencedirect Online, Wiley online library databases and hand searching. The STATA (version 12.0) was applied to process the dose-response meta-analysis. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and to incorporate variation between studies. The linear and nonlinear dose-response relations were evaluated with data from categories of lycopene consumption/circulating concentrations. Twenty-six studies were included with 17,517 cases of PCa reported from 563,299 participants. Although inverse association between lycopene consumption and PCa risk was not found in all studies, there was a trend that with higher lycopene intake, there was reduced incidence of PCa (P = 0.078). Removal of one Chinese study in sensitivity analysis, or recalculation using data from only high-quality studies for subgroup analysis, indicated that higher lycopene consumption significantly lowered PCa risk. Furthermore, our dose-response meta-analysis demonstrated that higher lycopene consumption was linearly associated with a reduced risk of PCa with a threshold between 9 and 21 mg/day. Consistently, higher circulating lycopene levels significantly reduced the risk of PCa. Interestingly, the concentration of circulating lycopene between 2.17 and 85 μg/dL was linearly inversed with PCa risk whereas there was no linear association >85 μg/dL. In addition, greater efficacy for the circulating lycopene concentration on preventing PCa was found for studies with high quality, follow-up >10 years and where results were adjusted by the age or the body mass index. In conclusion, our novel data demonstrates that higher lycopene consumption/circulating concentration is associated with a lower risk of PCa. However, further studies are required to determine the mechanism by which lycopene reduces the risk of PCa and if there are other factors in tomato products that might potentially decrease PCa risk and progression.

Indexed as

PhytotherapyAnticarcinogenic AgentsAntioxidantsCarotenoidsFollow-Up StudiesHumansLycopeneMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CareProstatic NeoplasmsRisk AssessmentSolanum lycopersicumAnticarcinogenic AgentsAntioxidantsCarotenoidsLycopene

Identifiers

PMID26287411
PMCPMC4616444
OpenAlexW1200081425

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.