Consumption of total fish and total cancer.

Total cancer risk: Data about total fish consumption and total cancer risk was provided by 14 cohorts, including 62,967 cases. A significant protective effect was found among men in one cohort of very large size (Hirayama T [3]), and a significantly increased risk was found among men in one cohort of small size, but no adjustments were made for any possible confounders (Ikeda M [1]). The average RR could be calculated from 12 cohorts: RR = 0.94. Excluding the debatable results from Hirayama T [3] eliminated any effect: RR = 1.00.
Advanced stage/metastatic disease risk or disease progression: No data was found.
Total cancer mortality: Data about total fish consumption and total cancer mortality was provided by 12 cohorts, including 24,543 cases. Significant effects were identical to the ones for the analysis of cancer risk. The average RR could be calculated from 10 cohorts: RR = 0.83. Again, excluding the debatable results from Hirayama T [3] eliminated any effect: RR = 1.00.

Inclusion of intermediate levels of consumption.
(Non)significant effects at any level of consumption were as follows:

  • Hirayama T [3]: Significant protective for men at any level of consumption, and for women at consumption 1-3 times/wk. Nonsignificant for women at other levels of consumption.
  • Gillum RF [7]: Significant protective for white man at consumption once/week.

Effect modification: No effect modification was found by omega-6 fay intake (Virtanen JK [14]), BMI, or income (Tomasallo C [16]).
Subjects with prevalant disease: No data was found.

Conclusion: Very few effects were found at any level of consumption, and the average RR's showed zero effect. No evidence was found for an association between fish consumption and total cancer risk, or total cancer mortality.

Prospective studies of total fish and total cancer risk:
AuthorCohort nameCasesEnd pointRelative Risk (RR)
16) Tomasallo C (2010)No cohort name defined77 captains, and

44 referents
MortalityCaptains: HR = 1.02 (0.52-1.02).

Women: HR = 0.73 (0.34-1.60).
14) Virtanen JK (2008)The Health Professionals Follow-up Study4,690RiskRR = 0.96 (0.82-1.14; P = 0.99)
13) Couto E (2011)The EPIC Study30,731RiskHR = 1.01 (0.99-1.02)
11) Iso H (2007)The JACC Study3,677 men, and

2,125 women
MortalityMen: HR = 1.01 (0.93-1.10).

Women: HR = 0.97 (0.86-1.09).
10) Khan MM (2004)No cohort name defined155 men, and

89 women
MortalityMen: RR = 1.0*

Women: RR = 1.47*
9) Kelemen LE (2005)The Iowa Women's Health Study4,843RiskRR = 0.98 (0.88-1.09; P = 0.74)
8) Nagata C (2002)The Takayama Study400 men, and

253 women
MortalityMen: HR = 0.89 (0.66-1.20; P = 0.52).

Women: HR = 0.70 (0.47-1.05; P = 0.15)
7) Gillum RF (2000)The NHANES I Study705
(no amount of cases defined for the subcohorts)
Mortalitywhite men: RR = 0.66 (0.43-1.03).

Black men: RR = 2.04 (0.56-7.44).

White women: RR = 0.78 (0.46-1.31).

Black women: RR = 1.73 (0.49-6.18)
6) Whiteman D (1999)The OXCHECK Study214MortalityRR = 1.04 (0.59-1.82)
5) Kromhout D (1995)No cohort name defined67MortalityRR = 1.30 (0.77-2.20)
4) Dolecek TA (1992)The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial132MortalityRR = 0.97 (P = NS)
3) Hirayama T (1990)No cohort name defined8,794 men, and

5,946 women)
MortalityMen: RR = 1.53 (1.25-1.87) for the lowest vs highest quartile of consumption.

Women: RR = 1.22 (1.00-1.49) for the lowest vs highest quartile of consumption.
2) Shekelle RB (1985)The Western Electric Study190MortalityNo significant association (P = 0.32)
1) Ikeda M (1983)The Adult Health Study488MortalityRR = 1.33 (P = < 0.05)
Total number of cases: 62,967Average RR = 0.94
Excluding data from Hirayama T [3]:Total number of cases: 48,227Average RR = 1.00
* = RR's were provided for 3 different types of fish consumption (raw, boiled, and baked). The average effect from these types of fish was included.


Prospective studies of total fish and total cancer mortality:
AuthorCohort nameCasesRelative Risk (RR)
16) Tomasallo C (2010)No cohort name defined77 captains, and

44 referents
Captains: HR = 1.02 (0.52-1.02).

Women: HR = 0.73 (0.34-1.60).
11) Iso H (2007)The JACC Study3,677 men, and

2,125 women
Men: HR = 1.01 (0.93-1.10).

Women: HR = 0.97 (0.86-1.09).
10) Khan MM (2004)No cohort name defined155 men, and

89 women
Men: RR = 1.0*

Women: RR = 1.47*
9) Folsom AR (2004)The Iowa Women's Health Study1,840RR = 0.91 (0.75-1.11; P = 0.61)
8) Nagata C (2002)The Takayama Study400 men, and

253 women
Men: HR = 0.89 (0.66-1.20; P = 0.52).

Women: HR = 0.70 (0.47-1.05; P = 0.15)
7) Gillum RF (2000)The NHANES I Study705
(no amount of cases defined for the subcohorts)
white men: RR = 0.66 (0.43-1.03).

Black men: RR = 2.04 (0.56-7.44).

White women: RR = 0.78 (0.46-1.31).

Black women: RR = 1.73 (0.49-6.18)
6) Whiteman D (1999)The OXCHECK Study214RR = 1.04 (0.59-1.82)
5) Kromhout D (1995)No cohort name defined67RR = 1.30 (0.77-2.20)
4) Dolecek TA (1992)The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial132RR = 0.97 (P = NS)
3) Hirayama T (1990)No cohort name defined8,794 men, and

5,946 women)
Men: RR = 1.53 (1.25-1.87) for the lowest vs highest quartile of consumption.

Women: RR = 1.22 (1.00-1.49) for the lowest vs highest quartile of consumption.
2) Shekelle RB (1985)The Western Electric Study190No significant association (P = 0.32)
1) Ikeda M (1983)The Adult Health Study488RR = 1.33 (P = < 0.05)
Total number of cases: 24.543Average RR = 0.83
Excluding data from Hirayama T [3]:Total number of cases: 9,803Average RR = 1.00
* = RR's were provided for 3 different types of fish consumption (raw, boiled, and baked). The average effect from these types of fish was included.