Association of pickled food consumption with non-digestive system cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Objectives

Several studies have demonstrated a significant association between the consumption of pickled foods and an increased risk of gastrointestinal cancer. However, the relationship between pickled food intake and non-digestive system cancers (NDSCs) remains uncertain. This meta-analysis aims to systematically review and analyse the risk of NDSCs associated with the consumption of pickled foods.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Web of Science databases were comprehensively searched from inception to July 2024.

Eligibility criteria

Observational studies with a focus on the association between pickled food consumption and the development of NDSCs in children and adults were included.

Data extraction and synthesis

A random-effects model was used for meta-analyses to calculate the pooled risk of NDSCs, including lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, kidney cancer, bladder cancer, brain cancer, cervical cancer, thyroid cancer and lymphoma. Meta-sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were conducted to explore potential sources of heterogeneity.

Results

A total of 51 studies, encompassing 2 518 507 individuals, met the eligibility criteria. The results of our study suggested a notable correlation between elevated intake of pickled food and heightened susceptibility to breast cancer (OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.39, I²=85.1%, p<0.01), prostate cancer (OR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.18 to 1.60, I²=75.9%, p<0.01), lymphoma (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.25, I²=55.8%, p=0.05), bladder cancer (OR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.23 to 2.07, I²=85.1%, p<0.01) and kidney cancer (OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.45, I²=0%, p=0.56), when compared with individuals who either refrain from or have lower consumption of pickled food. However, no statistically significant association was found between pickled food intake and the risk of lung cancer, brain cancer, thyroid cancer, cervical cancer and leukaemia.

Conclusions

This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated an association between pickled food consumption and an increased risk of breast cancer, prostate cancer, lymphoma, bladder cancer and kidney cancer. Nevertheless, the certainty of the evidence was rated as very low. Future research should explore potential biological mechanisms and investigate diverse populations.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42023434186.

Correspondence to Dr Fumin Li; [email protected]

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

• This meta-analysis includes a substantial sample size and was adjusted for numerous important dietary and lifestyle factors, investigating the risk of non-digestive system cancers associated with pickled food consumption.

• The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used in this study, providing a rigorous evaluation of evidence quality, enhancing the credibility and robustness of the findings and establishing a clear framework for future research initiatives.

• The meta-analysis has not explored potential dose-dependent associations due to non-uniform or unreported specific dose data across studies.

Introduction

The global burden of cancer presents a formidable public health challenge, ranking as the second leading cause of death worldwide, second only to heart disease.¹ Among various cancer types, digestive system cancers (DSCs), including gastric cancer, colorectal cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, oesophageal cancer, pancreatic cancer and gallbladder cancer, impose a significant burden and account for a substantial proportion of cancer cases globally.² However, it is equally crucial to acknowledge the substantial health threat posed by cancers occurring outside the digestive system, collectively termed non-DSCs (NDSCs). These encompass a diverse array of cancer types, such as lung, breast, prostate, bladder, ovarian, cervical and kidney cancers, among others.³ The epidemiology of cancer is shaped by a complex interplay of genetic, environmental and lifestyle factors. Among these factors, diet has emerged as a key modifiable risk factor associated with the development of both DSCs and NDSCs.⁴

As a dietary factor, pickled foods have become an integral part of modern diets, accounting for a significant proportion of the overall food consumption across the globe. These foods are typically defined as those that have undergone preservation techniques such as salting, smoking, curing or the addition of preservatives to extend their shelf life.⁵ The widespread consumption of pickled foods has raised concerns about their potential impact on cancer, particularly regarding DSCs, including nasopharyngeal carcinoma,⁶ oesophageal cancer, stomach cancer,^{7 8} liver cancer⁹ and colorectal cancer.¹⁰ Nonetheless, no comprehensive review or meta-analysis has yet provided complete information on the effect of pickled food consumption on the risk of NDSCs.

Therefore, to comprehensively address this research gap, our objective aims to provide a robust and evidence-based evaluation of the association between pickled food intake and the development of NDSCs by systematically reviewing and synthesising the existing literature. By understanding the potential risks associated with preserved food consumption in relation to NDSCs, this study extends the existing knowledge of dietary factors influencing cancer development and assists in the formulation of preventive strategies.

Methods

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Database (PROSPERO) in June 2023 and was updated in July 2024 (CRD42023434186). Observational studies examining the relationship between pickled food consumption and the development of NDSCs were included in this analysis. The NOVA classification is commonly used to define the degree of food processing. This system classifies foods into four categories, ranging from unprocessed or minimally processed items to ultra-processed products, based on the extent of processing.¹¹ Pickled foods are classified as processed foods within the third category, as they undergo modification through the addition of various ingredients while maintaining the fundamental qualities of the original food product. This preservation method involves treating items with salt, sugar, oil, vinegar, alcohol, smoking, drying or other preservatives to prolong their shelf life or improve their taste. The processing of pickled foods may encompass fermentation, as exemplified by sauerkraut and kimchi, or non-fermentation, as demonstrated by pickled cucumbers.¹²

Our research question was formulated based on the PECOS principle¹³ (online supplemental table 1). The PECOS elements were as follows: P (participants): all individuals, both children and adults. E (exposure): ‘high consumption’ of pickled food, defined as the highest intake levels reported across studies, including the upper third, fourth or fifth percentiles. This approach allowed for consistent comparative analysis across studies, taking into consideration the inherent variability in dietary patterns across different populations. C (comparison): ‘non-consumption or low consumption’ of pickled food, defined as the lowest intake levels, including the lower third, fourth or fifth percentiles, or no consumption. O (outcome): the risks of various NDSCs, including lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, kidney cancer, bladder cancer, brain tumours, bone tumours, ovarian cancer, cervical cancer, pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, testicular cancer and lymphoma. S (study design): observational studies, including cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies. Only English-language articles were included. The exclusion criteria were (1) involved non-human subjects; (2) the absence of primary data analyses (eg, letters, editorials or narrative reviews); or (3) did not provide a clear methodology for data extraction (eg, ORs, relative risks and HRs).

