The EAT-Lancet planetary health diet represents a dietary pattern designed to optimize human health and the environmental health of the planet. Although the potential impact of nutrition on cancer patients has gained increasing attention, research specifically examining the association between the EAT-Lancet diet and cancer outcomes remains limited. This study aimed to prospectively evaluate the association between adherence to the EAT-Lancet diet and cancer risk, with a particular focus on cancer incidence and mortality rates. A comprehensive literature search was performed across multiple databases, including PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and EBSCO. First author and year, country, study design, sample, mean age, questionnaires, cancer type, duration of follow-up, and main findings were extracted from the original articles by 2 reviewers independently. Random-effects models were used, and statistical heterogeneity was evaluated by using the I2 statistic. This systematic review following the updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. The meta-analysis incorporated 8 high-quality cohort studies, encompassing 1 103 953 participants. The findings demonstrated that adherence to the EAT-Lancet diet was associated with reduced cancer incidence (HR = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.65, 0.93; P = .006) and cancer mortality (HR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.89, 0.98; P = .005). This study provides potential evidence that following the EAT-Lancet diet is significantly associated with reduced cancer incidence and mortality. These findings underscore the clinical importance and potential health benefits of adopting this dietary pattern to improve the quality of life of cancer patients. However, given the limited number of available studies, further high-quality research is warranted to comprehensively understand the relationship between the EAT-Lancet diet and cancer outcomes. PROSPERO registration No. CRD42024520028.
Feng et al. (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: