Background: Relationships between fruit, vegetable, and mature bean consumption and prostate cancer risk are unclear.

Methods: We examined associations between fruit and vegetable groups, specific fruits and vegetables, and mature bean consumption and prostate cancer risk overall, by stage and grade, and for prostate cancer mortality in a pooled analysis of 15 prospective cohorts, including 52,680 total cases and 3,205 prostate cancer–related deaths among 842,149 men. Diet was measured by a food frequency questionnaire or similar instrument at baseline. We calculated study-specific relative risks using Cox proportional hazards regression, and then pooled these estimates using a random effects model.

Results: We did not observe any statistically significant associations for advanced prostate cancer or prostate cancer mortality with any food group (including total fruits and vegetables, total fruits, total vegetables, fruit and vegetable juice, cruciferous vegetables, and tomato products), nor specific fruit and vegetables. In addition, we observed few statistically significant results for other prostate cancer outcomes. Pooled multivariable relative risks comparing the highest versus lowest quantiles across all fruit and vegetable exposures and prostate cancer outcomes ranged from 0.89 to 1.09. There was no evidence of effect modification for any association by age or body mass index.

Conclusions: Results from this large, international, pooled analysis do not support a strong role of collective groupings of fruits, vegetables, or mature beans in prostate cancer.

Impact: Further investigation of other dietary exposures, especially indicators of bioavailable nutrient intake or specific phytochemicals, should be considered for prostate cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(8); 1276–87. ©2017 AACR.

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men globally, accounting for 15% of all cancer cases and 7% of all cancer-related deaths in men (1). Although total prostate cancer has a high survival rate in developed countries (2), largely due to the high incidence of localized and regional prostate cancer as a result of widespread prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, metastatic prostate cancer has a markedly different prognosis (28% five-year survival in the United States; ref. 3). It is, therefore, important for epidemiologic studies to elucidate risk factors for prostate cancer with worse prognoses, including advanced prostate cancer and prostate cancer mortality.

Fruits, vegetables, and mature beans contain many nutrients hypothesized to prevent cancer, including dietary fiber, vitamins, minerals, carotenoids, and other phytochemicals (4, 5). Cruciferous vegetables and tomato products are of particular interest due to possible chemopreventive effects of indoles and isothiocyanates (6), and lycopene (7), respectively. However, epidemiologic studies that have examined fruit, vegetable, and mature bean intake and prostate cancer risk have been inconsistent, and the 2014 World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research Continuous Update Project report concluded that there was limited and inconclusive evidence regarding fruit, vegetable, and mature bean consumption on risk of prostate cancer (8). This may be due to the fact that prior studies have not defined advanced prostate cancer consistently, and that many studies may have had limited power to detect such associations. To clarify these relationships, we conducted pooled analyses of 15 prospective studies using harmonized participant-level data to examine associations between intakes of broad and specific fruit and vegetable groups, as well as mature beans (excluding soy) and risk of prostate cancer overall and by stage and grade. This approach provided a wide range of intake and sufficient power to detect associations for clinically relevant advanced disease, including prostate cancer mortality, as well as associations within subgroups in the population.

Study population

This study was conducted within the Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer (DCPP). Fifteen prospective cohorts (9–22) (Table 1) within this international consortium met the predefined criteria for inclusion: baseline assessment of usual diet, validation of the dietary assessment method used or a closely related instrument, at least one publication on an association between diet and cancer, and identification of at least 50 incident prostate cancer cases during follow-up. Each study received approval from the institutional review board of their institution.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the cohort studies included in the pooled analyses of fruit, vegetable, and mature bean consumption and prostate cancer risk

StudyFollow-upBaseline cohort sizeAge range, yearsNumber of prostate cancer casesTotal fruit (g/day) Median (10th–90th percentile)Total vegetables (g/day) Median (10th–90th percentile)
Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study (ATBC) 1985–2002 26,987 50–69 1,316 122 (28–299) 82 (31–178) 
Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial (CARET) 1985–2005 10,474 50–69 736 197 (44–523) 190 (88–373) 
CLUE II: Campaign Against Cancer and Heart Disease (CLUE-II) 1989–2009 5,926 18–90 461 153 (25–409) 148 (56–313) 
Cancer Prevention Study-II Nutrition Cohort (CPS-II) 1992–2005 65,923 50–74 6,943 182 (44–394) 201 (92–385) 
Cohort of Swedish Men (COSM) 1998–2008 45,338 45–79 3,011 171 (52–409) 134 (52–272) 
European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) 1991–2006 142,195 20–97 2,727 222 (56–535) 148 (54–382) 
Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS) 1986–2008 47,781 40–75 5,536 300 (97–621) 228 (112–424) 
The Japan Public Health Center-Based Study Cohort I (JPHC-I) 1990–2004 20,161 40–59 135 70 (27–168) 119 (53–216) 
The Japan Public Health Center-Based Study Cohort II (JPHC-II) 1993–2004 24,116 40–69 167 40 (10–132) 24 (8–57) 
Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (MCCS) 1990–2006 14,824 27–75 910 363 (104–841) 200 (85–381) 
Multiethnic Cohort Study (MEC) 1993–2004 84,297 45–75 5,583 258 (58–711) 205 (81–464) 
The Netherlands Cohort Study (NLCS) 1986–2007 58,279 55–69 2,416 153 (43–333) 154 (82–268) 
The NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study (NIH-AARP) 1995–2006 250,065 50–71 18,889 293 (74–731) 178 (70–395) 
Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) 1994–2003 15,620 55–86 853 224 (55–541) 320 (131–674) 
The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) 1993–2008 30,163 55–74 2,997 281 (80–630) 259 (121–506) 
Total  842,149  52,680   
StudyFollow-upBaseline cohort sizeAge range, yearsNumber of prostate cancer casesTotal fruit (g/day) Median (10th–90th percentile)Total vegetables (g/day) Median (10th–90th percentile)
Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study (ATBC) 1985–2002 26,987 50–69 1,316 122 (28–299) 82 (31–178) 
Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial (CARET) 1985–2005 10,474 50–69 736 197 (44–523) 190 (88–373) 
CLUE II: Campaign Against Cancer and Heart Disease (CLUE-II) 1989–2009 5,926 18–90 461 153 (25–409) 148 (56–313) 
Cancer Prevention Study-II Nutrition Cohort (CPS-II) 1992–2005 65,923 50–74 6,943 182 (44–394) 201 (92–385) 
Cohort of Swedish Men (COSM) 1998–2008 45,338 45–79 3,011 171 (52–409) 134 (52–272) 
European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) 1991–2006 142,195 20–97 2,727 222 (56–535) 148 (54–382) 
Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS) 1986–2008 47,781 40–75 5,536 300 (97–621) 228 (112–424) 
The Japan Public Health Center-Based Study Cohort I (JPHC-I) 1990–2004 20,161 40–59 135 70 (27–168) 119 (53–216) 
The Japan Public Health Center-Based Study Cohort II (JPHC-II) 1993–2004 24,116 40–69 167 40 (10–132) 24 (8–57) 
Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (MCCS) 1990–2006 14,824 27–75 910 363 (104–841) 200 (85–381) 
Multiethnic Cohort Study (MEC) 1993–2004 84,297 45–75 5,583 258 (58–711) 205 (81–464) 
The Netherlands Cohort Study (NLCS) 1986–2007 58,279 55–69 2,416 153 (43–333) 154 (82–268) 
The NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study (NIH-AARP) 1995–2006 250,065 50–71 18,889 293 (74–731) 178 (70–395) 
Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) 1994–2003 15,620 55–86 853 224 (55–541) 320 (131–674) 
The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) 1993–2008 30,163 55–74 2,997 281 (80–630) 259 (121–506) 
Total  842,149  52,680   
View Large

Ascertainment of cases

Incident prostate cancer cases were identified in each study by follow-up questionnaires with subsequent review of medical records (20, 21), linkage to cancer registries (12–18, 23), or both (9–11, 22), with the exception of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT), for which cases were limited to those diagnosed through biopsy performed because of an elevated PSA or suspicious digital rectal exam (“for cause”) per trial protocol (19). Some studies also used mortality registries to identify prostate cancer deaths (10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20, 22, 23). In addition to total prostate cancer, we examined localized (T1/T2 and N0M0 tumors), advanced (T4, N1, or M1 tumors, or prostate cancer mortality), advanced restricted (same as advanced prostate cancer, but excluding localized cases who died of prostate cancer during follow-up who had been diagnosed with localized cancer or those who had missing stage data), low-grade (Gleason score < 8, or being well or moderately differentiated), and high-grade (Gleason score ≥ 8, or being poorly differentiated/undifferentiated) prostate cancer, as well as prostate cancer mortality [cases where prostate cancer was determined to be the underlying cause of death; see appendix to Wu and colleagues (24) for more detail on harmonization of the outcome data]. Advanced restricted prostate cancer was considered to define a case group known to be advanced at diagnosis, as opposed to cases that might have progressed from a diagnosis of localized cancer to death.

Dietary assessment

Each study assessed at baseline usual diet during the past year (to assess long-term intake and account for seasonal variation) using self-administered food-frequency questionnaires (FFQ) with the exception of some centers in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort, which used interviewer-administered dietary questionnaires (25). Food intake data were converted to grams consumed per day. We examined 8 food groups: total fruits and vegetables (including juice), total fruits (including fruit juice), total fruits excluding fruit juice, fruit and vegetable juice, total vegetables (including vegetable juice), cruciferous vegetables, tomato products, and mature beans (all beans excluding green beans and soy). Food group intakes were calculated as the sum of intakes of individual items in that group. Food group definitions were standardized, but each study's contribution to a food group depended on the foods assessed on that study's questionnaire. Results for total fruits (including fruit juice) and total fruits excluding fruit juice were similar; thus, only results for total fruits (including fruit juice) are presented. Potatoes were excluded from all food groups due to their high starch content, and pickled vegetables were excluded because of previous findings suggesting an increased risk of certain cancers (26, 27). Mature beans were excluded from vegetable groups because of their high protein content. Soybeans were excluded from the mature bean group because of the hypothesis that isoflavones reduce risk of prostate cancer (28, 29). We also analyzed associations with specific fruits and vegetables that were assessed in the majority of studies.

Although all studies conducted validation studies of their questionnaires, the validity of most food groups was not evaluated routinely. However, among the studies that evaluated the validity of total fruits or total vegetables (30–35), correlation coefficients for these food groups generally exceeded 0.35.

Assessment of nondietary risk factors

Information was collected on nondietary factors at baseline. Age, height, and weight were either measured or collected by self-report in all studies. Body mass index [BMI, calculated as weight(kg)/height(m)2] was calculated on the basis of height and weight at baseline. Most studies assessed smoking habits, physical activity, education, race, marital status, multivitamin use, and history of diabetes. The percent of data missing for these covariates was low (generally <8%).

Statistical analysis

In addition to the study-specific exclusion criteria, we excluded from our analyses (i) participants with a prior history of cancer except nonmelanoma skin cancer at baseline and (ii) those whose energy intakes were outside 3 SDs from the study-specific loge-transformed mean energy intake. The latter was done to exclude individuals who might have filled out their questionnaire incorrectly.

For all outcomes except prostate cancer mortality, participants contributed person-years of follow-up time from the date of the baseline questionnaire to the date of diagnosis with prostate cancer, death, loss to follow-up, if available, or administrative end of follow-up, whichever came first. For analyses of prostate cancer mortality, participants contributed person-years of follow-up time from the date of the baseline questionnaire to the date of death, loss to follow-up, if available, or administrative end of follow-up, whichever came first. The Netherlands Cohort Study was analyzed as a case–cohort study, as required by their study design (36).

We conducted analyses using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) version 9.3. Intakes of food groups were categorized by study-specific quantiles based on the distribution in the sub-cohort for the Netherlands Cohort Study and the full cohort for all other studies. Additional analyses were conducted in which intakes were categorized using common absolute cut-off points. If there were no cases in the highest intake category in a study, the relative risk (RR) of that category could not be calculated, and the person-time and noncases in the highest category were included in the second highest category.

A two-stage method was used to estimate pooled RRs. In the first stage, study-specific RRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) between each food group or food and risk of each prostate cancer outcome were estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model (37). We stratified the baseline hazard by age at baseline (years), year of questionnaire return, and center (only for EPIC). This is equivalent to a left-truncated survival analysis with age as the time scale, and allowed the baseline incidence rates to vary jointly by age at enrollment and calendar year. We also conducted analyses in which we adjusted for energy intake known and suspected confounders (see footnote a, Table 2). If a study had more than 200 cases of the prostate cancer endpoint of interest, all covariates were included in the model. If a study had fewer than 200 such cases, we adjusted for confounding using the propensity score method (38–40). For each study for each confounding variable that was measured, we included missing indicator variables for missing data, if needed. We tested for linear trends in the associations by assigning the median value of each exposure category, modeling that variable as a continuous variable, and testing the coefficient using the Wald test. Individual studies were excluded from analyses of a specific prostate cancer subtype if they did not contribute at least 50 cases of that subtype.

Table 2.