Searching methods and screening criteria

Two reviewers (JY and PY) conducted a comprehensive search of multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, from inception to 1 July 2024. Both MeSH terms and text words were used in combination across two primary term blocks: ‘pickled food’ and ‘cancer.’ The full search strategy is described in the supplemental materials (online supplemental table 2). After removing duplicates, the remaining studies were thoroughly screened based on titles, abstracts and full texts. Any discrepancies were resolved through consensus or consultation with a third reviewer (CL). Subsequently, two researchers (HL and LX) extracted data from the included studies using a standard form. The extracted data included the first author’s name, year of publication, study location, age, gender, study sample size, duration of follow-up, pickled food exposure assessment methods, outcome measures for NDSCs and reported risk estimates (crude estimates and adjusted estimates) with 95% CIs. Any discrepancies in data extraction were resolved through discussion and inspection of the original data by a third researcher (CL).

Quality and reporting bias assessment

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) quality assessment tools were used to assess the risk of bias for each study. We documented outcome-specific assessments in online supplemental tables 3 and 4 (available at https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools). Each item in the study was rated as ‘yes’ (1 point), ‘no’ (0 point), ‘not reported’ or ‘not applicable’. Items that were adequately described received one point, while those lacking sufficient description or failing to meet quality criteria received zero points. Items lacking clear descriptions were described as ‘not reported’, and those not meeting the assessment criteria were set as ‘not applicable’. The maximum score was 14 points for longitudinal studies and 11 points for observational and cross-sectional studies. Longitudinal studies were classified as high quality (>9 points), medium quality (4–9 points) and low quality (<4 points). Cross-sectional studies were classified as high quality (>7 points), medium quality (3–7 points) and low quality (<3 points). Medium-quality and low-quality studies were considered high-risk publications. Two reviewers (CL and FL) conducted the evaluations, resolving discrepancies through discussion.

Data synthesis and statistical analyses

When more than two studies investigated the same type of cancer, we performed analyses using the DerSimonian–Laird method with a random-effects model in R software (V.3.4.0; R: the R Project for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). The primary analysis focused on comparing the ORs between the highest and lowest categories of pickled food exposure. The definitions of ‘highest’ and ‘lowest’ exposure categories were derived from the exposure classifications provided by the original authors of each included study. For consistency in defining exposure levels, ‘high consumption’ of pickled foods referred to the highest intake levels reported in each study, including the upper third, fourth or fifth percentiles, while ‘low consumption’ corresponded to the lowest intake levels, encompassing the lower third, fourth or fifth percentiles, or no consumption. Online supplemental table 5 provided a summary of the lowest and highest pickled food consumption in each included study. Due to this approach, it is important to note that these categories may exhibit considerable heterogeneity across studies, as they were not standardised in the included literature. Each study’s definition was based on its specific context, population dietary habits and methodological framework.

A random-effects model was employed, and significance was set at p<0.05 (two-tailed). Heterogeneity was quantified using the Q test¹⁴ and the I² score.¹⁵ Subgroup analyses were planned based on the subtype of pickled food if sufficient data were available. To assess the robustness of our findings, we conducted sensitivity analyses using two distinct approaches: the leave-one-out method and an analysis restricted to studies reporting crude ORs.

Reporting bias assessment and certainty assessment

A funnel plot and Egger’s test were performed to assess publication bias and small-study effects if more than six studies reported data on the same outcome.¹⁶ The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach,¹⁷ which categorises the certainty into four levels: high, moderate, low or very low. Initially, all outcomes were assigned a low quality due to the observational nature of the included studies (online supplemental table 6). This initial rating could be adjusted based on prespecified criteria. Evidence quality was upgraded for a clear dose-response gradient, a large magnitude of effect (OR≥2 or OR≤0.5) not fully explainable by confounding factors, or if control for plausible confounding did not change the effect estimates significantly. Conversely, the quality was downgraded under several conditions, such as a majority of studies showing a high risk of bias (NIH quality score<4), substantial heterogeneity (I²≥50%) unexplained by sensitivity or subgroup analyses, factors related to the population, intervention or outcomes limited generalisability (indirectness) or the 95% CI for pooled estimates crossing the minimally important difference, highlighting clinical relevance alongside statistical significance.

Results

Study selection

This meta-analysis was reported in accordance with the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting guideline¹⁸ (online supplemental table 7). The study selection process is summarised in figure 1. Initially, 3465 records were identified through searches. After assessing 98 full-text articles, a total of 51 observational studies were included in the study, consisting of 36 case-control studies, 14 cohort studies and 1 cross-sectional study.^19–66

Figure 1. Literature search flow chart. Flowchart of the literature search and selection for systematic review and meta-analysis.

