-
Actas Dermo-sifiliograficas Sep 2022Skin cancer deaths continue to rise despite the implementation of numerous preventive campaigns and programs. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate reviews... (Review)
Review
Skin cancer deaths continue to rise despite the implementation of numerous preventive campaigns and programs. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate reviews of primary and secondary skin cancer prevention strategies as reported over the past 10 years. We analyzed 63 systematic reviews and meta-analyses: 30 (46.6%) addressing primary interventions and 35 (55.6%) addressing secondary interventions. Two of the reviews covered both. The most widely reported primary prevention approaches were education programs (63.3%), followed by risk modeling to identify individuals at high risk for melanoma (17.6%), and the promotion of sunscreen use (11.8%). The most widely reported secondary prevention measures concerned imaging systems for early skin cancer detection (40%), smartphones and new technologies (22.9%), and visual diagnosis in population-based screening (17.4%). The most effective measures were primary prevention education programs to improve sun protection habits.
Topics: Early Detection of Cancer; Humans; Melanoma; Skin Neoplasms; Sunscreening Agents
PubMed: 35526566
DOI: 10.1016/j.ad.2022.04.015 -
Human Reproduction Update Feb 2021Endometriosis is an often chronic, inflammatory gynaecologic condition affecting 190 million women worldwide. Studies have reported an elevated cancer risk among... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Endometriosis is an often chronic, inflammatory gynaecologic condition affecting 190 million women worldwide. Studies have reported an elevated cancer risk among patients with endometriosis. However, prior research has included methodologic issues that impede valid and robust interpretation.
OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE
We conducted a meta-analysis of studies investigating the association between endometriosis and cancer risk and analysed the results by methodologic characteristics. We discuss the implications of cancer screening in patients and management challenges faced by clinicians.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched PubMed and Embase databases for eligible studies from inception through 24 October 2019. We included cohort and case-control studies examining the association between endometriosis and cancer risk; cross-sectional studies and case reports were excluded. Publications had to present risk/rate/odds estimates with 95% CI. Random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate summary relative risks (SRR) and CIs. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed by the Q test and I2 statistics, and publication bias using Egger's and Begg's tests. Risk of bias and quality of the included studies were assessed using the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool.
OUTCOMES
Forty-nine population-based case-control and cohort studies were included. Twenty-six studies were scored as having a 'serious'/'critical' risk of bias, and the remaining 23 'low'/'moderate'. Cancer-specific analyses showed a positive association between endometriosis and ovarian cancer risk (SRR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.68-2.22; n = 24 studies) that was strongest for clear cell (SRR = 3.44, 95% CI = 2.82-4.42; n = 5 studies) and endometrioid (SRR = 2.33, 95% CI = 1.82-2.98; n = 5 studies) histotypes (Pheterogeneity < 0.0001), although with significant evidence of both heterogeneity across studies and publication bias (Egger's and Begg's P-values < 0.01). A robust association was observed between endometriosis and thyroid cancer (SRR = 1.39, 95% CI =1.24-1.57; n = 5 studies), a very small association with breast cancer (SRR = 1.04, 95% CI =1.00-1.09; n = 20 studies) and no association with colorectal cancer (SRR = 1.00, 95% CI =0.87-1.16; n = 5 studies). The association with endometrial cancer was not statistically significant (SRR = 1.23, 95% CI =0.97-1.57; n = 17 studies) overall and wholly null when restricted to prospective cohort studies (SRR = 0.99, 95% CI =0.72-1.37; n = 5 studies). The association with cutaneous melanoma was also non-significant (SRR = 1.17, 95% CI =0.97-1.41; n = 7 studies) but increased in magnitude and was statistically significant when restricted to studies with low/moderate risk of bias (SRR = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.24-2.36, n = 2 studies). The most robust finding both in terms of statistical significance and magnitude of effect was an inverse association with cervical cancer (SRR = 0.68, 95% CI =0.56-0.82; n = 4 studies); however, this result has a high potential to reflect heightened access to detection of dysplasia for women who reached an endometriosis diagnosis and is thus likely not causal. Several additional cancer types were explored based on <4 studies.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS
Endometriosis was associated with a higher risk of ovarian and thyroid, and minimally (only 4% greater risk) with breast cancer, and with a lower risk of cervical cancer. However, this meta-analysis confirms that: a majority of studies had severe/critical risk of bias; there is impactful heterogeneity across studies-and for ovarian cancer, publication bias; and causal inference requires temporality, which in many studies was not considered. We discuss the implications of these potential associations from the perspectives of patients with endometriosis, clinicians involved in their care, and scientists investigating their long-term health risks.