Pooled multivariable RRsa and 95% CI for study-specific quantiles of fruit and vegetable consumption and prostate cancer risk

Quantiles
Q1Q2Q3Q4Q5PtrendP for between-studies heterogeneityb
Total fruits and vegetables        
Total 1.00 1.04 (1.01–1.07) 1.02 (0.99–1.05) 1.00 (0.97–1.04) 1.01 (0.98–1.04) 0.59 0.51 
By stage 
 Localized 1.00 1.04 (1.00–1.07) 1.03 (0.98–1.08) 1.00 (0.97–1.03) 1.01 (0.97–1.05) 0.57 0.28 
 Advancedc 1.00 1.00 (0.91–1.10) 0.98 (0.89–1.08) 1.02 (0.92–1.12) 0.96 (0.87–1.07) 0.78 0.63 
 Advanced restrictedd 1.00 1.02 (0.91–1.16) 1.05 (0.93–1.19) 1.09 (0.96–1.23) 0.99 (0.85–1.15) 0.60 0.26 
 Prostate cancer mortalitye 1.00 0.95 (0.84–1.07) 0.92 (0.81–1.03) 0.98 (0.87–1.11) 0.92 (0.81–1.04) 0.37 0.70 
By grade 
 Low 1.00 1.04 (0.99–1.08) 1.03 (0.98–1.08) 0.99 (0.96–1.03) 0.99 (0.95–1.03) 0.15 0.39 
 Highf 1.00 1.02 (0.96–1.09) 1.03 (0.96–1.10) 1.04 (0.97–1.13) 1.02 (0.94–1.11) 0.81 0.38 
Total fruits        
Total 1.00 1.01 (0.98–1.04) 1.01 (0.98–1.03) 1.03 (0.99–1.07) 1.01 (0.98–1.04) 0.83 0.69 
By stage 
 Localized 1.00 1.01 (0.97–1.06) 1.01 (0.96–1.06) 1.03 (0.98–1.09) 1.01 (0.97–1.06) 0.56 0.26 
 Advancedc 1.00 1.00 (0.91–1.10) 0.94 (0.85–1.03) 1.02 (0.93–1.12) 0.99 (0.90–1.10) 0.94 0.70 
 Advanced restrictedd 1.00 0.99 (0.88–1.12) 0.94 (0.83–1.06) 1.05 (0.93–1.18) 0.99 (0.87–1.12) 0.64 0.73 
 Prostate cancer mortalitye 1.00 0.97 (0.86–1.09) 0.92 (0.82–1.04) 1.02 (0.87–1.19) 0.98 (0.86–1.11) 0.86 0.77 
By grade 
 Low 1.00 1.01 (0.98–1.05) 1.01 (0.97–1.04) 1.01 (0.98–1.05) 0.99 (0.96–1.03) 0.50 0.74 
 Highf 1.00 1.00 (0.94–1.07) 1.00 (0.93–1.07) 1.06 (0.95–1.17) 1.01 (0.94–1.09) 0.79 0.43 
Fruit and vegetable juice        
 Total 1.00 1.02 (1.00–1.04) 1.03 (1.00–1.06)   0.10 0.30 
By stage 
 Localized 1.00 1.02 (0.98–1.06) 1.04 (1.01–1.06)   0.10 0.83 
 Advancedc 1.00 1.02 (0.95–1.10) 1.05 (0.98–1.13)   0.43 0.55 
 Advanced restrictedd 1.00 1.02 (0.93–1.13) 1.08 (0.98–1.19)   0.20 0.97 
 Prostate cancer mortalitye 1.00 1.00 (0.91–1.10) 1.04 (0.94–1.13)   0.89 0.45 
By grade 
 Low 1.00 1.01 (0.98–1.05) 1.02 (0.99–1.04)   0.29 0.49 
 Highf 1.00 1.04 (0.97–1.13) 1.05 (0.98–1.13)   0.36 0.19 
Total vegetables        
Total 1.00 1.02 (0.99–1.05) 1.01 (0.98–1.04) 1.01 (0.97–1.05) 0.99 (0.96–1.02) 0.38 0.55 
By stage 
 Localized 1.00 1.03 (1.00–1.07) 1.01 (0.98–1.05) 1.01 (0.97–1.05) 0.99 (0.95–1.04) 0.35 0.29 
 Advancedc 1.00 1.01 (0.91–1.12) 0.95 (0.86–1.05) 0.98 (0.86–1.12) 0.95 (0.86–1.05) 0.51 0.47 
 Advanced restrictedd 1.00 1.01 (0.90–1.13) 0.98 (0.87–1.11) 1.06 (0.92–1.23) 0.95 (0.84–1.08) 0.96 0.64 
 Prostate cancer mortalitye 1.00 0.98 (0.84–1.13) 0.92 (0.82–1.03) 0.92 (0.80–1.06) 0.95 (0.84–1.08) 0.52 0.70 
By grade 
 Low 1.00 1.03 (1.00–1.07) 1.01 (0.98–1.04) 1.01 (0.97–1.05) 0.98 (0.94–1.03) 0.14 0.31 
 Highf 1.00 1.04 (0.97–1.12) 1.07 (1.01–1.15) 1.03 (0.97–1.11) 1.04 (0.97–1.11) 0.42 0.67 
Cruciferous vegetables        
Totalg 1.00 1.05 (1.01–1.09) 1.03 (0.98–1.07) 1.02 (0.98–1.06) 1.02 (0.99–1.05) 0.87 0.41 
By stage 
 Localizedg 1.00 1.05 (1.00–1.09) 1.03 (0.98–1.07) 1.03 (0.99–1.06) 1.02 (0.99–1.06) 0.84 0.55 
 Advancedc 1.00 1.03 (0.93–1.13) 1.01 (0.92–1.12) 0.98 (0.89–1.08) 0.94 (0.86–1.04) 0.20 0.88 
 Advanced restrictedd 1.00 1.09 (0.97–1.23) 1.06 (0.94–1.20) 1.04 (0.92–1.18) 1.01 (0.89–1.15) 0.79 0.94 
 Prostate cancer mortalitye 1.00 0.94 (0.83–1.05) 0.90 (0.80–1.01) 0.90 (0.80–1.01) 0.90 (0.79–1.04) 0.28 0.27 
By grade 
 Lowg 1.00 1.05 (1.00–1.10) 1.04 (0.99–1.08) 1.02 (0.98–1.06) 1.01 (0.98–1.05) 0.57 0.75 
 Highf 1.00 1.11 (1.01–1.23) 1.07 (1.00–1.14) 1.09 (0.99–1.19) 1.09 (0.99–1.19) 0.16 0.19 
Tomato productsh        
Totali 1.00 0.99 (0.96–1.02) 0.99 (0.95–1.03) 1.00 (0.96–1.04) 0.96 (0.91–1.02) 0.22 0.007 
By stage 
 Localizedi 1.00 0.99 (0.96–1.02) 1.00 (0.97–1.03) 0.99 (0.95–1.04) 0.96 (0.92–1.01) 0.01 0.19 
 Advancedc 1.00 0.94 (0.85–1.04) 0.99 (0.88–1.12) 1.01 (0.92–1.11) 0.93 (0.82–1.06) 0.49 0.14 
 Advanced restrictedd 1.00 0.95 (0.83–1.09) 0.99 (0.84–1.18) 1.01 (0.90–1.14) 0.93 (0.78–1.11) 0.51 0.08 
 Prostate cancer mortalitye 1.00 0.89 (0.78–1.01) 0.93 (0.79–1.09) 0.97 (0.86–1.08) 0.89 (0.75–1.06) 0.38 0.06 
By grade 
 Lowi 1.00 0.98 (0.95–1.02) 0.98 (0.93–1.04) 0.99 (0.94–1.04) 0.95 (0.89–1.02) 0.12 0.007 
 Highf 1.00 1.00 (0.90–1.11) 1.00 (0.91–1.11) 1.02 (0.91–1.15) 0.98 (0.88–1.09) 0.83 0.10 
Quantiles
Q1Q2Q3Q4Q5PtrendP for between-studies heterogeneityb
Total fruits and vegetables        
Total 1.00 1.04 (1.01–1.07) 1.02 (0.99–1.05) 1.00 (0.97–1.04) 1.01 (0.98–1.04) 0.59 0.51 
By stage 
 Localized 1.00 1.04 (1.00–1.07) 1.03 (0.98–1.08) 1.00 (0.97–1.03) 1.01 (0.97–1.05) 0.57 0.28 
 Advancedc 1.00 1.00 (0.91–1.10) 0.98 (0.89–1.08) 1.02 (0.92–1.12) 0.96 (0.87–1.07) 0.78 0.63 
 Advanced restrictedd 1.00 1.02 (0.91–1.16) 1.05 (0.93–1.19) 1.09 (0.96–1.23) 0.99 (0.85–1.15) 0.60 0.26 
 Prostate cancer mortalitye 1.00 0.95 (0.84–1.07) 0.92 (0.81–1.03) 0.98 (0.87–1.11) 0.92 (0.81–1.04) 0.37 0.70 
By grade 
 Low 1.00 1.04 (0.99–1.08) 1.03 (0.98–1.08) 0.99 (0.96–1.03) 0.99 (0.95–1.03) 0.15 0.39 
 Highf 1.00 1.02 (0.96–1.09) 1.03 (0.96–1.10) 1.04 (0.97–1.13) 1.02 (0.94–1.11) 0.81 0.38 
Total fruits        
Total 1.00 1.01 (0.98–1.04) 1.01 (0.98–1.03) 1.03 (0.99–1.07) 1.01 (0.98–1.04) 0.83 0.69 
By stage 
 Localized 1.00 1.01 (0.97–1.06) 1.01 (0.96–1.06) 1.03 (0.98–1.09) 1.01 (0.97–1.06) 0.56 0.26 
 Advancedc 1.00 1.00 (0.91–1.10) 0.94 (0.85–1.03) 1.02 (0.93–1.12) 0.99 (0.90–1.10) 0.94 0.70 
 Advanced restrictedd 1.00 0.99 (0.88–1.12) 0.94 (0.83–1.06) 1.05 (0.93–1.18) 0.99 (0.87–1.12) 0.64 0.73 
 Prostate cancer mortalitye 1.00 0.97 (0.86–1.09) 0.92 (0.82–1.04) 1.02 (0.87–1.19) 0.98 (0.86–1.11) 0.86 0.77 
By grade 
 Low 1.00 1.01 (0.98–1.05) 1.01 (0.97–1.04) 1.01 (0.98–1.05) 0.99 (0.96–1.03) 0.50 0.74 
 Highf 1.00 1.00 (0.94–1.07) 1.00 (0.93–1.07) 1.06 (0.95–1.17) 1.01 (0.94–1.09) 0.79 0.43 
Fruit and vegetable juice        
 Total 1.00 1.02 (1.00–1.04) 1.03 (1.00–1.06)   0.10 0.30 
By stage 
 Localized 1.00 1.02 (0.98–1.06) 1.04 (1.01–1.06)   0.10 0.83 
 Advancedc 1.00 1.02 (0.95–1.10) 1.05 (0.98–1.13)   0.43 0.55 
 Advanced restrictedd 1.00 1.02 (0.93–1.13) 1.08 (0.98–1.19)   0.20 0.97 
 Prostate cancer mortalitye 1.00 1.00 (0.91–1.10) 1.04 (0.94–1.13)   0.89 0.45 
By grade 
 Low 1.00 1.01 (0.98–1.05) 1.02 (0.99–1.04)   0.29 0.49 
 Highf 1.00 1.04 (0.97–1.13) 1.05 (0.98–1.13)   0.36 0.19 
Total vegetables        
Total 1.00 1.02 (0.99–1.05) 1.01 (0.98–1.04) 1.01 (0.97–1.05) 0.99 (0.96–1.02) 0.38 0.55 
By stage 
 Localized 1.00 1.03 (1.00–1.07) 1.01 (0.98–1.05) 1.01 (0.97–1.05) 0.99 (0.95–1.04) 0.35 0.29 
 Advancedc 1.00 1.01 (0.91–1.12) 0.95 (0.86–1.05) 0.98 (0.86–1.12) 0.95 (0.86–1.05) 0.51 0.47 
 Advanced restrictedd 1.00 1.01 (0.90–1.13) 0.98 (0.87–1.11) 1.06 (0.92–1.23) 0.95 (0.84–1.08) 0.96 0.64 
 Prostate cancer mortalitye 1.00 0.98 (0.84–1.13) 0.92 (0.82–1.03) 0.92 (0.80–1.06) 0.95 (0.84–1.08) 0.52 0.70 
By grade 
 Low 1.00 1.03 (1.00–1.07) 1.01 (0.98–1.04) 1.01 (0.97–1.05) 0.98 (0.94–1.03) 0.14 0.31 
 Highf 1.00 1.04 (0.97–1.12) 1.07 (1.01–1.15) 1.03 (0.97–1.11) 1.04 (0.97–1.11) 0.42 0.67 
Cruciferous vegetables        
Totalg 1.00 1.05 (1.01–1.09) 1.03 (0.98–1.07) 1.02 (0.98–1.06) 1.02 (0.99–1.05) 0.87 0.41 
By stage 
 Localizedg 1.00 1.05 (1.00–1.09) 1.03 (0.98–1.07) 1.03 (0.99–1.06) 1.02 (0.99–1.06) 0.84 0.55 
 Advancedc 1.00 1.03 (0.93–1.13) 1.01 (0.92–1.12) 0.98 (0.89–1.08) 0.94 (0.86–1.04) 0.20 0.88 
 Advanced restrictedd 1.00 1.09 (0.97–1.23) 1.06 (0.94–1.20) 1.04 (0.92–1.18) 1.01 (0.89–1.15) 0.79 0.94 
 Prostate cancer mortalitye 1.00 0.94 (0.83–1.05) 0.90 (0.80–1.01) 0.90 (0.80–1.01) 0.90 (0.79–1.04) 0.28 0.27 
By grade 
 Lowg 1.00 1.05 (1.00–1.10) 1.04 (0.99–1.08) 1.02 (0.98–1.06) 1.01 (0.98–1.05) 0.57 0.75 
 Highf 1.00 1.11 (1.01–1.23) 1.07 (1.00–1.14) 1.09 (0.99–1.19) 1.09 (0.99–1.19) 0.16 0.19 
Tomato productsh        
Totali 1.00 0.99 (0.96–1.02) 0.99 (0.95–1.03) 1.00 (0.96–1.04) 0.96 (0.91–1.02) 0.22 0.007 
By stage 
 Localizedi 1.00 0.99 (0.96–1.02) 1.00 (0.97–1.03) 0.99 (0.95–1.04) 0.96 (0.92–1.01) 0.01 0.19 
 Advancedc 1.00 0.94 (0.85–1.04) 0.99 (0.88–1.12) 1.01 (0.92–1.11) 0.93 (0.82–1.06) 0.49 0.14 
 Advanced restrictedd 1.00 0.95 (0.83–1.09) 0.99 (0.84–1.18) 1.01 (0.90–1.14) 0.93 (0.78–1.11) 0.51 0.08 
 Prostate cancer mortalitye 1.00 0.89 (0.78–1.01) 0.93 (0.79–1.09) 0.97 (0.86–1.08) 0.89 (0.75–1.06) 0.38 0.06 
By grade 
 Lowi 1.00 0.98 (0.95–1.02) 0.98 (0.93–1.04) 0.99 (0.94–1.04) 0.95 (0.89–1.02) 0.12 0.007 
 Highf 1.00 1.00 (0.90–1.11) 1.00 (0.91–1.11) 1.02 (0.91–1.15) 0.98 (0.88–1.09) 0.83 0.10 

Abbreviations: NIH-AARP, NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study; ATBC, Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study; CARET, Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial; CI, confidence interval; CLUE-II, CLUE II: Campaign Against Cancer and Heart Disease; CPS-II, Cancer Prevention Study-II Nutrition Cohort; COSM, Cohort of Swedish Men; EPIC, European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition; HPFS, Health Professionals Follow-up Study; JPHC-I, Japan Public Health Center-Based Study Cohort I; JPHC-II, Japan Public Health Center-Based Study Cohort II; MCCS, Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study; MEC, Multiethnic Cohort Study; NLCS, Netherlands Cohort Study; PCPT, Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial; PLCO, Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial; RR, relative risk. “Advanced”: defined as T4, N1, or M1 tumors or prostate cancer mortality; “Advanced restricted”: same as advanced prostate cancer but excluding those who died of prostate cancer during follow-up who had been diagnosed with localized cancer or had missing stage data; “High grade”: Gleason score ≥8 or poorly differentiated/undifferentiated; “Localized”: defined as T1/T2 and N0M0 tumors, that is, cancers confined within the prostate; “Low grade”: Gleason score <8 or well/moderately differentiated.

