-
JAMA Oncology Mar 2022The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019 (GBD 2019) provided systematic estimates of incidence, morbidity, and mortality to inform local and...
Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life Years for 29 Cancer Groups From 2010 to 2019: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.
IMPORTANCE
The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019 (GBD 2019) provided systematic estimates of incidence, morbidity, and mortality to inform local and international efforts toward reducing cancer burden.
OBJECTIVE
To estimate cancer burden and trends globally for 204 countries and territories and by Sociodemographic Index (SDI) quintiles from 2010 to 2019.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
The GBD 2019 estimation methods were used to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in 2019 and over the past decade. Estimates are also provided by quintiles of the SDI, a composite measure of educational attainment, income per capita, and total fertility rate for those younger than 25 years. Estimates include 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs).
FINDINGS
In 2019, there were an estimated 23.6 million (95% UI, 22.2-24.9 million) new cancer cases (17.2 million when excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and 10.0 million (95% UI, 9.36-10.6 million) cancer deaths globally, with an estimated 250 million (235-264 million) DALYs due to cancer. Since 2010, these represented a 26.3% (95% UI, 20.3%-32.3%) increase in new cases, a 20.9% (95% UI, 14.2%-27.6%) increase in deaths, and a 16.0% (95% UI, 9.3%-22.8%) increase in DALYs. Among 22 groups of diseases and injuries in the GBD 2019 study, cancer was second only to cardiovascular diseases for the number of deaths, years of life lost, and DALYs globally in 2019. Cancer burden differed across SDI quintiles. The proportion of years lived with disability that contributed to DALYs increased with SDI, ranging from 1.4% (1.1%-1.8%) in the low SDI quintile to 5.7% (4.2%-7.1%) in the high SDI quintile. While the high SDI quintile had the highest number of new cases in 2019, the middle SDI quintile had the highest number of cancer deaths and DALYs. From 2010 to 2019, the largest percentage increase in the numbers of cases and deaths occurred in the low and low-middle SDI quintiles.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The results of this systematic analysis suggest that the global burden of cancer is substantial and growing, with burden differing by SDI. These results provide comprehensive and comparable estimates that can potentially inform efforts toward equitable cancer control around the world.
Topics: Disability-Adjusted Life Years; Global Burden of Disease; Global Health; Humans; Incidence; Neoplasms; Prevalence; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34967848
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.6987 -
BMJ Open Respiratory Research Jun 2023Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a collective term representing a diverse group of pulmonary fibrotic and inflammatory conditions. Due to the diversity of ILD... (Review)
Review
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a collective term representing a diverse group of pulmonary fibrotic and inflammatory conditions. Due to the diversity of ILD conditions, paucity of guidance and updates to diagnostic criteria over time, it has been challenging to precisely determine ILD incidence and prevalence. This systematic review provides a synthesis of published data at a global level and highlights gaps in the current knowledge base. Medline and Embase databases were searched systematically for studies reporting incidence and prevalence of various ILDs. Randomised controlled trials, case reports and conference abstracts were excluded. 80 studies were included, the most described subgroup was autoimmune-related ILD, and the most studied conditions were rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-associated ILD, systemic sclerosis associated (SSc) ILD and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). The prevalence of IPF was mostly established using healthcare datasets, whereas the prevalence of autoimmune ILD tended to be reported in smaller autoimmune cohorts. The prevalence of IPF ranged from 7 to 1650 per 100 000 persons. Prevalence of SSc ILD and RA ILD ranged from 26.1% to 88.1% and 0.6% to 63.7%, respectively. Significant heterogeneity was observed in the reported incidence of various ILD subtypes. This review demonstrates the challenges in establishing trends over time across regions and highlights a need to standardise ILD diagnostic criteria.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020203035.