Study characteristics

The meta-analysis encompassed a total population of 2 518 507 individuals, with ages ranging from 18 to 90 years (online supplemental table 8). The quantitative analysis investigated breast cancer (n=23), prostate cancer (n=14), lung cancer (n=13), lymphoma (n=6), bladder cancer (n=9), kidney cancer (n=4), brain cancer (n=4), thyroid cancer (n=2), cervical cancer (n=2) and leukaemia (n=2). The sample sizes of the included studies ranged from 135 to 567 169 participants. The studies were conducted in various countries, with 8 from the United States, 10 from China, 9 from Uruguay, 3 from Japan, 2 from Canada, 2 from Spain, 3 from Sweden, 2 from the Netherlands, 1 from Poland, 1 from Indonesia, 1 from Italy, 1 from France, 1 from South Korea, 1 from Argentina, 1 from Greece (assuming Athens refers to Greece), 1 from Iceland, 1 from Australia, 1 from Serbia and 1 from Norway. Among all the included studies, 20 studies included both men and women participants, 17 studies focused on women, 10 studies focused on men, and four studies did not report gender proportions. Online supplemental table 9 provided comprehensive details on the confounding variables considered in the most adjusted model for each study, with a median (range) number of 10 (1–16) variables.

Quality assessment and risk of bias

According to the NIH quality assessment tool, 36 studies (71%) received a ‘high quality’ rating, while 15 studies (29%) were rated ‘medium quality’. None of the studies received a ‘low quality’ rating (online supplemental tables 3 and 4).

In the bias analysis of the meta-analysis, the funnel plot for lung cancer studies appeared symmetrical, indicating no significant publication bias. However, for breast cancer, prostate cancer, lymphoma and bladder cancer, the funnel plots exhibited varying degrees of asymmetry (online supplemental figures 1-4), suggesting the presence of publication bias. Egger’s test results further supported these observations. For lung cancer, Egger’s test showed no significant bias (p=0.881) (online supplemental figure 5). In contrast, significant bias was detected for breast cancer (p=0.006), prostate cancer (p<0.001), lymphoma (p=0.005) and bladder cancer (p=0.015).

Pickled food was associated with an increased risk of breast, prostate, lymphoma, bladder and kidney cancers

The meta-analysis revealed that the consumption of pickled foods is associated with an increased risk of several types of cancer (table 1). Breast cancer was investigated in a total of 37 706 cases among 1 095 935 participants from 23 studies, yielding an OR of 1.22 (95% CI: 1.07 to 1.39, I²=85.1%, p<0.01), with a very low certainty of evidence. Prostate cancer, with 14 studies from 28 398 cases among 818 562 participants, resulted in an OR of 1.38 (95% CI: 1.18 to 1.60, I²=75.9%, p<0.01), also showing a very low certainty. Lymphoma was analysed in six studies, including 5977 cases among 1 020 030 participants, and showed an OR of 1.12 (95% CI: 1.01 to 1.25, I²=55.8%, p=0.05) with very low certainty. Bladder cancer, with nine studies from 6267 cases among 702 161 participants, had an OR of 1.60 (95% CI: 1.23 to 2.07, I²=85.1%, p<0.0001) with very low certainty. Kidney cancer, from three studies involving 3279 cases among 611 050 participants, had an OR of 1.28 (95% CI: 1.13 to 1.45, I²=0%, p=0.56) and low certainty.

Table 1

Summary of the results for the meta-analysis

Cancer	No. of studies	No. of participants	No. of cases	OR (95% CI)	I2 (%)	Tau2	P-value for heterogeneity
Breast cancer	23	1 095 935	37 706	1.22 (1.07 to 1.39)	85.10	0.062	<0.01
Prostate cancer	14	818 562	28 398	1.38 (1.18 to 1.60)	75.90	0.051	<0.01
Lymphoma	6	1 020 030	5977	1.12 (1.01 to 1.25)	55.80	<0.01	0.05
Bladder cancer	9	702 161	6267	1.60 (1.23 to 2.07)	85.10	0.129	<0.01
Kidney cancer	4	611 050	3279	1.28 (1.13 to 1.45)	0	0	0.56
Lung cancer	13	1 611 091	27 598	1.19 (0.95 to 1.48)	87.30	0.146	<0.01
Brain cancer	4	596 361	3237	0.97 (0.84 to 1.12)	52.90	<0.01	0.10
Thyroid cancer	2	567 855	618	1.04 (0.80 to 1.36)	7.30	0.003	0.30
Cervical cancer	2	567 334	150	1.38 (0.71 to 2.66)	27.60	0.074	0.24
Leukaemia	2	591 940	2106	1.12 (0.57 to 2.22)	93.50	0.225	<0.01

Pickled food was not significantly associated with an increase in risk for lung, brain, thyroid, cervical cancer and leukaemia

However, the consumption of pickled food was not associated with an increased risk of other types of cancer. Lung cancer, with 13 studies from 27 598 cases among 1 611 091 participants, had an OR of 1.19 (95% CI: 0.95 to 1.48, I²=87.3%, p<0.01), also showing very low certainty. Brain cancer was analysed in four studies, including 3237 cases among 596 361 participants, showing an OR of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.84 to 1.12, I²=52.9%, p=0.10) with very low certainty. Thyroid cancer was investigated in two studies from 618 cases among 567 855 participants, revealing an OR of 1.04 (95% CI: 0.80 to 1.36, I²=7.3%, p=0.30) and very low certainty. Cervical cancer was explored in two studies involving 150 cases among 567 334 participants, achieving an OR of 1.38 (95% CI: 0.71 to 2.66, I²=27.6%, p=0.24) with very low certainty. Finally, leukaemia was investigated in two studies, including 2106 cases among 591 940 participants, showing an OR of 1.12 (95% CI: 0.57 to 2.22, I²=93.5%, p<0.01) and very low certainty (online supplemental figure 6). The evidence quality for these cancers was uniformly very low, highlighting the need for further rigorous research to draw more definitive conclusions.

Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses of pickled foods on cancer risk

According to the NOVA classification of foods, pickled and preserved foods can be systematically divided into six categories: pickled food, preserved food, salted food, cured food, processed food and fermented food. Subgroup analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between specific types of pickled food consumption and the risk of NDSCs (table 2). For breast cancer, processed meat was associated with an increased risk (OR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.47, I²=81.20%, p<0.01), whereas fermented food showed no significant risk increase (OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.04, I²=28.30%, p=0.24). Salted food displayed a neutral effect (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.03, I²=1.90%, p<0.01). Processed meat was also associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer (OR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.58, I²=77.80%, p<0.01), while salted food showed a stronger association (OR: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.47 to 2.53, I²=0.00%, p=0.43). Notably, pickled vegetables showed a high-risk ratio (OR: 4.19, 95% CI: 0.81 to 21.78, I²=90.20%, p<0.01), although the wide CI indicated significant heterogeneity. The risk of bladder cancer was elevated with processed meat (OR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.65, I²=62.40%, p=0.03) and even more so with salted food (OR: 2.28, 95% CI: 1.78 to 2.92, I²=0.00%, p=0.82). An elevated risk of lung cancer was also observed with processed meat (OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.80, I²=82.20%, p<0.01) and salted meat (OR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.08 to 2.35, I²=75.10%, p<0.01) (online supplemental figure 7). The findings highlight the potential carcinogenic risks associated with specific types of preserved foods and underscore the importance of nuanced dietary assessments in cancer epidemiology.

Table 2

Subgroup analysis of pickled food consumption and non-digestive system cancers

Subgroup	No. of reports	OR (95% CI)	I2 (%)	P-value for heterogeneity	P-value for subgroup difference
Breast cancer					<0.01
Processed meat	15	1.30 (1.16 to 1.47)	81.20	<0.01
Fermented food	4	0.82 (0.65 to 1.04)	28.30	0.24
Salted food	2	1.00 (0.98 to 1.03)	1.90	<0.01
Prostate cancer					0.04
Processed meat	10	1.33 (1.12 to 1.58)	77.80	<0.01
Salted food	4	1.93 (1.47 to 2.53)	0.00	0.43
Pickled vegetable	2	4.19 (0.81 to 21.78)	90.20	<0.01
Bladder cancer					<0.01
Processed meat	6	1.37 (1.13 to 1.65)	62.40	0.03
Salted food	2	2.28 (1.78 to 2.92)	0.00	0.82
Lung cancer					0.65
Processed meat	7	1.43 (1.14 to 1.80)	82.20	<0.01
Salted food	5	1.59 (1.08 to 2.35)	75.10	<0.01

In the sensitivity analyses, the leave-one-out analysis corroborated the results of the main meta-analysis, showing no significant heterogeneity observed across studies. This consistency enhances the reliability of our meta-analysis findings (online supplemental figure 8). For the analysis limited to studies that reported crude ORs (online supplemental figure 9), the results were as follows: breast cancer (n=5) showed an OR of 1.39 (95% CI: 1.01 to 1.91), lung cancer (n=3) presented an OR of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.49 to 1.87), both of which aligned with the overall meta-analysis results, indicating a consistent effect across different study designs and reporting standards. However, prostate cancer (n=2) demonstrated an OR of 1.97 (95% CI: 0.58 to 6.73), which was consistent in direction with the main meta-analysis results but exhibited a much wider CI. These findings suggest potential variability in effect estimates when analysing only crude ORs and underscore the need for cautious interpretation, particularly when fewer studies are included in a subgroup analysis.

Discussion

This meta-analysis comprehensively assessed the association between pickled food consumption and the risk of various cancers, including a total of 2 518 507 individuals across diverse international studies. Our findings demonstrate a significant association between the consumption of pickled food and an increased risk of NDSCs, including breast, prostate, lymphoma, bladder and kidney cancers. Notably, processed and salted foods were associated with a higher risk of cancer, particularly prostate and bladder cancers. In contrast, pickled food consumption showed no significant effect on the risk of lung, brain, thyroid and cervical cancers and leukaemia. The results highlight the potential specificity of dietary risks associated with different cancer types.

The global diversity of the studies included in this meta-analysis, spanning multiple continents, provides a comprehensive view of the impact of pickled food consumption on cancer risk across different populations and cultural dietary habits. Notably, the studies were predominantly conducted in the United States and China, with 10 studies from each country, followed by 9 studies from Uruguay. This distribution highlights significant contributions from both Western and Eastern countries to the research field.⁶⁷ The wide geographic spread is crucial, as it incorporates a variety of genetic backgrounds, environmental exposures and dietary patterns, which are essential for understanding the generalised effects of pickled food on cancer risk. Moreover, a substantial number of studies originated from Asia, particularly China and Japan, is significant given the higher prevalence of pickled food consumption in these regions compared with Western countries.⁶⁸ This could potentially explain variations in cancer incidences linked to specific dietary practices. In addition, the high number of studies from Uruguay suggests a growing interest and recognition in emerging research hubs about the importance of diet in cancer epidemiology.

Previous research has reported mixed results concerning the association between pickled food consumption and the risk of DSC.^{7 9 10} The present meta-analysis highlights a significant variation in the impact of pickled food on the risk of NDSCs. Notably, pickled food was significantly associated with a higher risk of developing breast, prostate, lymphoma, bladder and kidney cancers. Some of the inconsistencies observed across different research findings may be attributed to earlier studies not differentiating between the types of pickled food and their specific processing methods. Compared with these studies, our analysis employed a more nuanced approach, considering various types of pickling processes and their unique risks. Moreover, our findings concur with the associations noted in several large-scale cohort studies that suggested similar associations, particularly regarding prostate and bladder cancers. Furthermore, the robustness of our results is supported by the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis, which indicated no significant heterogeneity and confirmed the consistency of our findings across different studies. The subgroup analysis, particularly for prostate cancer, highlighted the variability in risk estimates, suggesting that the type of pickled food and its specific preservation method could differentially impact cancer risk.