aAll models adjusted for marital status [married (ref), never married, widowed, divorced], race [Caucasian (ref), African-American, Asian, Hispanic, other], education [<high school (ref), high school, >high school], body mass index [BMI, kg/m2; <23 (ref), 23–<25, 25–<30, ≥30], height [meters; <1.70 (ref), 1.70–<1.75, 1.75–<1.80, 1.80–<1.85, ≥1.85; in JPHC-I and JPHC-II: <1.60 (ref), 1.60–<1.65, 1.65–<1.70, 1.70–<1.75, ≥1.75), alcohol [g/day; 0 (ref), >0–<5, 5–<15, 15–<30, ≥30], multivitamin use [no (ref), yes], total energy intake (kcal/d, as continuous variable), smoking status [never (ref), past smoker <15 packyears, past smoker ≥15 packyears, current smoker <40 packyears, current smoker ≥40 packyears], prostate cancer family history [no (ref), yes], physical activity [low (ref), medium, high], history of diabetes [no (ref), yes]. Age in years and year of questionnaire return were included as stratification variables. We additionally stratified the baseline hazard by center for EPIC.

bP value for between-studies heterogeneity for highest category.

cJPHC-I, JPHC-II, and PCPT were excluded from this analysis because these cohorts each had fewer than 50 cases of advanced prostate cancer.

dCARET, CLUE-II, JPHC-I, JPHC-II, MCCS, and PCPT were excluded from this analysis because these cohorts each had fewer than 50 cases of advanced restricted prostate cancer.

eCARET, CLUE-II, JPHC-I, JPHC-II, and PCPT were excluded from this analysis because these cohorts each had fewer than 50 cases of prostate cancer mortality.

fJPHC-I and JPHC-II were excluded from this analysis because these cohorts each had fewer than 50 cases of high-grade prostate cancer.

gJPHC-I and JPHC-II were excluded from this analysis because the variable for cruciferous vegetables was too discrete. There were too few values for the number of categories.

hThe tomato product food group included tomatoes (raw, cooked, and unknown), tomato sauce (with meat, without meat, and unknown), tomato juice, pizza, and lasagna. A fraction was applied to estimate tomato consumption for foods that consisted of tomatoes with other ingredients.

iJPHC-I was excluded from analyses of tomato product intake because this study did not assess tomato consumption. JPHC-II was excluded from this analysis because of a limited intake distribution of tomato products in this study.

View Large

In the second stage, we combined the study-specific loge RRs, weighted by the inverse of their variance and the estimated between-studies variance component (41). We tested for heterogeneity between studies using the Q statistic (41, 42). We calculated two-sided 95% CIs for all statistical tests.

We assessed whether associations for all food groups and risk of total, advanced, advanced restricted, and high-grade prostate cancer, as well as prostate cancer mortality, were consistent with linearity by examining nonparametric regression curves using restricted cubic splines (43, 44). These analyses combined all studies into a single dataset, stratified by age, the year that the questionnaire was returned, and study, and adjusted for the same confounding variables as in the categorical analyses. We excluded participants in the top 1% of intake in each study to reduce the influence of extreme values. The model with linear and cubic spline terms, selected by a stepwise regression procedure, was compared to the model fit with only the linear term using the likelihood ratio test. If associations were consistent with linearity, we then conducted analyses in which intakes were modeled continuously.

We tested for the presence of effect modification by age at diagnosis (<65 vs. ≥65 years), BMI (<25 vs. ≥25 kg/m2), follow-up time (<5 vs. ≥5 years) and geographic region of study (United States vs. other) using a mixed effects meta-regression model (45). Geographic region was included because we could not directly test for effect modification by PSA screening, but we hypothesized that PSA screening was more prevalent and began earlier in the United States compared with other regions of the world (46). This was of concern due to enhanced detection of indolent prostate cancer in countries where PSA screening was commonplace. We tested for differences between prostate cancer outcomes for all food groups using a contrast test (47).

In the pooled cohort of 842,149 participants, followed for a maximum of 9 to 22 years across studies, 52,680 cases of incident prostate cancer were identified (Table 1). There were 38,475 cases of localized prostate cancer, 4,934 advanced cases, 3,115 advanced restricted cases, and 3,205 prostate cancer deaths. By grade, there were 37,556 low-grade and 9,753 high-grade cases (Supplementary Table S1). Median total fruit and vegetable intake (Table 1), as well as the number of fruit and vegetable questions on the FFQs, varied 6- to 7-fold across studies.

Because the age- and multivariable-adjusted results were similar, we only report associations for multivariable models. When intakes were modeled using study-specific quantiles, we observed no statistically significant associations for intakes of total fruits and vegetables, total fruits, and total vegetables, and risk of any prostate cancer endpoint; pooled multivariable RRs comparing the highest versus lowest quantile ranged from 0.89 to 1.09 (Table 2). In general, there was no between-studies heterogeneity for any association. For fruit and vegetable juice, a statistically significant association was only observed for localized prostate cancer; however, risk increased by only 4% comparing the highest versus lowest tertile (pooled multivariable RR = 1.04, 95% CI, 1.01–1.06).

When food group intakes were modeled as categorical variables defined using common absolute cut-off points across studies (Table 3), no statistically significant associations were observed for total fruit and vegetable, total fruit, total fruit and vegetable juice, or total vegetable consumption with risk of total, localized, advanced, advanced restricted, low-grade prostate cancer, and high-grade prostate cancer, as well as prostate cancer mortality; pooled multivariable RRs comparing the highest versus lowest intake categories for each food group ranged from 0.89–1.16. In general, there was no between-studies heterogeneity for any association.

Table 3.

Pooled multivariable RRsa and 95% CI for categories of fruit, vegetable, and mature bean consumption and prostate cancer risk