Topics: Humans; Prevalence; Incidence; Lung Diseases, Interstitial; Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis; Arthritis, Rheumatoid
PubMed: 37308252
DOI: 10.1136/bmjresp-2022-001291 -
Nutrients Mar 2022Lung cancer is one of the most common neoplasms globally, with about 2.2 million new cases and 1.8 million deaths annually. Although the most important factor in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Lung cancer is one of the most common neoplasms globally, with about 2.2 million new cases and 1.8 million deaths annually. Although the most important factor in reducing lung cancer risk is lifestyle change, most patients favour the use of supplements, for example, rather than quitting smoking or following a healthy diet. To better understand the efficacy of such interventions, a systematic review was performed of data from randomized controlled trials concerning the influence of beta-carotene supplementation on lung cancer risk in subjects with no lung cancer before the intervention. The search corpus comprised a number of databases and eight studies involving 167,141 participants, published by November 2021. The findings indicate that beta-carotene supplementation was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (RR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.06-1.26). This effect was even more noticeable among smokers and asbestos workers (RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.08-1.35) and non-medics (RR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.07-1.29). A meta-regression found no relationship between the beta-carotene supplementation dose and the size of the negative effect associated with lung cancer risk. Our findings indicate that beta-carotene supplementation has no effect on lung cancer risk. Moreover, when used as the primary chemoprevention, beta-carotene may, in fact, increase the risk of lung cancer.
Topics: Antioxidants; Dietary Supplements; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Smoking; beta Carotene
PubMed: 35405977
DOI: 10.3390/nu14071361 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Apr 2020To compare the benefits and harms of naltrexone-bupropion using evidence from clinical study reports. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
To compare the benefits and harms of naltrexone-bupropion using evidence from clinical study reports.
METHODS
We searched Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency websites, PubMed, and Clinicaltrials.gov (May 2016) to identify pivotal trials; we then sent a freedom of information request to the European Medicines Agency (July 2016). We included pivotal, phase III placebo-controlled trials. We assessed the risks of bias using the Cochrane criteria, and the quality of the evidence using GRADE. We used a random-effects model for meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Over a 27-month period (July 2016 to August 2018), we received 31 batches of clinical study report documents containing over 65 000 pages of data from 4 pivotal trials (n = 4536). Significantly more participants who took naltrexone-bupropion achieved ≥5% reduction in body weight: risk ratio (RR) = 2.1 (95% confidence interval 1.35-3.28), P = .001, GRADE = low, number needed to treat (NNT) to benefit = 5 (3-17); this represents a 2.53 kg (1.85-3.21) reduction in baseline body weight compared with placebo. Naltrexone-bupropion had significantly beneficial effects on other cardiovascular risk factors; however, the true effect sizes for these are uncertain because of incomplete outcome data. Naltrexone-bupropion significantly increased the risk of adverse events: RR = 1.11 (1.05-1.18, P = .0004, GRADE = low, NNT to harm = 12 7-27); serious adverse events: RR = 1.70 (1.38-2.1, P < .00001, GRADE = moderate, NNT to harm = 21 13-38); and discontinuation because of adverse events: RR = 1.92 (1.65-2.24, P < .00001, GRADE = moderate, NNT to discontinue treatment = 9 8-13).
CONCLUSIONS
Naltrexone-bupropion significantly reduces body weight by a small amount but significantly increases the risk of adverse events. A rigorous process of postmarketing surveillance is required.
Topics: Bupropion; Drug Combinations; Humans; Naltrexone; Obesity
PubMed: 31918448
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14210 -
Journal of Occupational and... Oct 2023Asbestos is a mineral that is carcinogenic to humans. Its use has been banned in many occidental countries yet it is still produced in the United States, and materials... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Asbestos is a mineral that is carcinogenic to humans. Its use has been banned in many occidental countries yet it is still produced in the United States, and materials that contain asbestos remain in many occupational settings and indoor environments. Even though asbestos carcinogenicity is well known, there is scant literature on its specific effects regarding small cell lung cancer (SCLC). We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine SCLC risk among workers exposed to asbestos. A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify studies which reported occupational exposure to asbestos and SCLC-related deaths and/or incidence. We identified seven case-control studies that included 3,231 SCLC cases; four studies reported smoking-adjusted risks. A significantly increased risk of SCLC (pooled OR 1.89; 95% CI, 1.25-2.86) was observed on pooling studies on men (six studies) that displayed moderate heterogeneity (I = 46.0%). Overall, our synthesis suggests that occupational exposure to asbestos significantly increases the risk of SCLC on men.
