Diet and Esophageal Cancer Risk: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies

Diet may play an important role in the occurrence of esophageal cancer (EC). The aim of this umbrella review was to grade the evidence for the association between dietary factors and EC risk. A protocol for this review was registered with the PROSPERO database (CRD42021283232). Publications were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and CINAHL databases. Only systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies (cohort studies, case-cohort studies, nested case-control studies) were eligible. AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) was used to assess the methodological quality of included systematic reviews. For each association, random-effects pooled effect size, 95% CI, number of cases, 95% prediction interval, heterogeneity, small-study effect, and excess significance bias were calculated to grade the evidence. From 882 publications, 107 full-text articles were evaluated for eligibility, and 20 systematic reviews and meta-analyses describing 32 associations between dietary factors and EC risk were included in the present umbrella review. By assessing the strength and validity of the evidence, 1 association (positively associated with alcohol intake) was supported by highly suggestive evidence and 1 (inversely associated with calcium intake) showed a suggestive level of evidence. Evidence for 7 associations was weak (positively associated with red meat and processed-meat intake; inversely associated with whole grains, fruits, green leafy vegetables, green tea, and zinc intake). The remaining 23 associations were nonsignificant. In conclusion, the findings of this umbrella review emphasize that habitually consuming calcium, whole grains, fruits, green leafy vegetables, green tea, and zinc and reducing alcohol, red meat, and processed-meat intake are associated with a lower risk of EC. Since this umbrella review included only observational study data and some of the associations were graded as weak, caution should be exercised in interpreting these relations.