Pooled multivariable RR (95% CI)PtrendP for between-studies heterogeneityb
Total fruits and vegetables 
Intake category, g/day <200 200–<400 400–<600 600–<800 ≥800   
Totalc 1.00 1.07 (1.02–1.11) 1.04 (0.99–1.08) 1.01 (0.97–1.05) 1.05 (0.99–1.11) 0.72 0.21 
By stage 
 Localizedd 1.00 1.08 (1.03–1.14) 1.06 (1.00–1.12) 1.03 (0.99–1.08) 1.07 (0.99–1.15) 0.99 0.11 
 Advancede 1.00 0.97 (0.88–1.07) 0.96 (0.86–1.07) 0.94 (0.82–1.08) 0.98 (0.84–1.14) 0.78 0.65 
 Advanced restrictedf 1.00 0.99 (0.88–1.12) 1.03 (0.86–1.23) 1.02 (0.85–1.21) 1.02 (0.80–1.30) 0.63 0.24 
 Prostate cancer mortalityg 1.00 1.00 (0.89 -1.13) 0.89 (0.78–1.02) 0.92 (0.78–1.09) 0.89 (0.74–1.07) 0.39 0.86 
By grade 
 Lowc 1.00 1.07 (1.02–1.12) 1.04 (1.00–1.08) 1.01 (0.96–1.06) 1.02 (0.97–1.08) 0.22 0.80 
 Highh 1.00 1.08 (0.97–1.20) 1.11 (0.99–1.25) 1.04 (0.91–1.18) 1.16 (0.95–1.42) 0.33 0.01 
Total fruits 
Intake category, g/day <100 100–<200 200–<300 300–<400 ≥400   
Totalc 1.00 1.01 (0.98–1.04) 1.02 (0.99–1.05) 0.99 (0.96–1.02) 1.00 (0.97–1.03) 0.76 0.81 
By stage 
 Localizedc 1.00 1.01 (0.97–1.06) 1.04 (1.00–1.07) 1.00 (0.96–1.03) 1.01 (0.97–1.05) 0.76 0.38 
 Advancede 1.00 0.90 (0.82–0.98) 0.95 (0.86–1.04) 0.94 (0.85–1.05) 0.93 (0.84–1.03) 0.82 0.57 
 Advanced restrictedf 1.00 0.89 (0.79–0.99) 0.97 (0.86–1.09) 1.04 (0.91–1.20) 0.99 (0.86–1.14) 0.54 0.80 
 Prostate cancer mortalityg 1.00 0.89 (0.80–0.99) 0.99 (0.87–1.12) 0.92 (0.80–1.06) 0.90 (0.76–1.06) 0.66 0.22 
By grade 
 Lowc 1.00 1.02 (0.99–1.06) 1.03 (0.99–1.06) 1.00 (0.96–1.04) 0.99 (0.96–1.03) 0.27 0.92 
 Highh 1.00 0.96 (0.90–1.03) 1.04 (0.97–1.11) 0.99 (0.92–1.07) 1.01 (0.94–1.09) 0.60 0.81 
Fruit and vegetable juice 
Intake category, g/day <25 25–<75 75–<150 150–<250 ≥250   
Total 1.00 1.03 (1.00–1.06) 1.04 (1.00–1.08) 1.02 (0.99–1.05) 1.03 (0.99–1.07) 0.26 0.31 
By stage 
 Localized 1.00 1.04 (0.99–1.09) 1.04 (0.99–1.09) 1.03 (1.00–1.06) 1.03 (0.99–1.06) 0.08 0.58 
 Advancede 1.00 1.03 (0.93–1.15) 1.04 (0.95–1.15) 1.03 (0.93–1.15) 1.09 (0.95–1.25) 0.31 0.36 
 Advanced restrictedf 1.00 1.08 (0.95–1.22) 1.04 (0.92–1.18) 1.10 (0.96–1.26) 1.14 (0.97–1.33) 0.06 0.75 
 Prostate cancer mortalityg 1.00 1.05 (0.94–1.19) 1.02 (0.90–1.14) 1.01 (0.89–1.15) 1.01 (0.86–1.19) 0.75 0.39 
By grade 
 Low 1.00 1.02 (0.97–1.06) 1.03 (0.99–1.08) 1.01 (0.98–1.05) 1.01 (0.96–1.05) 0.75 0.35 
 Highh 1.00 1.14 (1.01–1.27) 1.08 (1.01–1.16) 1.04 (0.97–1.11) 1.08 (0.96–1.22) 0.88 0.17 
Total vegetables 
Intake category, g/day <100 100–<200 200–<300 300–<400 ≥400   
Totali 1.00 1.02 (1.00–1.05) 1.01 (0.98–1.05) 1.01 (0.97–1.05) 0.99 (0.95–1.04) 0.28 0.67 
By stage 
 Localizedj 1.00 1.03 (1.00–1.06) 1.02 (0.98–1.06) 1.02 (0.98–1.07) 0.98 (0.94–1.03) 0.35 0.56 
 Advancede 1.00 0.98 (0.90–1.07) 0.95 (0.86–1.06) 0.96 (0.84–1.10) 0.98 (0.84–1.14) 0.47 0.82 
 Advanced restrictedk 1.00 1.03 (0.93–1.15) 0.96 (0.82–1.14) 1.00 (0.84–1.19) 0.98 (0.81–1.20) 0.58 0.47 
 Prostate cancer mortalityg 1.00 0.94 (0.85–1.04) 0.90 (0.79–1.02) 0.92 (0.77–1.08) 0.94 (0.78–1.13) 0.57 0.89 
By grade 
 Lowl 1.00 1.02 (0.99–1.06) 1.02 (0.98–1.05) 1.01 (0.97–1.06) 0.98 (0.92–1.04) 0.13 0.33 
 Highh 1.00 1.08 (1.00–1.18) 1.07 (0.97–1.18) 1.05 (0.97–1.15) 1.08 (0.94–1.24) 0.73 0.21 
Cruciferous vegetables 
Intake category, g/day <10 10–<30 30–<50 50–<70 ≥70   
Totalm 1.00 1.03 (1.00–1.06) 1.01 (0.97–1.05) 1.00 (0.96–1.04) 1.02 (0.96–1.09) 0.94 0.08 
By stage 
 Localizedm 1.00 1.03 (0.99–1.07) 1.00 (0.95–1.06) 1.00 (0.95–1.05) 1.02 (0.96–1.09) 0.80 0.17 
 Advancede 1.00 1.05 (0.95–1.17) 1.05 (0.89–1.24) 0.91 (0.77–1.09) 0.98 (0.83–1.17) 0.47 0.97 
 Advanced restrictedf 1.00 1.05 (0.95 -1.17) 1.05 (0.89–1.25) 0.90 (0.75–1.08) 0.98 (0.82–1.16) 0.45 0.94 
 Prostate cancer mortalityg 1.00 0.92 (0.83–1.02) 0.94 (0.82–1.08) 0.84 (0.71–1.00) 0.89 (0.75–1.05) 0.28 0.48 
By grade 
 Lowm 1.00 1.02 (0.98–1.06) 1.00 (0.95–1.06) 1.00 (0.95–1.04) 1.02 (0.97–1.06) 0.58 0.50 
 Highh 1.00 1.09 (1.01–1.19) 1.05 (0.97–1.14) 1.11 (0.97–1.27) 1.13 (0.95–1.36) 0.25 0.01 
Tomato productsn 
Intake category, g/day <10 10–<25 25–<50 50–<100 ≥100   
Totalo 1.00 1.00 (0.97–1.03) 0.99 (0.94–1.04) 1.00 (0.96–1.04) 0.95 (0.89–1.02) 0.09 0.17 
By stage 
 Localizedo 1.00 1.00 (0.96–1.04) 1.00 (0.96–1.04) 1.00 (0.96–1.04) 0.95 (0.90–1.01) 0.02 0.47 
 Advancede 1.00 1.00 (0.90–1.12) 1.05 (0.93–1.19) 1.05 (0.88–1.25) 0.99 (0.83–1.18) 0.73 0.67 
 Advanced restrictedp 1.00 0.96 (0.85–1.09) 1.05 (0.88–1.25) 0.99 (0.79–1.23) 0.89 (0.70–1.13) 0.43 0.34 
 Prostate cancer mortalityq 1.00 0.98 (0.85–1.15) 1.02 (0.89–1.17) 1.05 (0.85–1.29) 0.99 (0.80–1.23) 0.84 0.65 
By grade 
 Lowo 1.00 0.99 (0.95–1.03) 0.99 (0.94–1.04) 1.01 (0.95–1.07) 0.93 (0.87–1.00) 0.02 0.38 
 Highr 1.00 1.09 (1.01–1.18) 1.01 (0.90–1.14) 1.06 (0.97–1.15) 1.04 (0.93–1.17) 0.61 0.79 
Mature beanss 
Intake category, g/day <15 15–<50 50–<100 ≥100    
Totalt 1.00 0.99 (0.97–1.01) 0.95 (0.92–0.98) 0.86 (0.78–0.95)  0.003 0.06 
By stage 
 Localizedu 1.00 0.97 (0.95–1.00) 0.93 (0.90–0.97) 0.88 (0.82–0.95)  <0.001 0.37 
 Advancedu 1.00 1.08 (1.00–1.16) 1.01 (0.89–1.14) 1.10 (0.91–1.34)  0.72 0.72 
 Advanced restrictedv 1.00 1.07 (0.95–1.20) 1.02 (0.87–1.20) 1.06 (0.82–1.36)  0.77 0.94 
 Prostate cancer mortalityw 1.00 1.07 (0.97–1.17) 1.02 (0.88–1.19) 1.12 (0.89–1.42)  0.49 0.77 
By grade 
 Lowt 1.00 0.98 (0.95–1.01) 0.94 (0.91–0.98) 0.89 (0.82–0.97)  0.003 0.28 
 Highx 1.00 1.00 (0.93–1.08) 0.99 (0.92–1.07) 0.86 (0.76–0.97)  0.02 0.41 
Pooled multivariable RR (95% CI)PtrendP for between-studies heterogeneityb
Total fruits and vegetables 
Intake category, g/day <200 200–<400 400–<600 600–<800 ≥800   
Totalc 1.00 1.07 (1.02–1.11) 1.04 (0.99–1.08) 1.01 (0.97–1.05) 1.05 (0.99–1.11) 0.72 0.21 
By stage 
 Localizedd 1.00 1.08 (1.03–1.14) 1.06 (1.00–1.12) 1.03 (0.99–1.08) 1.07 (0.99–1.15) 0.99 0.11 
 Advancede 1.00 0.97 (0.88–1.07) 0.96 (0.86–1.07) 0.94 (0.82–1.08) 0.98 (0.84–1.14) 0.78 0.65 
 Advanced restrictedf 1.00 0.99 (0.88–1.12) 1.03 (0.86–1.23) 1.02 (0.85–1.21) 1.02 (0.80–1.30) 0.63 0.24 
 Prostate cancer mortalityg 1.00 1.00 (0.89 -1.13) 0.89 (0.78–1.02) 0.92 (0.78–1.09) 0.89 (0.74–1.07) 0.39 0.86 
By grade 
 Lowc 1.00 1.07 (1.02–1.12) 1.04 (1.00–1.08) 1.01 (0.96–1.06) 1.02 (0.97–1.08) 0.22 0.80 
 Highh 1.00 1.08 (0.97–1.20) 1.11 (0.99–1.25) 1.04 (0.91–1.18) 1.16 (0.95–1.42) 0.33 0.01 
Total fruits 
Intake category, g/day <100 100–<200 200–<300 300–<400 ≥400   
Totalc 1.00 1.01 (0.98–1.04) 1.02 (0.99–1.05) 0.99 (0.96–1.02) 1.00 (0.97–1.03) 0.76 0.81 
By stage 
 Localizedc 1.00 1.01 (0.97–1.06) 1.04 (1.00–1.07) 1.00 (0.96–1.03) 1.01 (0.97–1.05) 0.76 0.38 
 Advancede 1.00 0.90 (0.82–0.98) 0.95 (0.86–1.04) 0.94 (0.85–1.05) 0.93 (0.84–1.03) 0.82 0.57 
 Advanced restrictedf 1.00 0.89 (0.79–0.99) 0.97 (0.86–1.09) 1.04 (0.91–1.20) 0.99 (0.86–1.14) 0.54 0.80 
 Prostate cancer mortalityg 1.00 0.89 (0.80–0.99) 0.99 (0.87–1.12) 0.92 (0.80–1.06) 0.90 (0.76–1.06) 0.66 0.22 
By grade 
 Lowc 1.00 1.02 (0.99–1.06) 1.03 (0.99–1.06) 1.00 (0.96–1.04) 0.99 (0.96–1.03) 0.27 0.92 
 Highh 1.00 0.96 (0.90–1.03) 1.04 (0.97–1.11) 0.99 (0.92–1.07) 1.01 (0.94–1.09) 0.60 0.81 
Fruit and vegetable juice 
Intake category, g/day <25 25–<75 75–<150 150–<250 ≥250   
Total 1.00 1.03 (1.00–1.06) 1.04 (1.00–1.08) 1.02 (0.99–1.05) 1.03 (0.99–1.07) 0.26 0.31 
By stage 
 Localized 1.00 1.04 (0.99–1.09) 1.04 (0.99–1.09) 1.03 (1.00–1.06) 1.03 (0.99–1.06) 0.08 0.58 
 Advancede 1.00 1.03 (0.93–1.15) 1.04 (0.95–1.15) 1.03 (0.93–1.15) 1.09 (0.95–1.25) 0.31 0.36 
 Advanced restrictedf 1.00 1.08 (0.95–1.22) 1.04 (0.92–1.18) 1.10 (0.96–1.26) 1.14 (0.97–1.33) 0.06 0.75 
 Prostate cancer mortalityg 1.00 1.05 (0.94–1.19) 1.02 (0.90–1.14) 1.01 (0.89–1.15) 1.01 (0.86–1.19) 0.75 0.39 
By grade 
 Low 1.00 1.02 (0.97–1.06) 1.03 (0.99–1.08) 1.01 (0.98–1.05) 1.01 (0.96–1.05) 0.75 0.35 
 Highh 1.00 1.14 (1.01–1.27) 1.08 (1.01–1.16) 1.04 (0.97–1.11) 1.08 (0.96–1.22) 0.88 0.17 
Total vegetables 
Intake category, g/day <100 100–<200 200–<300 300–<400 ≥400   
Totali 1.00 1.02 (1.00–1.05) 1.01 (0.98–1.05) 1.01 (0.97–1.05) 0.99 (0.95–1.04) 0.28 0.67 
By stage 
 Localizedj 1.00 1.03 (1.00–1.06) 1.02 (0.98–1.06) 1.02 (0.98–1.07) 0.98 (0.94–1.03) 0.35 0.56 
 Advancede 1.00 0.98 (0.90–1.07) 0.95 (0.86–1.06) 0.96 (0.84–1.10) 0.98 (0.84–1.14) 0.47 0.82 
 Advanced restrictedk 1.00 1.03 (0.93–1.15) 0.96 (0.82–1.14) 1.00 (0.84–1.19) 0.98 (0.81–1.20) 0.58 0.47 
 Prostate cancer mortalityg 1.00 0.94 (0.85–1.04) 0.90 (0.79–1.02) 0.92 (0.77–1.08) 0.94 (0.78–1.13) 0.57 0.89 
By grade 
 Lowl 1.00 1.02 (0.99–1.06) 1.02 (0.98–1.05) 1.01 (0.97–1.06) 0.98 (0.92–1.04) 0.13 0.33 
 Highh 1.00 1.08 (1.00–1.18) 1.07 (0.97–1.18) 1.05 (0.97–1.15) 1.08 (0.94–1.24) 0.73 0.21 
Cruciferous vegetables 
Intake category, g/day <10 10–<30 30–<50 50–<70 ≥70   
Totalm 1.00 1.03 (1.00–1.06) 1.01 (0.97–1.05) 1.00 (0.96–1.04) 1.02 (0.96–1.09) 0.94 0.08 
By stage 
 Localizedm 1.00 1.03 (0.99–1.07) 1.00 (0.95–1.06) 1.00 (0.95–1.05) 1.02 (0.96–1.09) 0.80 0.17 
 Advancede 1.00 1.05 (0.95–1.17) 1.05 (0.89–1.24) 0.91 (0.77–1.09) 0.98 (0.83–1.17) 0.47 0.97 
 Advanced restrictedf 1.00 1.05 (0.95 -1.17) 1.05 (0.89–1.25) 0.90 (0.75–1.08) 0.98 (0.82–1.16) 0.45 0.94 
 Prostate cancer mortalityg 1.00 0.92 (0.83–1.02) 0.94 (0.82–1.08) 0.84 (0.71–1.00) 0.89 (0.75–1.05) 0.28 0.48 
By grade 
 Lowm 1.00 1.02 (0.98–1.06) 1.00 (0.95–1.06) 1.00 (0.95–1.04) 1.02 (0.97–1.06) 0.58 0.50 
 Highh 1.00 1.09 (1.01–1.19) 1.05 (0.97–1.14) 1.11 (0.97–1.27) 1.13 (0.95–1.36) 0.25 0.01 
Tomato productsn 
Intake category, g/day <10 10–<25 25–<50 50–<100 ≥100   
Totalo 1.00 1.00 (0.97–1.03) 0.99 (0.94–1.04) 1.00 (0.96–1.04) 0.95 (0.89–1.02) 0.09 0.17 
By stage 
 Localizedo 1.00 1.00 (0.96–1.04) 1.00 (0.96–1.04) 1.00 (0.96–1.04) 0.95 (0.90–1.01) 0.02 0.47 
 Advancede 1.00 1.00 (0.90–1.12) 1.05 (0.93–1.19) 1.05 (0.88–1.25) 0.99 (0.83–1.18) 0.73 0.67 
 Advanced restrictedp 1.00 0.96 (0.85–1.09) 1.05 (0.88–1.25) 0.99 (0.79–1.23) 0.89 (0.70–1.13) 0.43 0.34 
 Prostate cancer mortalityq 1.00 0.98 (0.85–1.15) 1.02 (0.89–1.17) 1.05 (0.85–1.29) 0.99 (0.80–1.23) 0.84 0.65 
By grade 
 Lowo 1.00 0.99 (0.95–1.03) 0.99 (0.94–1.04) 1.01 (0.95–1.07) 0.93 (0.87–1.00) 0.02 0.38 
 Highr 1.00 1.09 (1.01–1.18) 1.01 (0.90–1.14) 1.06 (0.97–1.15) 1.04 (0.93–1.17) 0.61 0.79 
Mature beanss 
Intake category, g/day <15 15–<50 50–<100 ≥100    
Totalt 1.00 0.99 (0.97–1.01) 0.95 (0.92–0.98) 0.86 (0.78–0.95)  0.003 0.06 
By stage 
 Localizedu 1.00 0.97 (0.95–1.00) 0.93 (0.90–0.97) 0.88 (0.82–0.95)  <0.001 0.37 
 Advancedu 1.00 1.08 (1.00–1.16) 1.01 (0.89–1.14) 1.10 (0.91–1.34)  0.72 0.72 
 Advanced restrictedv 1.00 1.07 (0.95–1.20) 1.02 (0.87–1.20) 1.06 (0.82–1.36)  0.77 0.94 
 Prostate cancer mortalityw 1.00 1.07 (0.97–1.17) 1.02 (0.88–1.19) 1.12 (0.89–1.42)  0.49 0.77 
By grade 
 Lowt 1.00 0.98 (0.95–1.01) 0.94 (0.91–0.98) 0.89 (0.82–0.97)  0.003 0.28 
 Highx 1.00 1.00 (0.93–1.08) 0.99 (0.92–1.07) 0.86 (0.76–0.97)  0.02 0.41 

Abbreviations: NIH-AARP, NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study; ATBC, Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study; CARET, Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial; CI, confidence interval; CLUE-II, CLUE II: Campaign Against Cancer and Heart Disease; CPS-II, Cancer Prevention Study-II Nutrition Cohort; COSM, Cohort of Swedish Men; EPIC, European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition; HPFS, Health Professionals Follow-up Study; JPHC-I, Japan Public Health Center-Based Study Cohort I; JPHC-II, Japan Public Health Center-Based Study Cohort II; MCCS, Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study; MEC, Multiethnic Cohort Study; NLCS, Netherlands Cohort Study; PCPT, Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial; PLCO, Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial; “Advanced”: defined as T4, N1, or M1 tumors or prostate cancer mortality; “Advanced restricted”: same as advanced prostate cancer, but excluding those who died of prostate cancer during follow-up who had been diagnosed with localized cancer or had missing stage data; “High grade”: Gleason score ≥8 or poorly differentiated/undifferentiated; “Localized”: defined as T1/T2 and N0M0 tumors, i.e., cancers confined within the prostate; “Low grade”: Gleason score <8 or well/moderately differentiated.

aAll models adjusted for marital status [married (ref), never married, widowed, divorced], race [Caucasian (ref), African-American, Asian, Hispanic, other], education [<high school (ref), high school, >high school], body mass index [BMI, kg/m2; <23 (ref), 23–<25, 25–<30, ≥30], height [meters; <1.70 (ref), 1.70–<1.75, 1.75–<1.80, 1.80–<1.85, ≥1.85; in JPHC-I and JPHC-II: <1.60 (ref), 1.60–<1.65, 1.65–<1.70, 1.70–<1.75, ≥ 1.75), alcohol [g/day; 0 (ref), >0–<5, 5–<15, 15–<30, ≥30], multivitamin use [no (ref), yes], total energy intake (kcal/d, as continuous variable), smoking status [never (ref), past smoker <15 packyears, past smoker ≥15 packyears, current smoker <40 packyears, current smoker ≥40 packyears], prostate cancer family history [no (ref), yes], physical activity [low (ref), medium, high], history of diabetes [no (ref), yes]. Age in years and year of questionnaire return were included as stratification variables. We additionally stratified the baseline hazard by center for EPIC.

bP value for between-studies heterogeneity for highest category.

cJPHC-II was excluded from the top two levels of intake because there were no cases in these levels. The participants in this study who were in these categories and were not cases were included in the next highest category.

dJPHC-I was excluded from the highest level of intake and JPHC-II was excluded from the two highest levels of intake because there were no cases in these levels. The participants in these studies who were in these categories and were not cases were included in the next highest category.

eJPHC-I, JPHC-II, and PCPT were excluded from this analysis because each had fewer than 50 cases of advanced prostate cancer.

fCARET, CLUE-II, JPHC-I, JPHC-II, MCCS, and PCPT were excluded from this analysis because each study had fewer than 50 cases of advanced restricted prostate cancer.

gCARET, CLUE-II, JPHC-I, JPHC-II, and PCPT were excluded from this analysis because each study had fewer than 50 cases of prostate cancer mortality.

hJPHC-I and JPHC-II were excluded from this analysis because each had fewer than 50 cases of high-grade prostate cancer.

iJPHC-I was excluded from the highest two levels of intake and JPHC-II was excluded from the highest three levels of intake because there were no cases in these levels. The participants in these studies who were in these categories and were not cases were included in the next highest category.

jJPHC-I was excluded from the highest two levels of intake, JPHC-II was excluded from the highest three levels of intake, and ATBC was excluded from the highest level of intake because there were no cases in these levels. The participants in these studies who were in these categories and were not cases were included in the next highest category.

kJPHC-I, JPHC-II, PCPT, CARET, CLUE-II, and MCCS were excluded from this analysis because each study had fewer than 50 cases of this subtype; ATBC was excluded from the highest two levels of intake because there were no cases in these levels. The participants in ATBC who were in these categories and were not cases were included in the next highest category.

lJPHC-II was excluded from this analysis because all cases were in the reference group; JPHC-I was excluded from the highest two levels of intake and ATBC was excluded from the highest level of intake because there were no cases in these levels. The participants in JPHC-I and ATBC who were in these categories and were not cases were included in the next highest category.