Topics: Male; Humans; United States; Small Cell Lung Carcinoma; Lung Neoplasms; Asbestos; Occupational Exposure; Carcinogens; Occupational Diseases
PubMed: 37405865
DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2023.2232421 -
The Laryngoscope May 2016Occupational exposure to asbestos occurs in many workplaces and is well known to cause asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. However, the link between asbestos... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS
Occupational exposure to asbestos occurs in many workplaces and is well known to cause asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. However, the link between asbestos exposure and other malignancies was not confirmed. The aim of the current meta-analysis was to provide a summary measure of risk for laryngeal cancer associated with occupational asbestos exposure.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched for studies characterizing the association between asbestos and laryngeal cancer. Standardized mortality rate (SMR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) of each study was combined using a fixed or random effect model.
RESULTS
Significantly increased SMR for laryngeal cancer was observed when subjects were exposed to asbestos (SMR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.45-1.97, P < .001), with little evidence of heterogeneity among studies (Q = 15.39, P = .803, I(2) = 0.0%). Effect estimates were larger for cohorts controlling for male subjects, Europe and Oceania, mining and textile industries, exposure to crocidolite, long study follow-up (>25 years), and SMR for lung cancer > 2.0. Publication bias was not detect by Begg test (P = .910) and Egger test (P = .340).
CONCLUSIONS
Our study supports the association of exposure to asbestos with an increased risk of laryngeal cancer mortality among male workers.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
NA Laryngoscope, 126:1169-1174, 2016.
Topics: Asbestos; Female; Humans; Laryngeal Neoplasms; Male; Occupational Exposure; Risk Factors; Sex Factors
PubMed: 26418833
DOI: 10.1002/lary.25693 -
JAMA Otolaryngology-- Head & Neck... Apr 2017It has been debated whether a link exists between laryngeal cancer and asbestos exposure. Prior systematic reviews have been conducted on this topic, but no updates have... (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
It has been debated whether a link exists between laryngeal cancer and asbestos exposure. Prior systematic reviews have been conducted on this topic, but no updates have been performed on the most recent literature since 2000.
OBJECTIVE
To provide an updated systematic review of the association between laryngeal cancer and asbestos exposure.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A search of electronic databases, including PubMed and the Cochrane Library, was performed for articles published between January 1, 2000, and April 30, 2016. Search terms, including laryngeal cancer and asbestos, were used to identify publications reviewing the risk of laryngeal cancer in association with asbestos exposure. Studies analyzing this association that were published in any language and translated reliably were included. Two independent reviewers assessed articles based on predetermined eligibility criteria. Each study was reviewed for quality using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence and assessed for their findings of support for or against a correlation between asbestos exposure and laryngeal cancer.
FINDINGS
A total of 160 studies were retrieved from all databases, and 2 additional articles were identified by cross-references. Of the 162 articles screened, 15 articles comprising 438 376 study participants were included in this review. Of these 15 studies, 10 showed no correlation between asbestos exposure and laryngeal cancer. The remaining 5 studies claimed a correlation between asbestos exposure and incidence of laryngeal cancer, although only 1 accounted for smoking or alcohol exposure while 3 others did not, and 1 study included only 2 patients.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Although asbestos is considered hazardous and carcinogenic, current evidence is lacking to support a correlation between asbestos exposure and laryngeal cancer. Few studies have been able to definitively conclude a causal association between asbestos exposure and laryngeal cancer, and those that found an association often did not account for the confounding factors of tobacco and alcohol exposure.
Topics: Asbestos; Carcinogens; Environmental Exposure; Humans; Laryngeal Neoplasms
PubMed: 27918783
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoto.2016.3421 -
World Journal of Urology Apr 2023There is conflicting evidence on the association between asbestos exposure and bladder cancer. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide evidence on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
There is conflicting evidence on the association between asbestos exposure and bladder cancer. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide evidence on occupational asbestos exposure and the risk of mortality and incidence of bladder cancer.
METHODS
We searched three relevant electronic databases (Pubmed, Scopus, and Embase) from inception to October 2021. The methodological quality of included articles was evaluated using the US National Institutes of Health tool. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for bladder cancer, as well as respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were extracted or calculated for each included cohort. Main and subgroup meta-analyses according to first year of employment, industry, sex, asbestos type, and geographic region were performed.
RESULTS
Fifty-nine publications comprising 60 cohorts were included. Bladder cancer incidence and mortality were not significantly associated with occupational asbestos exposure (pooled SIR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.95-1.13, P = 0.000; pooled SMR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.96-1.17, P = 0.031). Bladder cancer incidence was higher among workers employed between 1908 and 1940 (SIR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.01-1.31). Mortality was elevated in asbestos workers cohorts (SMR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.06-1.30) and in the subgroup analysis for women (SMR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.22-2.75). No association was found between asbestos types and bladder cancer incidence or mortality. We observed no difference in the subgroup analysis for countries and no direct publication bias evidence.
