Cancer

Omega-3 and omega-6 supplements reduce risk of 19 types of cancer

View 2 Images
Higher levels of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids were associated with a decreased cancer risk
Higher levels of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids were associated with a decreased cancer risk
The hazard ratios for each cancer site, according to omega-3 and omega-6 levels
Zhang et al. 2024

New research has linked higher plasma levels of the healthy fats omega-3 and omega-6 to a reduced risk of developing particular types of cancer. The study adds to the on-again/off-again relationship that exists between scientists and the common supplements.

Omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, usually found in fish supplements, have enjoyed their time in both the (scientific) sun and the cold, cold shade. On the one hand, studies have found that fish supplements reduce the risk of childhood asthma and have cardiovascular benefits. However, studies have also found that they don’t reduce heart disease or cancer risk and don’t prevent depression.

A new study led by the University of Georgia (UGA) in the US falls squarely in the ‘pro’ pile (at least for now). Researchers have found that omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids reduce the risk of developing a pretty large number of site-specific cancers.

“Higher omega-3 and omega-6 levels were associated with lower rates of cancer,” said Yuchen Zhang, a doctoral student in UGA’s College of Public Health and the study’s lead author. “These findings suggest that the average person should focus on getting more of these fatty acids in their diets.”

Omega-3 and omega-6 are polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs); put simply, they’re ‘healthy fats.’ There are three physiologically relevant omega-3s: alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), found in plants, and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), found in fish and algae. Omega-6 fatty acids are found in vegetable oils, nuts and seeds.

The researchers investigated the association between plasma levels of omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs and the incidence of overall and 19 site-specific cancers using data on 258,138 participants obtained from the UK Biobank. The cancer sites were head and neck, esophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, hepatobiliary tract (liver and gallbladder), pancreas, lung, malignant melanoma, connective soft tissue, breast, uterus, ovary, prostate, kidney, bladder, brain, thyroid, and lymphoid and hematopoietic tissue (which produce blood cells).

The average age of study participants was 56.4, and 90.9% of them identified as white. Over an average follow-up time of almost 13 years, 29,838 participants were diagnosed with cancer. The researchers found that participants with higher plasma levels of omega-3s had lower rates of five of the 19 site-specific cancers, including colon, stomach and lung cancer. Participants with higher omega-6 levels had lower rates of 14 of them, including brain and bladder cancer and malignant melanoma. It wasn’t the case with prostate cancer, however, where a high omega-3 level was associated with a slightly higher risk of that type of cancer.

The hazard ratios for each cancer site, according to omega-3 and omega-6 levels
Zhang et al. 2024

To convert the hazard ratio (HR) of any of the cancer types in the above image into a percentage of risk reduction, you can use the following formula: Risk reduction (%) = (1 – HR) 100. For example, the HR for head and neck cancer is 0.97. So, (1 – 0.97 = 0.03) 100 = a risk reduction of 3%.

Although there are no official guidelines, most organizations recommend that healthy adults have a minimum of 250 to 500 mg of combined EPA and DHA each day. You can get that from about 227 g (8 oz) of fatty fish a week. Nuts and seeds contain significant amounts of omega-6. According to the Food and Nutrition Board of the US Institute of Medicine, the adequate daily intake of omega-6 is 17 grams (0.6 oz) for males and 12 grams (0.4 oz) for females aged 19 to 50.

“For women, it’s an easy decision: eat more omega-3,” said Kaixiong Ye, associate professor in UGA’s Franklin College of Arts and Sciences and the corresponding author on the study.

There are obvious limitations to the study, notably that the participant sample was heavily skewed toward European ancestry and white ethnicity. This means that results may not be generalizable to diverse ancestral backgrounds and ethnicities. Additionally, the number of events was small for some specific cancer sites, which may reduce the study’s statistical power. Because individual genetics weren’t taken into account, future research should also investigate whether specific genetic variants modify the association between cancer and PUFAs.

Regardless, the researchers say the study “laid a solid foundation for future mechanistic studies into the roles of PUFAs in the etiology of various cancers. It also provided insights into the development of cancer prevention strategies by managing circulating PUFAs.”

The study was published in the International Journal of Cancer.

Source: UGA

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Flipboard
  • LinkedIn
5 comments
TechGazer
What's the cost of a few % reduction in probability of getting cancer in a lifetime? The stronger they market these oils, the more expensive they become.

Also, the correlation was between _plasma_ levels of these oils, rather than supplement intake. They might simply be finding that people who have higher levels of these molecules in their plasma--regardless of intake--also have lower cancer levels. Testing the effectiveness of supplements requires a different study.
jsopr
These observational studies are almost completely worthless. Who knows what sorts of things -- genes, behaviors, environments -- affect both cancer rates and omega intake or omega levels? Seriously -- these kinds of studies are ok as exploratory work suggestive of new hypotheses, but treating them as evidence that one should take some supplement is just bad science and seems to be endemic in nutrition studies.
christopher
"association" does not imply causation. Not to mention: damned if you don't, and damned if you do... In summary:-

Omega-6: ~2% reduction in overall cancer incidence.
Omega-3: ~1% reduction in overall cancer incidence.
Omega-3 and prostate cancer: ~3% increase in prostate cancer incidence.
TechGazer
RE: christopher's comment about a 3% increase in prostate cancer. All cancers are not the same, so maybe that's not a bad trade-off. I read that most men die _with_ prostate cancer (benign tumor) but few die _of_ prostate cancer.

My guess is that snake oil would show even better numbers in a study.
Dirk Scott
Portuguese sardines in olive oil cost around one Euro ($1) and they are delicious. Eat a can twice a week and there is no need for expensive supplementation.