mJPHC-I and JPHC-II were excluded from the highest two levels of intake because there were no cases in these levels. The participants in these studies who were in these categories and were not cases were included in the next highest category.

nThe tomato product food group included tomatoes (raw, cooked, and unknown), tomato sauce (with meat, without meat, and unknown), tomato juice, pizza, and lasagna. A fraction was applied to estimate tomato consumption for foods that consisted of tomatoes with other ingredients. JPHC-I was excluded from all analyses of tomato product intake because this study did not assess tomato consumption.

oJPHC-II was excluded from the highest level of intake because there were no cases in this level. The participants in this study who were in this category and were not cases were included in the next highest category.

pCARET, CLUE-II, JPHC-II, MCCS, and PCPT were excluded from this analysis because each study had fewer than 50 cases of advanced restricted prostate cancer.

qCARET, CLUE-II, JPHC-II, and PCPT were excluded from this analysis because each study had fewer than 50 cases of prostate cancer mortality.

rJPHC-II was excluded from this analysis because this study had fewer than 50 cases of high-grade prostate cancer.

sATBC and JPHC-II were excluded from all analyses of mature bean intake because these studies did not assess mature bean consumption.

tJPHC-I was excluded from the highest two levels of intake and CARET was excluded from the highest level of intake because there were no cases in these levels. The participants in these studies who were in these categories and were not cases were included in the next highest category.

uJPHC-I and PCPT were excluded from this analysis because each study had fewer than 50 cases of this subtype; CARET, CLUE-II, CPS-II, and NLCS were excluded from the highest level of intake because there were no cases in this level. The participants in CARET, CLUE-II, CPS-II, and NLCS who were in this category and were not cases were included in the next highest category.

vJPHC-I, PCPT, CARET, CLUE-II, and MCCS were excluded from this analysis because each study had fewer than 50 cases of this subtype; CPS-II, and NLCS were excluded from the highest level of intake because there were no cases in this level. The participants in CPS-II and NLCS who were in these categories and were not cases were included in the next highest category.

wJPHC-I, PCPT, CARET, and CLUE-II were excluded from this analysis because each study had fewer than 50 cases of this subtype; CPS-II, NLCS, and PLCO were excluded from the highest level of intake because there were no cases in this level. The participants in CPS-II, NLCS, and PLCO who were in this category and were not cases were included in the next highest category.

xJPHC-I was excluded from this analysis because this study had fewer than 50 cases of this subtype; CARET, CLUE-II, and NLCS were excluded from the highest level of intake because there were no cases in this level. The participants in CARET, CLUE-II, and NLCS, who were in this category and were not cases, were included in the next highest category.

View Large

We did not find any statistically significant associations between intakes of cruciferous vegetables or all tomato products combined and any prostate cancer endpoint (Tables 2 and 3). However, except for pizza, (which generally includes tomato paste or sauce and was assessed in 11 cohorts), the vast majority of studies did not assess sources of bioavailable lycopene (i.e., cooked tomatoes, tomato sauce, pasta with tomato sauce, pizza, and lasagna), which likely resulted in our tomato product variable not being a good measure of intake of bioavailable lycopene. Of note, pizza intake was associated with a statistically significantly reduced risk of prostate cancer mortality (2,262 cases among eight cohorts; pooled multivariable RR = 0.46, 95% CI, 0.23–0.89 for a 120 g/day increase in consumption, which is roughly equivalent to one slice of pizza).

We also investigated associations between mature bean intake and prostate cancer endpoints. We excluded soybeans from the mature bean group because of an isoflavone hypothesis in cancer, but noted that soy intake was negligible in most studies, except for the Japan Public Health Center-Based Study Cohorts I (JPHC-I) and II (JPHC-II), and the Multiethnic Cohort Study (MEC). However, JPHC-I and JPHC-II were not included in analyses of advanced prostate cancer, advanced restricted prostate cancer, or prostate cancer mortality because they had few cases of these outcomes. We found statistically significant inverse associations between mature bean intake and risk of total, localized, low-grade, and high-grade prostate cancer, while nonsignificant positive associations were observed for advanced and advanced restricted prostate cancer, as well as prostate cancer mortality.

For all food groups evaluated, we compared the results between localized and advanced prostate cancer, localized and advanced restricted prostate cancer, low-grade and high-grade prostate cancer, and localized prostate cancer and prostate cancer mortality when fruit and vegetable intake was modeled as categories based on common absolute cut-off points. We observed only one statistically significant difference (between advanced and localized prostate cancer for mature bean consumption, P = 0.03; other results not shown).

Nonparametric regression analyses indicated that all associations between intake of each food group and risk of total, advanced, advanced restricted, and high-grade prostate cancer, and prostate cancer mortality were linear (Pnonlinearity > 0.05), with the exception of tomato product consumption and risk of total prostate cancer. We therefore conducted analyses in which food groups were modeled as continuous variables (except for tomato product consumption and risk of total, localized, or low-grade prostate cancer, due to the nonlinear association observed for total prostate cancer). Among all the food groups and prostate cancer endpoints evaluated, statistically significant associations were only present for mature bean intake and risk of total, localized, low-grade, and high-grade prostate cancer (Supplementary Table S2).

In examination of specific fruits and vegetables, we observed few statistically significant associations (Table 4). While we observed a statistically significant positive association for corn intake and risk of advanced prostate cancer (pooled multivariable RR = 1.53, 95% CI, 1.12–2.07) and prostate cancer mortality (pooled multivariable RR = 1.49, 95% CI, 1.01–2.20), other significant associations for individual food items and prostate cancer outcomes were small in magnitude or did not follow a discernible pattern.

Table 4.

Pooled multivariable RRs and 95% CI for specific food items and prostate cancer risk

ItemIncrement unitaTotal prostate cancerLocal prostate cancerAdvanced prostate cancerAdvanced restricted prostate cancerProstate cancer mortalityLow-grade prostate cancerHigh-grade prostate cancer
Apples, pears, & applesauce 138 g/day 0.99b,c (0.97–1.02) 1.00b,c (0.97–1.02) 0.97b,c,d,e (0.87–1.08) 1.03b,c,d,e,f,g,h (0.88–1.20) 0.97b,c,d,e,f,g (0.86–1.09) 1.00b,c (0.97–1.03) 0.98b,c,d (0.92–1.04) 
Bananas 114 g/day 1.01c,d,g,i,j,k,(0.96–1.07) 1.03c,d,g,i,j,k(0.97–1.09) 0.91c,d,e,g,i,j,k (0.80–1.03) 0.90c,d,e,f,g,h,j,k, (0.77–1.05) 0.91c,d,e,f,g,i,j,k(0.76–1.09) 1.01c,d,g,i,j,k(0.95–1.07) 1.02c,d,g,i,j,k (0.96–1.10) 
Broccoli 78 g/day 1.07b,c,d,l (0.99–1.17) 1.09b,c,d,l (1.00–1.18) 0.90b,c,d,e,l (0.73–1.10) 0.96b,c,d,e,f,g,h,l (0.76–1.22) 0.78b,c,d,e,f,g,l (0.59–1.03) 1.08b,c,d,l (0.99–1.17) 1.05b,c,d,l (0.96–1.16) 
Cabbage 68 g/day 0.97c,d,e,h,k,l (0.92–1.03) 0.99c,d,e,h,k,l(0.92–1.06) 0.83c,d,e,h,k,l(0.68–1.01) 0.89c,d,e,f,g,h,k,l,(0.69–1.15) 0.82c,d,e,f,g,h,k,l(0.64–1.04) 0.95c,d,e,h,k,l (0.89–1.02) 1.04c,d,e,h,k,l (0.89–1.21) 
Cantaloupe 134 g/day 1.03b,c,d,j,l,m (0.89–1.19) 1.00b,c,d,j,l,m (0.82–1.22) 0.80b,c,d,e,j,l,m (0.52–1.22) 0.64b,c,d,e,f,g,h,j,l,m (0.33–1.22) 0.71b,c,d,e,f,g,h,j,l,m (0.28–1.80) 1.05b,c,d,j,l,m (0.86–1.29) 1.01b,c,d,j,l,m (0.78–1.30) 
Carrots 57 g/day 1.00b,c (0.97–1.04) 0.99b,c (0.93–1.05) 0.95b,c,d,e (0.85–1.06) 0.97b,c,d,e,f,g,h (0.84–1.12) 0.90b,c,d,e,f,g,n (0.76–1.06) 0.99b,c (0.93–1.04) 1.02b,c,d (0.95–1.10) 
Corn 82 g/day 0.98b,c,d,g,i,j,l,m (0.90–1.06) 0.92b,c,d,g,i,j,l,m (0.84–1.02) 1.53b,c,d,e,g,i,j,l,m (1.12–2.07) 1.53b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,l,m (0.95–2.46) 1.49b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,l,m (1.01–2.20) 0.92b,c,d,g,i,j,l,m (0.83–1.02) 1.22b,c,d,g,i,j,l,m (0.98–1.51) 
Mixed greens 100 g/day 1.06b,j,l,m,n (0.90–1.25) 0.94b,j,l,m,n (0.74–1.19) 1.68b,c,d,e,j,l,m,n (0.96–2.96) 1.81b,c,d,e,f,g,h,j,l,m,n(0.88–3.73) 1.66b,c,d,e,f,g,h,j,l,m,n (0.80–3.43) 0.98b,j,l,m,n (0.80–1.20) 1.18b,c,d,j,l,m,n (0.84–1.64) 
Grapefruit 120 g/day 0.99b,c,d,e,j,l,m(0.96–1.03) 1.01b,c,d,e,j,l,m (0.97–1.05) 0.97b,c,d,e,j,l,m(0.84–1.11) 0.92b,c,d,e,f,g,h,j,l,m,n(0.76–1.12) 0.95b,c,d,e,f,g,h,j,l,m,n(0.80–1.13) 0.99b,c,d,e,j,l,m(0.94–1.04) 0.96b,c,d,e,j,l,m (0.88–1.04) 
Orange & grapefruit juice 186 g/day 1.01c,d,m,n (1.00–1.02) 1.02c,d,m,n (1.01–1.04) 1.00c,d,e,m,n (0.94–1.06) 1.05c,d,e,f,g,h,m,n (0.98–1.13) 0.98c,d,e,f,g,m,n (0.91–1.06) 1.00c,d,m,n (0.99–1.02) 1.01c,d,m,n (0.98–1.04) 
Lettuce 56 g/day 0.99b,c,d (0.96–1.02) 1.00b,c,d (0.96–1.03) 0.91b,c,d,e (0.85–0.98) 0.92b,c,d,e,f,g,h (0.84–1.01) 0.86b,c,d,e,f,g,n (0.78–0.94) 1.00b,c,d (0.97–1.03) 1.01b,c,d (0.97–1.05) 
Oranges 131 g/day 1.00b,c,d,e,j,m (0.97–1.04) 1.00b,c,d,e,j,m (0.97–1.04) 1.03b,c,d,e,j,m (0.94–1.13) 1.00b,c,d,e,f,g,h,j,m (0.88–1.13) 1.06b,c,d,e,f,g,j,m (0.94–1.18) 1.00b,c,d,e,j,m (0.96–1.04) 1.05b,c,d,e,j,m (0.94–1.17) 
Peppers 138 g/day 0.78b,c,d,g,i,o (0.56–1.08) 0.75b,c,d,g,i,o (0.54–1.04) 1.01b,c,d,e,g,i,o (0.53–1.92) 1.08b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,o (0.45–2.58) 1.31b,c,d,e,f,g,i,o (0.63–2.73) 0.68b,c,d,g,i,o (0.46–0.99) 1.77b,c,d,g,i,o (0.66–4.74) 
String beans 68 g/day 1.01b,c,d,g,i,j,o (0.89–1.14) 1.00b,c,d,g,i,j,o (0.89–1.12) 1.03b,c,d,e,g,i,j,o (0.86–1.24) 0.97b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,o (0.72–1.31) 1.11b,c,d,e,f,g,i,j,o (0.86–1.43) 0.99b,c,d,g,i,j,o (0.88–1.12) 1.05b,c,d,g,i,j,o (0.93–1.18) 
Vegetable soup 244 g/day 1.02b,c,d,h,j,k,l,m,o(0.95–1.10) 0.97b,c,d,h,j,k,l,m,o (0.86–1.09) 1.27b,c,d,e,h,j,k,l,m,o (0.94–1.71) 1.36b,c,d,e,f,g,h,j,k,l,m,o(0.91–2.03) 1.16b,c,d,e,f,g,h,j,k,l,m,o(0.78–1.73) 1.02b,c,d,h,j,k,l,m,o(0.93–1.11) 0.99b,c,d,h,j,k,l,m,o (0.83–1.19) 
Spinach 80 g/day 1.00b,c,d,e,h,o (0.95–1.06) 1.10b,c,d,e,h,o (0.89–1.36) 1.25b,c,d,e,h,o (0.85–1.84) 1.03b,c,d,e,f,g,h,o (0.78–1.37) 1.38b,c,d,e,f,g,h,o (0.94–2.03) 1.00b,c,d,e,h,o (0.93–1.08) 1.25b,c,d,e,h,o (0.93–1.69) 
Tomatoes 122 g/day 0.97b,c,e,n,p (0.86–1.10) 0.97b,c,e,n,p (0.88–1.07) 0.98b,c,e,n,p (0.82–1.18) 0.91b,c,d,e,f,g,h,n,p (0.65–1.27) 0.97b,c,d,e,f,g,n,p (0.78–1.20) 0.98b,c,e,n,p (0.84–1.14) 0.99b,c,d,e,n,p (0.85–1.14) 
Yams 128 g/day 0.98b,c,d,h,j,l,m(0.81–1.18) 1.01b,c,d,h,j,l,m(0.81–1.27) 1.28b,c,d,e,h,j,l,m(0.48–3.41) 1.44b,c,d,e,f,g,h,j,m,l (0.68–3.07) 0.74b,c,d,e,f,g,h,j,l,m(0.22–2.51) 0.88b,c,d,h,j,l,m(0.68–1.12) 1.54b,c,d,h,j,l,m(0.59–4.03) 
ItemIncrement unitaTotal prostate cancerLocal prostate cancerAdvanced prostate cancerAdvanced restricted prostate cancerProstate cancer mortalityLow-grade prostate cancerHigh-grade prostate cancer
Apples, pears, & applesauce 138 g/day 0.99b,c (0.97–1.02) 1.00b,c (0.97–1.02) 0.97b,c,d,e (0.87–1.08) 1.03b,c,d,e,f,g,h (0.88–1.20) 0.97b,c,d,e,f,g (0.86–1.09) 1.00b,c (0.97–1.03) 0.98b,c,d (0.92–1.04) 
Bananas 114 g/day 1.01c,d,g,i,j,k,(0.96–1.07) 1.03c,d,g,i,j,k(0.97–1.09) 0.91c,d,e,g,i,j,k (0.80–1.03) 0.90c,d,e,f,g,h,j,k, (0.77–1.05) 0.91c,d,e,f,g,i,j,k(0.76–1.09) 1.01c,d,g,i,j,k(0.95–1.07) 1.02c,d,g,i,j,k (0.96–1.10) 
Broccoli 78 g/day 1.07b,c,d,l (0.99–1.17) 1.09b,c,d,l (1.00–1.18) 0.90b,c,d,e,l (0.73–1.10) 0.96b,c,d,e,f,g,h,l (0.76–1.22) 0.78b,c,d,e,f,g,l (0.59–1.03) 1.08b,c,d,l (0.99–1.17) 1.05b,c,d,l (0.96–1.16) 
Cabbage 68 g/day 0.97c,d,e,h,k,l (0.92–1.03) 0.99c,d,e,h,k,l(0.92–1.06) 0.83c,d,e,h,k,l(0.68–1.01) 0.89c,d,e,f,g,h,k,l,(0.69–1.15) 0.82c,d,e,f,g,h,k,l(0.64–1.04) 0.95c,d,e,h,k,l (0.89–1.02) 1.04c,d,e,h,k,l (0.89–1.21) 
Cantaloupe 134 g/day 1.03b,c,d,j,l,m (0.89–1.19) 1.00b,c,d,j,l,m (0.82–1.22) 0.80b,c,d,e,j,l,m (0.52–1.22) 0.64b,c,d,e,f,g,h,j,l,m (0.33–1.22) 0.71b,c,d,e,f,g,h,j,l,m (0.28–1.80) 1.05b,c,d,j,l,m (0.86–1.29) 1.01b,c,d,j,l,m (0.78–1.30) 
Carrots 57 g/day 1.00b,c (0.97–1.04) 0.99b,c (0.93–1.05) 0.95b,c,d,e (0.85–1.06) 0.97b,c,d,e,f,g,h (0.84–1.12) 0.90b,c,d,e,f,g,n (0.76–1.06) 0.99b,c (0.93–1.04) 1.02b,c,d (0.95–1.10) 
Corn 82 g/day 0.98b,c,d,g,i,j,l,m (0.90–1.06) 0.92b,c,d,g,i,j,l,m (0.84–1.02) 1.53b,c,d,e,g,i,j,l,m (1.12–2.07) 1.53b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,l,m (0.95–2.46) 1.49b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,l,m (1.01–2.20) 0.92b,c,d,g,i,j,l,m (0.83–1.02) 1.22b,c,d,g,i,j,l,m (0.98–1.51) 
Mixed greens 100 g/day 1.06b,j,l,m,n (0.90–1.25) 0.94b,j,l,m,n (0.74–1.19) 1.68b,c,d,e,j,l,m,n (0.96–2.96) 1.81b,c,d,e,f,g,h,j,l,m,n(0.88–3.73) 1.66b,c,d,e,f,g,h,j,l,m,n (0.80–3.43) 0.98b,j,l,m,n (0.80–1.20) 1.18b,c,d,j,l,m,n (0.84–1.64) 
Grapefruit 120 g/day 0.99b,c,d,e,j,l,m(0.96–1.03) 1.01b,c,d,e,j,l,m (0.97–1.05) 0.97b,c,d,e,j,l,m(0.84–1.11) 0.92b,c,d,e,f,g,h,j,l,m,n(0.76–1.12) 0.95b,c,d,e,f,g,h,j,l,m,n(0.80–1.13) 0.99b,c,d,e,j,l,m(0.94–1.04) 0.96b,c,d,e,j,l,m (0.88–1.04) 
Orange & grapefruit juice 186 g/day 1.01c,d,m,n (1.00–1.02) 1.02c,d,m,n (1.01–1.04) 1.00c,d,e,m,n (0.94–1.06) 1.05c,d,e,f,g,h,m,n (0.98–1.13) 0.98c,d,e,f,g,m,n (0.91–1.06) 1.00c,d,m,n (0.99–1.02) 1.01c,d,m,n (0.98–1.04) 
Lettuce 56 g/day 0.99b,c,d (0.96–1.02) 1.00b,c,d (0.96–1.03) 0.91b,c,d,e (0.85–0.98) 0.92b,c,d,e,f,g,h (0.84–1.01) 0.86b,c,d,e,f,g,n (0.78–0.94) 1.00b,c,d (0.97–1.03) 1.01b,c,d (0.97–1.05) 
Oranges 131 g/day 1.00b,c,d,e,j,m (0.97–1.04) 1.00b,c,d,e,j,m (0.97–1.04) 1.03b,c,d,e,j,m (0.94–1.13) 1.00b,c,d,e,f,g,h,j,m (0.88–1.13) 1.06b,c,d,e,f,g,j,m (0.94–1.18) 1.00b,c,d,e,j,m (0.96–1.04) 1.05b,c,d,e,j,m (0.94–1.17) 
Peppers 138 g/day 0.78b,c,d,g,i,o (0.56–1.08) 0.75b,c,d,g,i,o (0.54–1.04) 1.01b,c,d,e,g,i,o (0.53–1.92) 1.08b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,o (0.45–2.58) 1.31b,c,d,e,f,g,i,o (0.63–2.73) 0.68b,c,d,g,i,o (0.46–0.99) 1.77b,c,d,g,i,o (0.66–4.74) 
String beans 68 g/day 1.01b,c,d,g,i,j,o (0.89–1.14) 1.00b,c,d,g,i,j,o (0.89–1.12) 1.03b,c,d,e,g,i,j,o (0.86–1.24) 0.97b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,o (0.72–1.31) 1.11b,c,d,e,f,g,i,j,o (0.86–1.43) 0.99b,c,d,g,i,j,o (0.88–1.12) 1.05b,c,d,g,i,j,o (0.93–1.18) 
Vegetable soup 244 g/day 1.02b,c,d,h,j,k,l,m,o(0.95–1.10) 0.97b,c,d,h,j,k,l,m,o (0.86–1.09) 1.27b,c,d,e,h,j,k,l,m,o (0.94–1.71) 1.36b,c,d,e,f,g,h,j,k,l,m,o(0.91–2.03) 1.16b,c,d,e,f,g,h,j,k,l,m,o(0.78–1.73) 1.02b,c,d,h,j,k,l,m,o(0.93–1.11) 0.99b,c,d,h,j,k,l,m,o (0.83–1.19) 
Spinach 80 g/day 1.00b,c,d,e,h,o (0.95–1.06) 1.10b,c,d,e,h,o (0.89–1.36) 1.25b,c,d,e,h,o (0.85–1.84) 1.03b,c,d,e,f,g,h,o (0.78–1.37) 1.38b,c,d,e,f,g,h,o (0.94–2.03) 1.00b,c,d,e,h,o (0.93–1.08) 1.25b,c,d,e,h,o (0.93–1.69) 
Tomatoes 122 g/day 0.97b,c,e,n,p (0.86–1.10) 0.97b,c,e,n,p (0.88–1.07) 0.98b,c,e,n,p (0.82–1.18) 0.91b,c,d,e,f,g,h,n,p (0.65–1.27) 0.97b,c,d,e,f,g,n,p (0.78–1.20) 0.98b,c,e,n,p (0.84–1.14) 0.99b,c,d,e,n,p (0.85–1.14) 
Yams 128 g/day 0.98b,c,d,h,j,l,m(0.81–1.18) 1.01b,c,d,h,j,l,m(0.81–1.27) 1.28b,c,d,e,h,j,l,m(0.48–3.41) 1.44b,c,d,e,f,g,h,j,m,l (0.68–3.07) 0.74b,c,d,e,f,g,h,j,l,m(0.22–2.51) 0.88b,c,d,h,j,l,m(0.68–1.12) 1.54b,c,d,h,j,l,m(0.59–4.03) 