Topics: Cross-Sectional Studies; Endometriosis; Female; Humans; Melanoma; Prospective Studies; Skin Neoplasms
PubMed: 33202017
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmaa045 -
European Journal of Cancer (Oxford,... Jul 2023Treatment options for advanced melanoma have increased with the US Food and Drug Administration approval of the anti-LAG3 plus anti-PD-1 relatlimab/nivolumab... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Treatment options for advanced melanoma have increased with the US Food and Drug Administration approval of the anti-LAG3 plus anti-PD-1 relatlimab/nivolumab combination. To date, ipilimumab/nivolumab is the benchmark of overall survival, despite a high toxicity profile. Furthermore, in BRAF-mutant patients, BRAF/MEK inhibitors and the atezolizumab/vemurafenib/cobimetinib triplet are also available treatments, making the first-line therapy selection more complex. To address this issue, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the available first-line treatment options in advanced melanoma.
METHODS
Randomised clinical trials of previously untreated, advanced melanoma were included if at least one intervention arm contained a BRAF/MEK or an immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI). The aim was to indirectly compare the ICIs combinations ipilimumab/nivolumab and relatlimab/nivolumab, and these combinations with all the other first-line treatment options for advanced melanoma (irrespective of BRAF status) in terms of activity and safety. The coprimary end-points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (≥ G3 TRAEs) rate, defined according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.
RESULTS
A total of 9070 metastatic melanoma patients treated in 18 randomised clinical trials were included in the network meta-analysis. No difference in PFS and ORR was observed between ipilimumab/nivolumab and relatlimab/nivolumab (HR = 0.99 [95% CI 0.75-1.31] and RR = 0.99 [95% CI 0.78-1.27], respectively). The PD-(L)1/BRAF/MEK inhibitors triplet combinations were superior to ipilimumab/nivolumab in terms of both PFS (HR = 0.56 [95% CI 0.37-0.84]) and ORR (RR = 3.07 [95% CI 1.61-5.85]). Ipilimumab/nivolumab showed the highest risk of developing ≥ G3 TRAEs. Relatlimab/nivolumab trended to a lower risk of ≥ G3 TRAEs (RR = 0.71 [95% CI 0.30-1.67]) versus ipilimumab/nivolumab.
CONCLUSION
Relatlimab/nivolumab showed similar PFS and ORR compared to ipilimumab/nivolumab, with a trend for a better safety profile.
Topics: Humans; Nivolumab; Ipilimumab; Network Meta-Analysis; Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Melanoma; Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase Kinases
PubMed: 37196485
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.04.010 -
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official... Oct 2023To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of systemic therapy for melanoma.
PURPOSE
To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of systemic therapy for melanoma.
METHODS
American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel and conducted an updated systematic review of the literature.
RESULTS
The updated review identified 21 additional randomized trials.
UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS
Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab was newly recommended for patients with resectable stage IIIB to IV cutaneous melanoma. For patients with resected cutaneous melanoma, adjuvant nivolumab or pembrolizumab was newly recommended for stage IIB-C disease and adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab was added as a potential option for stage IV disease. For patients with unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, nivolumab plus relatlimab was added as a potential option regardless of mutation status and nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab was preferred over BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy. Talimogene laherparepvec is no longer recommended as an option for patients with wild-type disease who have progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy. Ipilimumab- and ipilimumab-containing regimens are no longer recommended for patients with -mutated disease after progression on other therapies.This full update incorporates the new recommendations for uveal melanoma published in the 2022 Rapid Recommendation Update.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines.
