biostudies-literatureLiu ZYNational Natural Science Foundation of Chinae23https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC6424848biostudies-literatureUnknown30(3)<h4>Objective</h4>There has been growing body of literatures showing that chronic inflammation might play an important role in cancer development. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the association between the dietary inflammation index (DII) score and gynecological cancers.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science up until October 20, 2018 was carried out to retrieve all related cohort and case-control studies. The summary risk assessments were pooled using random-effects models. The dose-response relationship was estimated by linear relationship model.<h4>Results</h4>Twelve case-control studies (10,774 cases/15,958 controls) and six prospective cohort studies (330,363 participants/23,133 incident cases) were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled adjusted relative risk (RR) of gynecological cancers for the highest DII category compared to the lowest category was 1.38, (95% confidence intervals [CIs], 1.21-1.56, p<0.001]. A positive dose-response relationship was also noticed. Stratified by study design indicated that, the pooled RRs was significantly higher for case-control studies than cohort studies (p for interaction<0.001), for studies conducted among participants with body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m² than participants with BMI <25 kg/m² (p for interaction=0.026), among participants with ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer than participants with breast cancer (p for interaction = 0.038). Meta-regression analysis further confirmed that study design significantly contributed to inter-study heterogeneity (p<0.001).<h4>Conclusion</h4>This meta-analysis suggests that elevated DII is independently associated with a higher risk of gynecological cancers, especially patients with ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer and among obese participants.Journal of gynecologic oncologyDietary inflammatory index and risk of gynecological cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.PMC642484881602853Gao XPLiu ZYLiu YHWang LJJing CXZeng FFZhu SfalseDietary inflammatory index and risk of gynecological cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.<h4>Objective</h4>There has been growing body of literatures showing that chronic inflammation might play an important role in cancer development. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the association between the dietary inflammation index (DII) score and gynecological cancers.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science up until October 20, 2018 was carried out to retrieve all related cohort and case-control studies. The summary risk assessments were pooled using random-effects models. The dose-response relationship was estimated by linear relationship model.<h4>Results</h4>Twelve case-control studies (10,774 cases/15,958 controls) and six prospective cohort studies (330,363 participants/23,133 incident cases) were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled adjusted relative risk (RR) of gynecological cancers for the highest DII category compared to the lowest category was 1.38, (95% confidence intervals [CIs], 1.21-1.56, p<0.001]. A positive dose-response relationship was also noticed. Stratified by study design indicated that, the pooled RRs was significantly higher for case-control studies than cohort studies (p for interaction<0.001), for studies conducted among participants with body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m² than participants with BMI <25 kg/m² (p for interaction=0.026), among participants with ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer than participants with breast cancer (p for interaction = 0.038). Meta-regression analysis further confirmed that study design significantly contributed to inter-study heterogeneity (p<0.001).<h4>Conclusion</h4>This meta-analysis suggests that elevated DII is independently associated with a higher risk of gynecological cancers, especially patients with ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer and among obese participants.2019-01-01T00:00:00Z2019 May2025-04-04T11:08:47.303Z2019-06-06T22:54:18ZS-EPMC64248483088775210.3802/jgo.2019.30.e23