NOTE: “Advanced”: defined as T4, N1, or M1 tumors or prostate cancer mortality; “Advanced restricted”: same as advanced prostate cancer, but excluding those who died of prostate cancer during follow-up who had been diagnosed with localized cancer or had missing stage data; “High grade”: Gleason score ≥8 or poorly differentiated/undifferentiated; “Localized”: defined as T1/T2 and N0M0 tumors, that is, cancers confined within the prostate; “Low grade”: Gleason score <8 or well/moderately differentiated. All models adjusted for marital status [married (ref), never married, widowed, divorced), race [Caucasian (ref), African-American, Asian, Hispanic, other), education [<high school (ref), high school, >high school], body mass index [BMI, kg/m2; <23 (ref), 23–<25, 25–<30, ≥30], height [meters; <1.70 (ref), 1.70–<1.75, 1.75–<1.80, 1.80–<1.85, ≥1.85; in JPHC-I and JPHC-II: <1.60 (ref), 1.60–<1.65, 1.65–<1.70, 1.70–<1.75, ≥1.75], alcohol [g/day; 0 (ref), >0–<5, 5–<15, 15–<30, ≥30], multivitamin use [no (ref), yes], total energy intake (kcal/d, as continuous variable), smoking status [never (ref), past smoker <15 packyears, past smoker ≥15 packyears, current smoker <40 packyears, current smoker ≥40 packyears], prostate cancer family history [no (ref), yes], physical activity [low (ref), medium, high], history of diabetes [no (ref), yes]. Age in years and year of questionnaire return were included as stratification variables. We additionally stratified the baseline hazard by center for EPIC.

aIncrements were chosen to reflect a serving size of each individual item (e.g., generally 1 cup for lettuce and soup, ½ cup or 1 medium for most other fruits and vegetables, 6 oz for juice).

bExcludes European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC).

cExcludes The Japan Public Health Center-Based Study I (JPHC-I).

dExcludes The Japan Public Health Center-Based Study II (JPHC-II).

eExcludes Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT).

fExcludes Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial (CARET).

gExcludes CLUE II: Campaign Against Cancer and Heart Disease (CLUE-II).

hExcludes Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (MCCS).

iExcludes Cancer Prevention Study-II Nutrition Cohort (CPS-II).

jExcludes Cohort of Swedish Men (COSM).

kExcludes Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS).

lExcludes Netherlands Cohort Study (NLCS).

mExcludes Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study (ATBC).

nExcludes NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study (NIH-AARP).

oExcludes Multiethnic Cohort (MEC).

pExcludes Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO).

View Large

There was no evidence of effect modification by follow-up time, age at diagnosis, or geographic region for the associations between all food groups and each prostate cancer endpoint (Pinteraction > 0.10, results not shown), and only one statistically significant association for effect modification by BMI. Because many analyses were conducted, the latter result was likely due to chance.

In this pooled analysis of 15 prospective cohort studies, we did not find any statistically significant associations between intakes of total fruits and vegetables, total fruits, total vegetables, cruciferous vegetables, and most specific fruits and vegetables and risk of prostate cancer overall, for subtypes defined by stage or grade, or for prostate cancer mortality regardless of whether intakes were modeled as quantiles, categories based on common absolute cut-off points, or continuously. While some case–control studies have suggested an inverse association between vegetable intake and prostate cancer risk (48–52) and a positive association between fruit intake and total prostate cancer risk (53, 54), other case–control studies (55, 56) and cohort studies (57–59) that did not participate in these analyses have shown null results. Our results similarly suggest no clear benefit (or harm) of total fruit and/or vegetable intake on risk of prostate cancer (total or subtypes). While we observed some statistically significant associations for fruit and vegetable juice intake and risk of total and localized prostate cancer, and for a few specific fruits and vegetables, most associations were weak and likely statistically significant due to the very large sample size. Moreover, the large number of tests we conducted, and our lack of a priori hypotheses about most associations with prostate cancer, suggests they may be due to chance.

The inverse associations we observed between mature bean intake and risk of total, localized, low-grade, and high-grade prostate cancer are consistent with findings from other epidemiologic investigations (51, 53, 60, 61), although these findings have not been consistent across all studies (49, 52, 62). Although these inverse associations have been attributed to the high dietary fiber content of mature beans (63), the association between dietary fiber intake and prostate cancer has been inconsistent (63–67). In addition, many fruits and vegetables have high fiber content, and yet we did not observe any inverse associations for fruit and vegetable intake. The associations for mature bean consumption and risk of indolent prostate cancer may therefore be due to chance or to residual confounding. This is supported by an observed nonsignificant increased risk of advanced prostate cancer and prostate cancer mortality with increasing mature bean intake.

Despite, an a priori hypothesis for a protective role of tomatoes on prostate cancer risk, we did not find inverse associations between tomato product intake and risk of any prostate cancer outcome. This could be due to the lack of assessment in most cohorts of sources of bioavailable lycopene, the potential cancer-preventive agent in tomatoes. However, we observed a statistically significant inverse association for prostate cancer mortality and pizza intake, which was the only source of bioavailable lycopene that was assessed in the majority of studies included. We also may not have observed an association due to the fact that we only used data on overall tomato product intake, which does not account for the absorption, distribution, or metabolism of lycopene. In fact, correlation coefficients between dietary intake of lycopene and circulating lycopene are generally less than 0.30 (68–70). Inverse associations between circulating lycopene levels, which better reflect bioavailable lycopene, and prostate cancer risk have been observed in previous studies (71, 72), and for risk of advanced prostate cancer in a recent large pooled analysis (73).

Participants with a healthier lifestyle (i.e., those with higher fruit and vegetable consumption) may have better access to healthcare, be more likely to undergo PSA screening, and be more likely to be diagnosed with indolent prostate cancer (74, 75). Most studies in the United States in this pooled analysis (8 studies) were conducted in the post-PSA era, which saw a dramatic increase in prostate cancer incidence in the 1990s (76, 77), and may therefore be affected. We were unable to separately examine cases diagnosed in the “pre-PSA” versus “post-PSA” era because too few cases were diagnosed in the pre-PSA era, or exclude cases diagnosed by PSA screening because the majority of studies did not have information on PSA screening available. We alternatively tested associations between all food groups and prostate cancer risk separately in the US and other regions, since PSA screening started earlier in the US than in other countries, but found no significant differences in associations by region. However, the extent to which PSA screening popularity in Europe, Asia, and Oceania lagged behind that in the United States, and current differences in screening between regions, are unclear (78). Thus, we cannot exclude the possibility that healthier lifestyle and diet choices among men who undergo PSA screening in North America may explain our observed associations. However, it should be noted that we adjusted for multiple factors associated with lifestyle choices, including BMI, physical activity, multivitamin use, and smoking habits.