The observed increase in cancer risk may be attributed to several factors inherent to pickled food. These foods often contain high levels of nitrates and nitrites, which can be converted into carcinogenic nitrosamines during the pickling process.⁶⁹ Additionally, the high salt content typical of these foods can lead to an increased risk of certain cancers by inducing hypernatraemia, which affects cellular metabolism and could contribute to DNA damage or inflammation. Furthermore, the preservatives and chemicals used in pickling, such as benzoates and other additives, may also play a role in carcinogenesis.⁷⁰

The commonly held belief that fermented foods possess preventive health benefits primarily stems from their well-documented roles in promoting gut microbiome health. These foods are rich in probiotics, which are thought to enhance gut flora diversity and functionality, potentially leading to improved immune responses and reduced inflammation.^71–73 Given these properties, it is often hypothesised that fermented foods could contribute to reducing the risk of various chronic diseases, including cancers, particularly those outside the digestive system.⁷⁴ However, the results of our meta-analysis present a more nuanced picture, specifically in the context of NDSCs such as breast cancer. Our analysis included data on the consumption of fermented food and showed no significant protective effects. Several factors could potentially explain why our study did not find a clear protective effect of fermented foods against cancer. First, the health impacts of fermented food can be influenced by the variability in fermentation processes, including the strains of bacteria used, fermentation conditions and the food’s matrix. Such differences in fermentation practices can lead to inconsistent health outcomes. Additionally, individuals who consume fermented food often lead healthier lifestyles overall, representing a potential confounding factor.^{75 76} Lastly, the impact of fermented food can vary by genetic and regional dietary differences, which can affect how these foods interact with the body’s metabolic and immune processes.

Our study underscores the importance of dietary assessments in cancer risk evaluation. Public health guidelines might need to consider more detailed recommendations regarding the consumption of pickled foods. Future studies need to consider the complex interrelationships between diet, socioeconomic status, smoking habits, genetic factors and populations, as well as underlying biological mechanisms and variations across different groups. Understanding the interplay between the multiple factors is crucial for exploring the association between dietary factors and cancer risk. Besides, well-designed cohort studies and randomised controlled trials with detailed dietary assessments are needed to better understand the relationship between fermented food consumption and cancer risk. Therefore, integrating these variables into research designs will allow for a more comprehensive understanding of the influence of lifestyle, environmental and genetic factors on cancer risk.

This meta-analysis has several notable strengths, but it also has some limitations that warrant consideration. One of the primary strengths lies in its substantial sample size and the rigorous adjustment for numerous important dietary and lifestyle factors, which enhance the reliability and validity of the findings. However, it is essential to acknowledge certain limitations. First, while we have assessed the association between pickled food consumption and the overall risk of non-gastrointestinal cancers, caution must be exercised in interpreting these results due to the presence of publication bias. The variation in the quality of individual studies, with 29% rated as medium quality, suggests potential inconsistencies in study methodologies that could affect the overall analysis. Although none of the studies were rated as low quality, the presence of medium-quality studies indicates that some findings might be influenced by methodological weaknesses. Moreover, the analysis is also limited by the inherent nature of observational studies, which are susceptible to residual confounding despite adjustments. Therefore, the observed associations might be affected by unmeasured factors. Furthermore, the substantial heterogeneity observed in some cancer types, such as lung and bladder cancers, with I² values exceeding 85%, indicates that the effects may vary significantly across different populations and conditions, complicating the interpretation of pooled estimates. Additionally, the variation in reporting standards and the use of different measures of association across studies (eg, crude ORs vs adjusted ORs) might introduce discrepancies that could impact the synthesis of the data. While the subgroup analyses attempt to address this by analysing studies based on similarity in reporting, they still reflect an inherent challenge in combining diverse studies into a coherent meta-analytical framework.

A notable limitation is the absence of dose-response analysis, which restricts the ability to understand the relationship between the quantity of pickled food consumed and cancer risk. The primary reason for not conducting a dose-response analysis is the variability in measurement methods and reporting standards across studies, which complicates efforts to perform an effective analysis of dose-response relationships. Different studies used diverse approaches to quantify food intake, leading to inconsistencies that challenge the integration of data for such a detailed analysis. However, to facilitate a more comprehensive understanding and to aid further research, we have documented the dose and corresponding effect sizes reported by individual studies in online supplemental table 5. Furthermore, due to the insufficient number of studies providing detailed demographic characteristics, subgroup analyses based on population characteristics were not conducted, which could have provided deeper insights into the influence of different demographic factors on the association between pickled food consumption and cancer risk. This represents a significant gap in the current literature and should be addressed in future research to better understand the impact of these characteristics on the observed associations.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis highlights significant associations between pickled food consumption and increased cancer risk for certain types of cancer; it also calls for a nuanced interpretation of dietary risks. To comprehensively assess this issue, future research should delve into potential biological mechanisms and investigate diverse populations. Such studies will aid in developing more precise and personalised health recommendations, promoting overall well-being and cancer prevention.

We thank Home for Researchers (www.home-for-researchers.com) for their English language editing.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. Data are available upon reasonable request.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Footnote

JY and PY contributed equally.

Contributors FL planned the study. JY and PY wrote the manuscript. CL and LX contributed to data collection. XY analysed the data. HL and FL provided critical revisions to the manuscript. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript, and FL acted as guarantor.

