Sugary drink consumption and risk of cancer: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort
- Study type
- Observational study
- Study name
- NutriNet-Santé
- Design
- Population-based prospective cohort study
- Sample size
- 101,257 participants
- Source
- BMJ · 2019
- Trial registration
- NCT03335644
In plain words
In this large French study, more than 100 thousand people were followed for several years. Those who drank more sugary drinks (and even 100% fruit juice) developed cancer more often, and this link was also seen for breast cancer. Drinks with artificial sweeteners showed no link with cancer. This study only shows a link and does not prove that sugary drinks cause cancer; talk to your doctor about your diet.
Key results
Treatment arms and regimens
This is an observational study with no intervention. Intake of sugary drinks (including sugar-sweetened beverages and 100% fruit juice) and of artificially sweetened beverages was assessed with repeated 24-hour dietary records designed to capture usual intake of 3300 food and beverage items. Further details in the full text of the paper.
Source of the regimen details: Abstract of the paper
Doses are given for the information of specialists, as in this study’s protocol, and are not a prescription. Every drug must be prescribed by the treating physician for the individual patient.
Study population
101,257 participants aged 18 and over (mean age 42.2 years, SD 14.4) from the French NutriNet-Santé cohort (2009 to 2017), with a median follow-up of 5.1 years.
Endpoints
Prospective associations of beverage intake with the risk of overall cancer and breast, prostate and colorectal cancer, using multivariable-adjusted Fine and Gray hazard models accounting for competing risks (sub-distribution hazard ratios).
Safety and side effects
This is an observational study and no interventional safety/adverse event data are reported in the abstract.
Clinical significance and place in guidelines
This observational study suggests that sugary drinks may be a modifiable risk factor for cancer prevention, but the authors stress that the results need to be replicated in other large prospective studies. Based on the abstract, a cause-and-effect relationship cannot be concluded. The status of formal clinical guideline recommendations should be checked separately.
Limitations
Observational design (possible residual confounding), relatively short median follow-up (5.1 years) and the need to replicate the results in other large-scale prospective studies, as the authors conclude. Other limitations in the full text of the paper.
This summary was prepared by the editorial team from the published paper; the original paper is the final reference. Read the original abstract on PubMed.