An important strength of this study is its inclusion of many studies (most of which have not previously published on these associations) across different populations and geographic regions, which allowed us to observe a wide range of fruit and vegetable intake (7-fold difference in median intake across studies). The exposure, endpoint, and covariate data from each study were harmonized, standardized definitions were applied to each of the fruit and vegetable groups, and there was little evidence of heterogeneity in the results between studies. This allowed us to pool these studies, which greatly increased our power to detect associations for prostate cancer subtypes. This is especially important for analyses for advanced prostate cancer and prostate cancer mortality, which are underpowered in most cohort studies. This study's large size also enabled us to test for effect modification by BMI, follow-up time, age at diagnosis, and geographic region. Finally, because all included studies used a prospective cohort design, there is a lower risk of recall bias, which is problematic in retrospective nutritional epidemiologic investigations.

Despite these strengths, this study has several limitations. Diet was measured with error due to both within-person random and systematic variation (79, 80), and we could not apply techniques that have been developed to adjust for these errors (80–82) because most studies did not assess the validity of fruit, vegetable, and mature bean intake in their questionnaires. If there are any true associations between fruit and vegetable intake and prostate cancer risk, this measurement error could have attenuated them and led us to report a nonsignificant association. In addition, we only had a single measure of intake at baseline, and therefore could not assess changes in diet over time or test for potentially different etiologically relevant exposure time periods. It is also possible that some noncases were actually undiagnosed cases, which would most likely attenuate the associations observed. However, we expect this to be less problematic for the results for advanced prostate cancer and prostate cancer mortality, which are less likely to be misclassified than localized prostate cancer, and are less likely to be increased due to screening. Although we harmonized these data and used standardized criteria for defining exposures and covariates across studies, there is still heterogeneity in dietary evaluation, data collection, sampling procedures, and other aspects of study design. However, the prospective nature of each study reduced the risk of differential measurement error between cases and noncases, and the tests for between-studies heterogeneity in the risk estimates were nonsignificant across most associations evaluated. Because we only included data on confounding variables measured at study enrollment in our regression models, there could be residual confounding by time-varying covariates. However, our results showed little evidence of confounding between the age-adjusted and multivariable analyses. Our analyses were also limited due to our lack of data on PSA screening, although we observed no difference in results between studies conducted in the United States compared with studies in other regions where PSA screening is likely less common. Finally, we were unable to assess effect modification by race/ethnicity due to a low number of cases in racial and ethnic groups other than Caucasians.

In summary, this large pooled analysis of prospective studies does not support a strong role of fruit and vegetable consumption and risk of prostate cancer. This appears to be true for intake of both broad and more specific fruit and vegetable groupings. While we did observe inverse associations for mature bean consumption (excluding soy) and risk of some prostate cancer subtypes, the low consumption and narrow distribution of intake among participants suggests we may have missed any associations involving higher mature bean intake and prostate cancer outcomes. These associations should therefore be examined in other populations with higher levels of mature bean intake in future studies. In addition, while overall tomato intake was not associated with prostate cancer risk, further study of cooked tomato products that provide bioavailable lycopene is warranted. Although not strongly associated with prostate cancer risk or mortality in our study, fruit, vegetable, and bean intake remain important for reducing risk of obesity (83), cardiovascular disease, and all-cause mortality (84).

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Conception and design: J. Petimar, K. Wu, D. Albanes, G.G. Giles, E.L. Giovannucci, Y. Park, A. Wolk, S.A. Smith-Warner

Development of methodology: M. Wang, S.A. Smith-Warner

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): D. Albanes, P.A. van den Brandt, G.G. Giles, E.L. Giovannucci, G.E. Goodman, N. Håkansson, K. Helzlsouer, T.J. Key, L.N. Kolonel, S. Männistö, M.L. McCullough, M.L. Neuhouser, Y. Park, N. Sawada, S. Tsugane, B.A.J. Verhage, Y. Wang, L.R. Wilkens, A. Wolk, R.G. Ziegler, S.A. Smith-Warner

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): J. Petimar, K.M. Wilson, K. Wu, P.A. van den Brandt, R.L. Milne, Y. Park, S.A. Smith-Warner

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: J. Petimar, K.M. Wilson, K. Wu, D. Albanes, P.A. van den Brandt, M.B. Cook, G.G. Giles, E.L. Giovannucci, G.E. Goodman, P.J. Goodman, N. Håkansson, K. Helzlsouer, T.J. Key, L.N. Kolonel, L.M. Liao, S. Männistö, M.L. McCullough, R.L. Milne, M.L. Neuhouser, Y. Park, E.A. Platz, E. Riboli, N. Sawada, J.M. Schenk, S. Tsugane, B.A.J. Verhage, Y. Wang, L.R. Wilkens, A. Wolk, R.G. Ziegler, S.A. Smith-Warner

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): J. Petimar, N. Håkansson, L.M. Liao, R.L. Milne, E.A. Platz, N. Sawada

Study supervision: S.A. Smith-Warner

The authors thank the participants and staff of each of the cohorts for their valuable contributions and the organizations that funded each cohort study (see Supplementary Table S3). We thank Shiaw-Shyuan Yaun and Tao Hou for their contributions to data management and statistical support.

This work was supported by World Cancer Research Fund International 2009/89 (S.A. Smith-Warner, principal investigator; for Dairy and Plant Foods and Advanced Prostate Cancer) and NIH/NCI grant P01 CA55075 (W. Willett, principal investigator; to S.A. Smith-Warner, project leader; for Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer in Men and Women). The centralization, checking, harmonization, and statistical analyses of the participant-level data from each of the cohorts was funded by grant P01 CA55075 from the National Cancer Institute and by grant 2009/89 from the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF UK), as part of the WCRF International grant program.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1.
Ferlay
 
J
,
Soerjomataram
 
I
,
Ervik
 
M
,
Dikshit
 
R
,
Eser
 
S
,
Mathers
 
C
, et al 
Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet]
.
Available from
: http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx.
2.
Siegel
 
RL
,
Miller
 
KD
,
Jemal
 
A
. 
Cancer statistics, 2015
.
CA Cancer J Clin
 
2015
;
65
:
5
–
29
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
3.
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results
. 
SEER Stat Fact sheets: prostate cancer. National Cancer Institute
.
Available from
: http://www.seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html%3E.
4.
Vance
 
TM
,
Su
 
J
,
Fontham
 
ETH
,
Koo
 
SI
,
Chun
 
OK
. 
Dietary antioxidants and prostate cancer: a review
.
Nutr Cancer
 
2013
;
65
:
793
–
801
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
5.
Bommareddy
 
A
,
Eggleston
 
W
,
Prelewicz
 
S
,
Antal
 
A
,
Witczak
 
Z
,
Mccune
 
DF
, et al 
Chemoprevention of prostate cancer by major dietary phytochemicals
.
Anticancer Res
 
2013
;
33
:
4163
–
74
.
Google Scholar
PubMed
 
6.
Higdon
 
JV
,
Delage
 
B
,
Williams
 
DE
,
Dashwood
 
RH
. 
Cruciferous vegetables and human cancer risk: epidemiologic evidence and mechanistic basis
.
Pharmacol Res
 
2007
;
55
:
224
–
36
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
7.
Wei
 
MY
,
Giovannucci
 
EL
. 
Lycopene, tomato products, and prostate cancer incidence: a review and reassessment in the PSA screening era
.
J Oncol
 
2012
;
2012
:
1
–
7
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
8.
World Cancer Research Fund International/American Institute for Cancer Research
. 
Continuous Update Project Report: diet, nutrition, physical activity and prostate cancer
. 
2014
.
9.
Ahn
 
J
,
Moslehi
 
R
,
Weinstein
 
SJ
,
Snyder
 
K
,
Virtamo
 
J
,
Albanes
 
D
. 
Family history of prostate cancer and prostate cancer risk in the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention (ATBC) Study
.
Int J Cancer
 
2008
;
123
:
1154
–
9
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
10.
Rodriguez
 
C
,
Freedland
 
SJ
,
Deka
 
A
,
Jacobs
 
EJ
,
McCullough
 
ML
,
Patel
 
AV
, et al 
Body mass index, weight change, and risk of prostate cancer in the Cancer prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
 
2007
;
16
:
63
–
9
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
11.
Neuhouser
 
ML
,
Barnett
 
MJ
,
Kristal
 
AR
,
Ambrosone
 
CB
,
King
 
IB
,
Thornquist
 
M
, et al 
Dietary supplement use and prostate cancer risk in the Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
 
2009
;
18
:
2202
–
6
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
12.
Rohrmann
 
S
,
Platz
 
EA
,
Kavanaugh
 
CJ
,
Thuita
 
L
,
Hoffman
 
SC
,
Helzlsouer
 
KJ
. 
Meat and dairy consumption and subsequent risk of prostate cancer in a U.S. cohort study
.
Cancer Causes Control
 
2007
;
18
:
41
–
50
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
13.
Bradbury
 
KE
,
Appleby
 
PN
,
Key
 
TJ
. 
Fruit, vegetable, and fiber intake in relation to cancer risk: findings from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)
.
Am J Clin Nutr
 
2014
;
100
:
394S
–
8S
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
14.
Bassett
 
JK
,
Severi
 
G
,
Hodge
 
AM
,
Baglietto
 
L
,
Hopper
 
JL
,
English
 
DR
, et al 
Dietary intake of B vitamins and methionine and prostate cancer incidence and mortality
.
Cancer Causes Control
 
2012
;
23
:
855
–
63
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
15.
Park
 
S-Y
,
Murphy
 
SP
,
Wilkens
 
LR
,
Henderson
 
BE
,
Kolonel
 
LN
. 
Legume and isoflavone intake and prostate cancer risk: the Multiethnic Cohort Study
.
Int J Cancer
 
2008
;
123
:
927
–
32
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
16.
Schuurman
 
AG
,
Goldbohm
 
RA
,
Dorant
 
E
,
van den Brandt
 
PA
. 
Vegetable and fruit consumption and prostate cancer risk: a cohort study in the Netherlands
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
 
1998
;
7
:
673
–
80
.
Google Scholar
PubMed
 
17.
Discacciati
 
A
,
Orsini
 
N
,
Andersson
 
S-O
,
Andrén
 
O
,
Johansson
 
J-E
,
Mantzoros
 
CS
, et al 
Coffee consumption and risk of localized, advanced and fatal prostate cancer: a population-based prospective study
.
Ann Oncol
 
2013
;
24
:
1912
–
8
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
18.
Wright
 
ME
,
Weinstein
 
SJ
,
Lawson
 
KA
,
Albanes
 
D
,
Subar
 
AF
,
Dixon
 
LB
, et al 
Supplemental and dietary vitamin E intakes and risk of prostate cancer in a large prospective study
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
 
2007
;
16
:
1128
–
35
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
19.
Kristal
 
AR
,
Arnold
 
KB
,
Neuhouser
 
ML
,
Goodman
 
P
,
Platz
 
EA
,
Albanes
 
D
, et al 
Diet, supplement use, and prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial
.
Am J Epidemiol
 
2010
;
172
:
566
–
77
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
20.
Kirsh
 
VA
,
Hayes
 
RB
,
Mayne
 
ST
,
Chatterjee
 
N
,
Subar
 
AF
,
Dixon
 
LB
, et al 
Supplemental and dietary vitamin E, beta-carotene, and vitamin C intakes and prostate cancer risk
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
 
2006
;
98
:
245
–
54
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
21.
Giovannucci
 
E
,
Ascherio
 
A
,
Rimm
 
EB
,
Stampfer
 
MJ
,
Colditz
 
GA
,
Willett
 
WC
. 
Intake of carotenoids and retinol in relation to risk of prostate cancer
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
 
1995
;
87
:
1767
–
76
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
22.
Tsugane
 
S
,
Sawada
 
N
. 
The JPHC study: design and some findings on the typical Japanese diet
.
Jpn J Clin Oncol
 
2014
;
44
:
777
–
82
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
23.
Kurahashi
 
N
,
Inoue
 
M
,
Iwasaki
 
M
,
Sasazuki
 
S
,
Tsugane
 
S
,
for the Japan Public Health Center-Based Prospective Study Group
. 
Dairy product, saturated fatty acid, and calcium intake and prostate cancer in a prospective cohort of Japanese men
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
 
2008
;
17
:
930
–
7
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
24.
Wu
 
K
,
Spiegelman
 
D
,
Hou
 
T
,
Albanes
 
D
,
Allen
 
NE
,
Berndt
 
SI
, et al 
Associations between unprocessed red and processed meat, poultry, seafood and egg intake and the risk of prostate cancer: a pooled analysis of 15 prospective cohort studies
.
Int J Cancer
 
2016
;
138
:
2368
–
82
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
25.
Riboli
 
E
,
Hunt
 
KJ
,
Slimani
 
N
,
Ferrari
 
P
,
Norat
 
T
,
Fahey
 
M
, et al 
European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC): study populations and data collection
.
Public Health Nutr
 
2002
;
5
:
1113
–
24
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
26.
Islami
 
F
,
Ren
 
JS
,
Taylor
 
PR
,
Kamangar
 
F
. 
Pickled vegetables and the risk of oesophageal cancer: a meta-analysis
.
Br J Cancer
 
2009
;
101
:
1641
–
7
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
27.
Ren
 
JS
,
Kamangar
 
F
,
Forman
 
D
,
Islami
 
F
. 
Pickled food and risk of gastric cancer–a systematic review and meta-analysis of English and Chinese literature
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
 
2012
;
21
:
905
–
15
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
28.
Hwang
 
YW
,
Kim
 
SY
,
Jee
 
SH
,
Kim
 
YN
,
Nam
 
CM
. 
Soy food consumption and risk of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of observational studies
.
Nutr Cancer
 
2009
;
61
:
598
–
606
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
29.
Mahmoud
 
AM
,
Yang
 
W
,
Bosland
 
MC
. 
Soy isoflavones and prostate cancer: a review of molecular mechanisms
.
J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol
 
2014
;
140
:
116
–
32
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
30.
Goldbohm
 
RA
,
van den Brandt
 
PA
,
Brants
 
HAM
,
van't Veer
 
P
,
Al
 
M
,
Sturmans
 
F
, et al 
Validation of a dietary questionnaire used in a large-scale prospective cohort study on diet and cancer
.
Eur J Clin Nutr
 
1994
;
48
:
253
–
65
.
Google Scholar
PubMed
 
31.
Flagg
 
E
,
Coates
 
R
,
Calle
 
E
,
Potischman
 
N
,
Thun
 
M
. 
Validation of the American Cancer Society Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Survey Cohort food frequency questionnaire
.
Epidemiology
 
2000
;
11
:
462
–
8
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
32.
Newby
 
PK
,
Hu
 
FB
,
Rimm
 
EB
,
Smith-Warner
 
SA
,
Feskanich
 
D
,
Sampson
 
L
, et al 
Reproducibility and validity of the Diet Quality Index Revised as assessed by use of a food-frequency questionnaire
.
Am J Clin Nutr
 
2003
;
78
:
941
–
9
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
33.
Midthune
 
D
,
Schatzkin
 
A
,
Subar
 
AF
,
Thompson
 
FE
,
Freedman
 
LS
,
Carroll
 
RJ
, et al 
Validating an FFQ for intake of episodically consumed foods: application to the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study
.
Public Health Nutr
 