Funding This study has received support from the Key Research and Development Program of the Science and Technology Department of Sichuan Province, China (2023YFS0274).

Competing interests None declared.

Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination plans of this research.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

References

¹ Pilleron S, Soto-Perez-de-Celis E, Vignat J, et al. Estimated global cancer incidence in the oldest adults in 2018 and projections to 2050. Int J Cancer 2021; 148: 601–8. doi:10.1002/ijc.33232

² Stenzinger A, Weichert W. Genetic Profiling of Cancers of the Digestive System: Biological Insights and Clinical Implications. Pathobiology 2017; 84: 306–22. doi:10.1159/000446545

³ Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, et al. Cancer Statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71: 7–33. doi:10.3322/caac.21654

⁴ Islami F, Goding Sauer A, Miller KD, et al. Proportion and number of cancer cases and deaths attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors in the United States. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68: 31–54. doi:10.3322/caac.21440

⁵ Etemadi A, Sinha R, Ward MH, et al. Mortality from different causes associated with meat, heme iron, nitrates, and nitrites in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study: population based cohort study. BMJ 2017; 357: j1957. doi:10.1136/bmj.j1957

⁶ Gallicchio L, Matanoski G, Tao XG, et al. Adulthood consumption of preserved and nonpreserved vegetables and the risk of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a systematic review. Int J Cancer 2006; 119: 1125–35. doi:10.1002/ijc.21946

⁷ Yan B, Zhang L, Shao Z. Consumption of processed and pickled food and esophageal cancer risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Bull Cancer 2018; 105: 992–1002. doi:10.1016/j.bulcan.2018.08.006

⁸ Yoo JY, Cho HJ, Moon S, et al. Pickled Vegetable and Salted Fish Intake and the Risk of Gastric Cancer: Two Prospective Cohort Studies and a Meta-Analysis. Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12: 996. doi:10.3390/cancers12040996

⁹ Lan QY, Liao GC, Zhou RF, et al. Dietary patterns and primary liver cancer in Chinese adults: a case-control study. Oncotarget 2018; 9: 27872–81. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.23910

¹⁰ Wu F, Wang B, Zhuang P, et al. Association of preserved vegetable consumption and prevalence of colorectal polyps: results from the Lanxi Pre-colorectal Cancer Cohort (LP3C). Eur J Nutr 2022; 61: 1273–84. doi:10.1007/s00394-021-02719-5

¹¹ Martinez-Steele E, Khandpur N, Batis C, et al. Best practices for applying the Nova food classification system. N Food 2023; 4: 445–8. doi:10.1038/s43016-023-00779-w

¹² Monteiro CA, Levy RB, Claro RM, et al. A new classification of foods based on the extent and purpose of their processing. Cad Saude Publica 2010; 26: 2039–49. doi:10.1590/s0102-311x2010001100005

¹³ Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015; 4: 1. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

¹⁴ Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1539–58. doi:10.1002/sim.1186

¹⁵ Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557–60. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557

¹⁶ Drucker AM, Fleming P, Chan AW. Research Techniques Made Simple: Assessing Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews. J Invest Dermatol 2016; 136: e109–14. doi:10.1016/j.jid.2016.08.021

¹⁷ Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 924–6. doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD

¹⁸ Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000; 283: 2008–12. doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008

¹⁹ Hu J, La Vecchia C, DesMeules M, et al. Meat and fish consumption and cancer in Canada. Nutr Cancer 2008; 60: 313–24. doi:10.1080/01635580701759724

²⁰ Terry MB, Howe G, Pogoda JM, et al. An international case-control study of adult diet and brain tumor risk: a histology-specific analysis by food group. Ann Epidemiol 2009; 19: 161–71. doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2008.12.010

²¹ Cross AJ, Leitzmann MF, Gail MH, et al. A prospective study of red and processed meat intake in relation to cancer risk. PLoS Med 2007; 4: e325. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040325

²² Hu J, La Vecchia C, Negri E, et al. Diet and brain cancer in adults: A case-control study in Northeast China. Int J Cancer 1999; 81: 20–3. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19990331)81:1<20::AID-IJC4>3.0.CO;2-2

²³ Zhang B, Zhou AF, Zhu CC, et al. Risk factors for cervical cancer in rural areas of Wuhan China: a matched case-control study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2013; 14: 7595–600. doi:10.7314/apjcp.2013.14.12.7595

²⁴ De Stefani E, Boffetta P, Ronco AL, et al. Processed meat consumption and risk of cancer: a multisite case-control study in Uruguay. Br J Cancer 2012; 107: 1584–8. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.433

²⁵ Tasevska N, Sinha R, Kipnis V, et al. A prospective study of meat, cooking methods, meat mutagens, heme iron, and lung cancer risks. Am J Clin Nutr 2009; 89: 1884–94. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2008.27272

²⁶ Takezaki T, Hirose K, Inoue M, et al. Dietary factors and lung cancer risk in Japanese: with special reference to fish consumption and adenocarcinomas. Br J Cancer 2001; 84: 1199–206. doi:10.1054/bjoc.2001.1722

²⁷ Deneo-Pellegrini H, Ronco AL, De Stefani E. Meat consumption and risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the lung: a case-control study in Uruguayan men. Nutr Cancer 2015; 67: 82–8. doi:10.1080/01635581.2015.970290

²⁸ De Stefani E, Aune D, Boffetta P, et al. Salted meat consumption and the risk of cancer: a multisite case-control study in Uruguay. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2009; 10: 853–7.