CONCLUSION
There is evidence that workers with occupational asbestos exposure have a bladder cancer incidence and mortality similar to the general population.
Topics: Humans; Female; Occupational Diseases; Asbestos; Occupational Exposure; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms; Incidence; Lung Neoplasms
PubMed: 36847813
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04327-w -
Occupational asbestos exposure and risk of esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International Journal of Cancer Jun 2024Esophageal cancer (EC), which includes squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and adenocarcinoma (EAC), is an important cancer with poor prognosis and high mortality rate.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Esophageal cancer (EC), which includes squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and adenocarcinoma (EAC), is an important cancer with poor prognosis and high mortality rate. Several occupational exposures have been associated with EC. We aim to investigate the association between occupational asbestos exposure and EC risk, considering types of asbestos and histology of the disease. We included studies mentioned in the list of references in previous reviews and pooled analyses, and we conducted an independent search in PubMed and Scopus. Forest plots of relative risks (RR) were constructed based on the association between occupational asbestos and EC risk. Random-effects models were used to address heterogeneity between 48 independent cohort and case-control studies. We found an association between occupational asbestos exposure and EC (meta-relative risk [RR] = 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.09-1.32; I2 = 58.8%, p-heterogeneity [het] <.001). The results of stratification by job (p-het = .20) indicate an increased RR among asbestos product workers (RR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.07-1.81), asbestos applicators (RR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.20-1.67), and construction workers (RR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.02-1.24). There was no heterogeneity in meta-RR according to outcome (p = .29), geographic region (p = .69), year of publication (p = .59), quality score (p = .73), asbestos type (p = .93), study design (p = .87), and gender (p = .88), control for potential confounders (p = .20), year of first employment (p = .94) and exposure level (p = .43). The stratification analysis by histology type found an increased RR for both ESCC 1.33(1.03-1.71) and EAC 1.45(1.03-2.04) (p-het = .68). We didn't find evidence of publication bias (p = .07). The results of our study suggest that occupational asbestos exposure is associated with an increased risk of EC in both histology types.
Topics: Humans; Occupational Exposure; Asbestos; Esophageal Neoplasms; Adenocarcinoma; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Occupational Diseases
PubMed: 38339891
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.34881 -
The Permanente Journal 2020Asbestos-related diseases and cancers represent a major public health concern. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Asbestos-related diseases and cancers represent a major public health concern.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to demonstrate that asbestos exposure increases the risk of prostate cancer.
METHODS
The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and ScienceDirect databases were searched using the keywords (prostate cancer OR prostatic neoplasm) AND (asbestos* OR crocidolite* OR chrysotile* OR amphibole* OR amosite*). To be included, articles needed to describe our primary outcome: Risk of prostate cancer after any asbestos exposure.
RESULTS
We included 33 studies with 15,687 cases of prostate cancer among 723,566 individuals. Asbestos exposure increased the risk of prostate cancer (effect size = 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05-1.15). When we considered mode of absorption, respiratory inhalation increased the risk of prostate cancer (1.10, 95% CI = 1.05-1.14). Both environmental and occupational exposure increased the risk of prostate cancer (1.25, 95% CI = 1.01-1.48; and 1.07, 1.04-1.10, respectively). For type of fibers, the amosite group had an increased risk of prostate cancer (1.12, 95% CI = 1.05-1.19), and there were no significant results for the chrysotile/crocidolite group. The risk was higher in Europe (1.12, 95% CI = 1.05-1.19), without significant results in other continents.
DISCUSSION
Asbestos exposure seems to increase prostate cancer risk. The main mechanism of absorption was respiratory. Both environmental and occupational asbestos exposure were linked to increased risk of prostate cancer.
CONCLUSION
Patients who were exposed to asbestos should possibly be encouraged to complete more frequent prostate cancer screening.
Topics: Asbestos; Asbestos, Amphibole; Asbestos, Serpentine; Environmental Exposure; Humans; Incidence; Inhalation Exposure; Male; Occupational Exposure; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Ronidazole
PubMed: 32097115
DOI: 10.7812/TPP/19.086