2011
;
14
:
1212
–
21
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
34.
Tsubono
 
Y
,
Kobayashi
 
M
,
Sasaki
 
S
,
Tsugane
 
S
. 
Validity and reproducibility of a self-administered food frequency questionnaire used in the baseline survey of the JPHC Study Cohort I
.
J Epidemiol
 
2003
;
13
(
1 Suppl
):
S125
–
33
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
35.
Pietinen
 
P
,
Hartman
 
AM
,
Haapa
 
E
,
Rasanen
 
L
,
Haapakoski
 
J
,
Palmgren
 
J
, et al 
Reproducibility and validity of dietary assessment instruments. I. A self-administered food use questionnaire with a portion size picture booklet
.
Am J Epidemiol
 
1988
;
128
:
655
–
66
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
36.
Prentice
 
RL
. 
A case-cohort design for epidemiologic cohort studies and disease prevention trials
.
Biometrika
 
1986
;
73
:
1
–
11
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
37.
Cox
 
DR
. 
Regression models and life-tables
.
J Royal Stat Soc B
 
1972
;
34
:
187
–
220
.
Google Scholar
 
38.
Joffe
 
MM
,
Rosenbaum
 
PR
. 
Invited commentary: propensity scores
.
Am J Epidemiol
 
1999
;
150
:
327
–
33
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
39.
Imai
 
K
,
van Dyk
 
DA
. 
Causal inference with general treatment regimes: generalizing the propensity score
.
J Am Stat Assoc
 
2004
;
99
:
854
–
66
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
40.
Cepeda
 
MS
,
Boston
 
R
,
Farrar
 
JT
,
Strom
 
BL
. 
Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders
.
Am J Epidemiol
 
2003
;
158
:
280
–
7
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
41.
DerSimonian
 
R
,
Laird
 
N
. 
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
.
Control Clin Trials
 
1986
;
7
:
177
–
88
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
42.
Cochran
 
WG
. 
The combination of estimates from different experiments
.
Biometrics
 
1954
;
10
:
101
–
29
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
43.
Smith
 
PL
. 
Splines as a useful and conveinent statistical tool
.
Am Stat
 
1979
;
33
:
57
–
62
.
Google Scholar
 
44.
Durrleman
 
S
,
Simon
 
R
. 
Flexible regression models with cubic splines
.
Stat Med
 
1989
;
8
:
551
–
61
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
45.
Stram
 
DO
. 
Meta-analysis of published data using a linear mixed-effects model
.
Biometrics
 
1996
;
52
:
536
–
44
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
46.
Center
 
MM
,
Jemal
 
A
,
Lortet-Tieulent
 
J
,
Ward
 
E
,
Ferlay
 
J
,
Brawley
 
O
, et al 
International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates
.
Eur Urol
 
2012
;
61
:
1079
–
92
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
47.
Anderson
 
TW
.
Introduction to multivariate statistics
.
New York, NY
:
John Wiley & Sons
; 
1984
.
Google Scholar
 
48.
McCann
 
SE
,
Ambrosone
 
CB
,
Moysich
 
KB
,
Brasure
 
J
,
Marshall
 
JR
,
Freudenheim
 
JL
, et al 
Intakes of selected nutrients, foods, and phytochemicals and prostate cancer risk in western New York
.
Nutr Cancer
 
2005
;
53
:
33
–
41
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
49.
Cohen
 
JH
,
Kristal
 
AR
,
Stanford
 
JL
. 
Fruit and vegetable intakes and prostate cancer risk
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
 
2000
;
92
:
61
–
8
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
50.
Bosetti
 
C
,
Micelotta
 
S
,
Maso
 
Ld
,
Talamini
 
R
,
Montella
 
M
,
Negri
 
E
, et al 
Food groups and risk of prostate cancer in Italy
.
Int J Cancer
 
2004
;
110
:
424
–
8
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
51.
Kolonel
 
LN
,
Hankin
 
JH
,
Whittemore
 
AS
,
Wu
 
AH
,
Gallagher
 
RP
,
Wilkens
 
LR
, et al 
Vegetables, fruits, legumes and prostate cancer: a multiethnic case-control study
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
 
2000
;
9
:
795
–
804
.
Google Scholar
PubMed
 
52.
Hardin
 
J
,
Cheng
 
I
,
Witte
 
JS
. 
Impact of consumption of vegetable, fruit, grain, and high glycemic index foods on aggressive prostate cancer risk
.
Nutr Cancer
 
2011
;
63
:
860
–
72
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
53.
Jain
 
MG
,
Hislop
 
GT
,
Howe
 
GR
,
Ghadirian
 
P
. 
Plant foods, antioxidants, and prostate cancer risk: findings from case-control studies in Canada
.
Nutr Cancer
 
1999
;
34
:
173
–
84
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
54.
Villeneuve
 
PJ
,
Johnson
 
KC
,
Kreiger
 
N
,
Mao
 
Y
,
The Canadian Cancer Registries Epidemiology Research Group
. 
Risk factors for prostate cancer: results from the Canadian National Enhaned Cancer Surveillance System
.
Cancer Causes Control
 
1999
;
10
:
355
–
67
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
55.
Key
 
TJA
,
Silcocks
 
PB
,
Davey
 
GK
,
Appleby
 
PN
,
Bishop
 
DT
. 
A case-control study of diet and prostate cancer
.
Br J Cancer
 
1997
;
76
:
678
–
87
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
56.
Sonoda
 
T
,
Nagata
 
Y
,
Mori
 
M
,
Miyanaga
 
N
,
Takashima
 
N
,
Okumura
 
K
, et al 
A case-control study of diet and prostate cancer in Japan: possible protective effect of traditional Japanese diet
.
Cancer Sci
 
2004
;
95
:
238
–
42
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
57.
Hsing
 
AW
,
McLaughlin
 
JK
,
Schuman
 
LM
,
Bjelke
 
E
,
Gridley
 
G
,
Wacholder
 
S
, et al 
Diet, tobacco use, and fatal prostate cancer: results from the Lutheran Brotherhood Cohort Study
.
Cancer Res
 
1990
;
50
:
6836
–
40
.
Google Scholar
PubMed
 
58.
Ambrosini
 
GL
,
de Klerk
 
NH
,
Fritschi
 
L
,
Mackerras
 
D
,
Musk
 
B
. 
Fruit, vegetable, vitamin A intakes, and prostate cancer risk
.
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis
 
2008
;
11
:
61
–
6
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
59.
Umesawa
 
M
,
Iso
 
H
,
Mikami
 
K
,
Kubo
 
T
,
Suzuki
 
K
,
Watanabe
 
Y
, et al 
Relationship between vegetable and carotene intake and risk of prostate cancer: the JACC study
.
Br J Cancer
 
2014
;
110
:
792
–
6
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
60.
Mills
 
PK
,
Beeson
 
WL
,
Phillips
 
RL
,
Fraser
 
GE
. 
Cohort study of diet, lifestyle, and prostate cancer in Adventist men
.
Cancer
 
1989
;
64
:
598
–
604
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
61.
Hodge
 
AM
,
English
 
DR
,
McCredie
 
MRE
,
Severi
 
G
,
Boyle
 
P
,
Hopper
 
JL
, et al 
Foods, nutrients and prostate cancer
.
Cancer Causes Control
 
2004
;
15
:
11
–
20
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
62.
Tzonou
 
A
,
Signorello
 
LB
,
Lagiou
 
P
,
Wuu
 
J
,
Trichopoulos
 
D
,
Trichopoulou
 
A
. 
Diet and cancer of the prostate: a case-control study in Greece
.
Int J Cancer
 
1999
;
80
:
704
–
8
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
63.
Deschasaux
 
M
,
Pouchieu
 
C
,
His
 
M
,
Hercberg
 
S
,
Latino-Martel
 
P
,
Touvier
 
M
. 
Dietary total and insoluble fiber intakes are inversely associated with prostate cancer risk
.
J Nutr
 
2014
;
144
:
504
–
10
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
64.
Lewis
 
JE
,
Soler-Vila
 
H
,
Clark
 
PE
,
Kresty
 
LA
,
Allen
 
GO
,
Hu
 
JJ
. 
Intake of plant foods and associated nutrients in prostate cancer risk
.
Nutr Cancer
 
2009
;
61
:
216
–
24
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
65.
Suzuki
 
R
,
Allen
 
NE
,
Key
 
TJ
,
Appleby
 
PN
,
Tjonneland
 
A
,
Johnsen
 
NF
, et al 
A prospective analysis of the association between dietary fiber intake and prostate cancer risk in EPIC
.
Int J Cancer
 
2009
;
124
:
245
–
9
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
66.
Drake
 
I
,
Sonestedt
 
E
,
Gullberg
 
B
,
Ahlgren
 
G
, et al 
Dietary intakes of carbohydrates in relation to prostate cancer risk: a prospective study in the Malmo Diet and Cancer cohort
.
Am J Clin Nutr
 
2012
;
96
:
1409
–
18
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
67.
Sawada
 
N
,
Iwasaki
 
M
,
Yamaji
 
T
,
Shimazu
 
T
,
Sasazuki
 
S
,
Inoue
 
M
, et al 
Fiber intake and risk of subsequent prostate cancer in Japanese men
.
Am J Clin Nutr
 
2015
;
101
:
118
–
25
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
68.
Casso
 
D
,
White
 
E
,
Patterson
 
RE
,
Agurs-Collins
 
T
,
Kooperberg
 
C
,
Haines
 
PS
. 
Correlates of serum lycopene in older women
.
Nutr Cancer
 
2000
;
36
:
163
–
9
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
69.
Neuhouser
 
ML
,
Rock
 
CL
,
Eldridge
 
AL
,
Kristal
 
AR
,
Patterson
 
RE
,
Cooper
 
DA
, et al 
Serum concentrations of retinol, alpha-tocopherol and the carotenoids are influenced by diet, race and obesity in a sample of healthy adolescents
.
J Nutr
 
2001
;
131
:
2184
–
91
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
70.
Kobayashi
 
M
,
Sasaki
 
S
,
Tsugane
 
S
. 
Validity of a self-administered food frequency questionnaire used in the 5-year follow-up survey of the JPHC Study Cohort I to assess carotenoids and vitamin C intake: comparison with dietary records and blood level
.
J Epidemiol Jpn Epidemiol Assoc
 
2003
;
13
(
1 Suppl
):
S82
–
91
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
71.
Etminan
 
M
,
Takkouche
 
B
,
Caamaño-Isorna
 
F
. 
The role of tomato products and lycopene in the prevention of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of observational studies
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
 
2004
;
13
:
340
–
5
.
Google Scholar
PubMed
 
72.
Gann
 
PH
,
Ma
 
J
,
Giovannucci
 
E
,
Willett
 
W
,
Sacks
 
FM
,
Hennekens
 
CH
, et al 
Lower prostate cancer risk in men with elevated plasma lycopene levels: results of a prospective analysis
.
Cancer Res
 
1999
;
59
:
1225
–
30
.
Google Scholar
PubMed
 
73.
Key
 
TJ
,
Appleby
 
PN
,
Travis
 
RC
,
Albanes
 
D
,
Alberg
 
AJ
,
Barricarte
 
A
, et al 
Carotenoids, retinol, tocopherols, and prostate cancer risk: pooled analysis of 15 studies
.
Am J Clin Nutr
 
2015
;
102
:
1142
–
57
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
74.
Lemon
 
S
,
Zapka
 
J
,
Puleo
 
E
,
Luckmann
 
R
,
Chasan-Taber
 
L
. 
Colorectal cancer screening participation: comparisons with mammography and prostate-specific antigen screening
.
Am J Public Health
 
2001
;
91
:
1264
–
72
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
75.
Etzioni
 
R
,
Penson
 
DF
,
Legler
 
JM
,
di Tommaso
 
D
,
Boer
 
R
,
Gann
 
PH
, et al 
Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening: lessons from U.S. prostate cancer incidence trends
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
 
2002
;
94
:
981
–
90
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
76.
Potosky
 
AL
,
Miller
 
BA
,
Albertsen
 
PC
,
Kramer
 
BS
. 
The role of increasing detection in the rising incidence of prostate cancer
.
JAMA
 
1995
;
273
:
548
–
52
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
77.
Etzioni
 
R
,
Berry
 
KM
,
Legler
 
JM
,
Shaw
 
P
. 
Prostate-specific antigen testing in black and white men: an analysis of Medicare claims from 1991–1998
.
Urology
 
2002
;
59
:
251
–
5
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
78.
Neppl-Hubber
 
C
,
Zappa
 
M
,
Coebergh
 
JW
,
Rapiti
 
E
,
Rachtan
 
J
,
Holleczek
 
B
, et al 
Changes in incidence, survival and mortality of prostate cancer in Europe and the United States in the PSA era: additional diagnoses and avoided deaths
.
Ann Oncol
 
2012
;
23
:
1325
–
34
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
79.
Beaton
 
GH
,
Milner
 
J
,
McGuire
 
V
,
Feather
 
TE
,
Little
 
JA
. 
Source of variance in 24-hour dietary recall data: implications for nutrition study design and interpretation. Carbohydrate sources, vitamins, and minerals
.
Am J Clin Nutr
 
1983
;
37
:
986
–
95
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
80.
Rosner
 
B
,
Willett
 
WC
,
Spiegelman
 
D
. 
Correction of logistic regression relative risk estimates and confidence intervals for systematic within-person measurement error
.
Stat Med
 
1989
;
8
:
1051
–
69
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
81.
Rosner
 
B
,
Spiegelman
 
D
,
Willett
 
WC
. 
Correction of logistic regression relative risk estimates and confidence intervals for measurement error: the case of multiple covariates measured with error
.
Am J Epidemiol
 
1990
;
132
:
734
–
45
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
82.
Spiegelman
 
D
,
Zhao
 
B
,
Kim
 
J
. 
Correlated errors in biased surrogates: study designs and methods for measurement error correction
.
Stat Med
 
2005
;
24
:
1657
–
82
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
83.
World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research
.
Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective
.
Washington, DC
:
AICR
; 
2007
.
84.
Wang
 
X
,
Ouyang
 
Y
,
Liu
 
J
,
Zhu
 
M
,
Zhao
 
G
,
Bao
 
W
, et al 
Fruit and vegetable consumption and mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies
.
BMJ
 
2014
;
349
:
g4490
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.
2017
American Association for Cancer Research.

Supplementary data

Supplementary Tables

This file contains Supplementary Tables 1-3. Supplementary Table 1 gives the distribution of prostate cancer cases by subtype included in the pooled Analyses of fruit, vegetable, and mature bean consumption and prostate cancer risk. Supplementary Table 2 gives the results of analyses using all main exposures modeled continuously. Supplementary Table 3 provides information on funding information for all cohort studies included in the pooled analysis.

- docx file