²⁹ De Stefani E, Ronco AL, Boffetta P, et al. Meat consumption, meat cooking and risk of lung cancer among Uruguayan men. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2010; 11: 1713–7.

³⁰ Wakai K, Ohno Y, Genka K, et al. Risk modification in lung cancer by a dietary intake of preserved foods and soyfoods: findings from a case-control study in Okinawa, Japan. Lung Cancer 1999; 25: 147–59. doi:10.1016/s0169-5002(99)00051-3

³¹ Shen M, Chapman RS, He X, et al. Dietary factors, food contamination and lung cancer risk in Xuanwei, China. Lung Cancer 2008; 61: 275–82. doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2007.12.024

³² Đoàn LN, Hu C, Zhang Z, et al. Dairy product consumption and lung cancer risk: A prospective analysis. Clin Nutr ESPEN 2023; 57: 423–9. doi:10.1016/j.clnesp.2023.06.040

³³ Wei X, Zhu C, Ji M, et al. Diet and Risk of Incident Lung Cancer: A Large Prospective Cohort Study in UK Biobank. Am J Clin Nutr 2021; 114: 2043–51. doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqab298

³⁴ Yu H, Xu Q, Xiong W, et al. Association of pickled food, fired food and smoked food combined with smoking and alcohol drinking with lung cancer: a case-control study. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu 2019; 48: 925–31.

³⁵ Taylor EF, Burley VJ, Greenwood DC, et al. Meat consumption and risk of breast cancer in the UK Women’s Cohort Study. Br J Cancer 2007; 96: 1139–46. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6603689

³⁶ Zhang CX, Ho SC, Chen YM, et al. Meat and egg consumption and risk of breast cancer among Chinese women. Cancer Causes Control 2009; 20: 1845–53. doi:10.1007/s10552-009-9377-0

³⁷ Chandran U, Zirpoli G, Ciupak G, et al. Racial disparities in red meat and poultry intake and breast cancer risk. Cancer Causes Control 2013; 24: 2217–29. doi:10.1007/s10552-013-0299-5

³⁸ Inoue-Choi M, Sinha R, Gierach GL, et al. Red and processed meat, nitrite, and heme iron intakes and postmenopausal breast cancer risk in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. Int J Cancer 2016; 138: 1609–18. doi:10.1002/ijc.29901

³⁹ Yu H, Hwang J-Y, Ro J, et al. Vegetables, but not pickled vegetables, are negatively associated with the risk of breast cancer. Nutr Cancer 2010; 62: 443–53. doi:10.1080/01635580903532374

⁴⁰ Tumas N, Niclis C, Aballay LR, et al. Traditional dietary pattern of South America is linked to breast cancer: an ongoing case-control study in Argentina. Eur J Nutr 2014; 53: 557–66. doi:10.1007/s00394-013-0564-0

⁴¹ Ronco AL, De Stéfani E, Dáttoli R. Dairy foods and risk of breast cancer: a case-control study in Montevideo, Uruguay. Eur J Cancer Prev 2002; 11: 457–63. doi:10.1097/00008469-200210000-00008

⁴² van’t Veer P, Dekker JM, Lamers JW, et al. Consumption of fermented milk products and breast cancer: a case-control study in The Netherlands. Cancer Res 1989; 49: 4020–3.

⁴³ Landa MC, Frago N, Tres A. Diet and the risk of breast cancer in Spain. Eur J Cancer Prev 1994; 3: 313–20. doi:10.1097/00008469-199407000-00003

⁴⁴ Mourouti N, Kontogianni MD, Papavagelis C, et al. Meat consumption and breast cancer: a case-control study in women. Meat Sci 2015; 100: 195–201. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.10.019

⁴⁵ Deneo-Pellegrini H, Ronco AL, De Stefani E, et al. Food groups and risk of prostate cancer: a case-control study in Uruguay. Cancer Causes Control 2012; 23: 1031–8. doi:10.1007/s10552-012-9968-z

⁴⁶ Rohrmann S, Platz EA, Kavanaugh CJ, et al. Meat and dairy consumption and subsequent risk of prostate cancer in a US cohort study. Cancer Causes Control 2007; 18: 41–50. doi:10.1007/s10552-006-0082-y

⁴⁷ Stefani ED, Boffetta PL, Ronco A, et al. Meat Consumption, Related Nutrients, Obesity and Risk of Prostate Cancer: a Case-Control Study in Uruguay. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2016; 17: 1937–45. doi:10.7314/apjcp.2016.17.4.1937

⁴⁸ Tse LA, Lee PMY, Ho WM, et al. Bisphenol A and other environmental risk factors for prostate cancer in Hong Kong. Environ Int 2017; 107: 1–7. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2017.06.012

⁴⁹ Torfadottir JE, Valdimarsdottir UA, Mucci LA, et al. Consumption of fish products across the lifespan and prostate cancer risk. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e59799. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059799

⁵⁰ Jian L, Zhang DH, Lee AH, et al. Do preserved foods increase prostate cancer risk? Br J Cancer 2004; 90: 1792–5. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6601755

⁵¹ Trudeau K, Rousseau MC, Parent MÉ. Extent of Food Processing and Risk of Prostate Cancer: The PROtEuS Study in Montreal, Canada. Nutrients 2020; 12: 637. doi:10.3390/nu12030637

⁵² Rosato V, Negri E, Parazzini F, et al. Processed meat and selected hormone-related cancers. Nutrition 2018; 49: 17–23. doi:10.1016/j.nut.2017.10.025

⁵³ Diallo A, Deschasaux M, Latino-Martel P, et al. Red and processed meat intake and cancer risk: Results from the prospective NutriNet-Santé cohort study. Int J Cancer 2018; 142: 230–7. doi:10.1002/ijc.31046

