Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31170936›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2019

Iron intake, body iron status, and risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Vicky C Chang, Michelle Cotterchio, Edwin Khoo

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

69 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 107 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Heavy metals in biological samples of cancer patients: a systematic literature review.Biometals : an international journal on the role of metal ions in biology, biochemistry, and medicine · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Organelle contact sites in cancer cells.Cell death & disease · 2026
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Iron and Cancer.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025
    Review
  20. Review

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Vicky C ChangDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 6th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M7, Canada. vickycd.chang@mail.utoronto.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2528-9387
Michelle CotterchioDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 6th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M7, Canada.
Edwin KhooAnalytics and Informatics, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada.
University of Toronto · CACancer Care Ontario · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research 146236
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIron has been shown to promote breast carcinogenesis in animal models through generation of oxidative stress and interaction with estrogen. Heme iron, which is found exclusively in animal-sourced foods, is suggested to have a more detrimental effect. Epidemiological evidence of the association between iron and breast cancer risk remains inconclusive and has not been comprehensively summarized. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated associations between both iron intake and body iron status and breast cancer risk.

methodsFour electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Scopus) were searched up to December 2018 for studies assessing iron intake and/or biomarkers of iron status in relation to breast cancer risk. Using random-effects meta-analyses, pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated comparing the highest vs. lowest category of each iron measure. Dose-response meta-analyses were also performed to investigate linear and nonlinear associations.

resultsA total of 27 studies were included in the review, of which 23 were eligible for meta-analysis of one or more iron intake/status measures. Comparing the highest vs. lowest category, heme iron intake was significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk, with a pooled RR of 1.12 (95% CI: 1.04-1.22), whereas no associations were found for dietary (1.01, 95% CI: 0.89-1.15), supplemental (1.02, 95% CI: 0.91-1.13), or total (0.97, 95% CI: 0.82-1.14) iron intake. Associations of iron status indicators with breast cancer risk were generally in the positive direction; however, a significant pooled RR was found only for serum/plasma levels (highest vs. lowest) of iron (1.22, 95% CI: 1.01-1.47), but not for ferritin (1.13, 95% CI: 0.78-1.62), transferrin saturation (1.16, 95% CI: 0.91-1.47), or total iron-binding capacity (1.10, 95% CI: 0.97-1.25). In addition, a nonlinear dose-response was observed for heme iron intake and serum iron (both P

conclusionsHeme iron intake and serum iron levels may be positively associated with breast cancer risk. Although associations were modest, these findings may have public health implications given the widespread consumption of (heme) iron-rich foods. In light of methodological and research gaps identified, further research is warranted to better elucidate the relationship between iron and breast cancer risk.

Indexed as

Iron, DietaryAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsCarcinogenesisFemaleFerritinsHemeHumansIronMeatMiddle AgedNutritional StatusPostmenopauseFerritinsHemeIronIron, DietaryTransferrinBreast cancerDose-responseFerritinHeme ironIron intakeIron statusMeta-analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31170936
PMCPMC6555759
OpenAlexW2950318170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.