⁵⁴ Nilsson LM, Winkvist A, Esberg A, et al. Dairy Products and Cancer Risk in a Northern Sweden Population. Nutr Cancer 2020; 72: 409–20. doi:10.1080/01635581.2019.1637441

⁵⁵ Ronco AL, Mendilaharsu M, Boffetta P, et al. Meat Consumption, Animal Products, and the Risk of Bladder Cancer: A Case-Control Study in Uruguayan Men. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014; 15: 5805–9. doi:10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.14.5805

⁵⁶ Larsson SC, Johansson JE, Andersson SO, et al. Meat intake and bladder cancer risk in a Swedish prospective cohort. Cancer Causes Control 2009; 20: 35–40. doi:10.1007/s10552-008-9214-x

⁵⁷ Keszei AP, Schouten LJ, Goldbohm RA, et al. Dairy intake and the risk of bladder cancer in the Netherlands Cohort Study on Diet and Cancer. Am J Epidemiol 2010; 171: 436–46. doi:10.1093/aje/kwp399

⁵⁸ Radosavljević V, Janković S, Marinković J, et al. Diet and bladder cancer: a case-control study. Int Urol Nephrol 2005; 37: 283–9. doi:10.1007/s11255-004-4710-8

⁵⁹ Isa F, Xie LP, Hu Z, et al. Dietary consumption and diet diversity and risk of developing bladder cancer: results from the South and East China case-control study. Cancer Causes Control 2013; 24: 885–95. doi:10.1007/s10552-013-0165-5

⁶⁰ Galanti MR, Hansson L, Bergström R, et al. Diet and the risk of papillary and follicular thyroid carcinoma: a population-based case-control study in Sweden and Norway. Cancer Causes Control 1997; 8: 205–14. doi:10.1023/a:1018424430711

⁶¹ Rohrmann S, Linseisen J, Jakobsen MU, et al. Consumption of meat and dairy and lymphoma risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Intl Journal of Cancer 2011; 128: 623–34. doi:10.1002/ijc.25387

⁶² De Stefani E, Ronco AL, Deneo-Pellegrini H, et al. Meat, Milk and Risk of Lymphoid Malignancies: A Case-Control Study in Uruguay. Nutr Cancer 2013; 65: 375–83. doi:10.1080/01635581.2013.761255

⁶³ De Stefani E, Fierro L, Barrios E, et al. Tobacco, alcohol, diet and risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a case-control study in Uruguay. Leuk Res 1998; 22: 445–52. doi:10.1016/s0145-2126(97)00194-x

⁶⁴ Wajszczyk B, Charzewska J, Godlewski D, et al. Consumption of Dairy Products and the Risk of Developing Breast Cancer in Polish Women. Nutrients 2021; 13: 4420. doi:10.3390/nu13124420

⁶⁵ Solikhah S, Perwitasari D, Permatasari TAE, et al. Diet, Obesity, and Sedentary Lifestyle as Risk Factor of Breast Cancer among Women at Yogyakarta Province in Indonesia. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2022; 10: 398–405. doi:10.3889/oamjms.2022.7228

⁶⁶ Boldo E, Castelló A, Aragonés N, et al. Meat intake, methods and degrees of cooking and breast cancer risk in the MCC-Spain study. Maturitas 2018; 110: 62–70. doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2018.01.020

⁶⁷ Green R, Scheelbeek P, Bentham J, et al. Growing health: global linkages between patterns of food supply, sustainability, and vulnerability to climate change. Lancet Planet Health 2022; 6: e901–8. doi:10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00223-6

⁶⁸ Herforth A, Arimond M, Álvarez-Sánchez C, et al. A Global Review of Food-Based Dietary Guidelines. Adv Nutr 2019; 10: 590–605. doi:10.1093/advances/nmy130

⁶⁹ Sannino A. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Italian preserved food products in oil. Food Addit Contam Part B Surveill 2016; 9: 98–105. doi:10.1080/19393210.2016.1145148

⁷⁰ Zheng J, Tian L, Bayen S. Chemical contaminants in canned food and can-packaged food: a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2023; 63: 2687–718. doi:10.1080/10408398.2021.1980369

⁷¹ Leeuwendaal NK, Stanton C, O’Toole PW, et al. Fermented Foods, Health and the Gut Microbiome. Nutrients 2022; 14: 1527. doi:10.3390/nu14071527

⁷² Wastyk HC, Fragiadakis GK, Perelman D, et al. Gut-microbiota-targeted diets modulate human immune status. Cell 2021; 184: 4137–53. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.06.019

⁷³ Valentino V, Magliulo R, Farsi D, et al. Fermented foods, their microbiome and its potential in boosting human health. Microb Biotechnol 2024; 17: e14428. doi:10.1111/1751-7915.14428

⁷⁴ Takagi A, Kano M, Kaga C. Possibility of breast cancer prevention: use of soy isoflavones and fermented soy beverage produced using probiotics. Int J Mol Sci 2015; 16: 10907–20. doi:10.3390/ijms160510907

⁷⁵ Praagman J, Dalmeijer GW, van der Schouw YT, et al. The relationship between fermented food intake and mortality risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Netherlands cohort. Br J Nutr 2015; 113: 498–506. doi:10.1017/S0007114514003766

⁷⁶ Huang LY, Wahlqvist ML, Huang YC, et al. Optimal dairy intake is predicated on total, cardiovascular, and stroke mortalities in a Taiwanese cohort. J Am Coll Nutr 2014; 33: 426–36. doi:10.1080/07315724.2013.875328