Topics: Humans; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Ipilimumab; Melanoma; Nivolumab; Oncolytic Virotherapy; Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf; Skin Neoplasms; Melanoma, Cutaneous Malignant
PubMed: 37579248
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.23.01136 -
JAMA Dermatology Feb 2021While current evidence supports UV exposure as an important risk factor for cutaneous melanoma in fair-skinned populations, the evidence for this association in skin of...
IMPORTANCE
While current evidence supports UV exposure as an important risk factor for cutaneous melanoma in fair-skinned populations, the evidence for this association in skin of color is less certain.
OBJECTIVE
To critically assess and synthesize the published data regarding the association between UV exposure and the risk of cutaneous melanoma in skin of color.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
A search was conducted including PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases from database origin to June 3, 2020. Only peer-reviewed original studies were screened in full text. Eligible studies analyzed UV exposure as a risk factor for cutaneous melanoma in people with skin of color, which was defined broadly as any race/ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White, Fitzpatrick skin types IV through VI, or tanning ability of rarely or never burns. Measures of UV exposure included UV index, irradiance, latitude, history of phototherapy, and history of sunburn. Evidence quality was assessed using criteria from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.
FINDINGS
After duplicate removal, 11 059 database records were screened, 548 full-text articles were assessed, and 13 met inclusion criteria. Study types included 7 ecological studies, 5 cohort studies, and 1 case-control study. All studies used race and/or ethnicity to categorize the participants, and more than 7700 melanomas in skin of color were included. Of the 13 studies that met inclusion criteria, 11 found no association between UV exposure and melanoma in skin of color, 1 study showed a small positive relationship in Black males, and 1 showed a weak association in Hispanic males. All studies were of moderate to low quality (Oxford Centre ratings 2b to 4).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review, the evidence suggests that UV exposure may not be an important risk factor for melanoma development in people with skin of color. Current recommendations promoting UV protection for melanoma prevention in skin of color are not supported by most current studies. However, evidence is of moderate to low quality, and further research is required to fully elucidate this association.
Topics: Humans; Melanoma; Risk Factors; Skin Neoplasms; Skin Pigmentation; Sunburn; Ultraviolet Rays; Racial Groups
PubMed: 33325988
DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.4616 -
JAMA Neurology Jul 2021Encephalitis is a severe immune-related adverse event secondary to treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The spectrum of ICI-induced encephalitis (ICI-iE)...
IMPORTANCE
Encephalitis is a severe immune-related adverse event secondary to treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The spectrum of ICI-induced encephalitis (ICI-iE) ranges from disease that resolves fully to lethal forms. Moreover, ICIs may unmask a paraneoplastic encephalitis. To our knowledge, the factors associated with ICI-iE prognosis are unknown.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the presentation of ICI-iE and to identify features helpful in assessing outcomes.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
This systematic review pooled case series from the published literature (n = 77) and medical records from 1 center (n = 5) to assess the association between the form of ICI-iE presentation and its prognosis. Eligibility criteria included references identified by searches of PubMed and Web of Knowledge databases in the English literature from June 2000 (first patient dose of ipilimumab) to April 17, 2020, that examined patients with encephalitis with presumed autoimmune etiologic features induced by ICIs. Information regarding clinical, cerebrospinal fluid, and neuroimaging (magnetic resonance imaging) features, as well as treatment given, were extracted.
FINDINGS
A total of 82 patients (52 men [63%]; median age, 61.0 years [interquartile range, 52.5-70.0 years]) were included. Most patients presented with focal syndromes (39 [48%]) or meningoencephalitis (36 [44%]). Seven patients (9%) had nonclassifiable ICI-iE. Neuronal autoantibodies were detected in 23 patients with focal syndromes and 1 patient with nonclassifiable ICI-iE. Most autoantibodies were onconeuronal (17 of 24 [71%]), targeting intracellular antigens. Patients without a focal syndrome or with a negative-antibody focal syndrome had a good prognosis (49 of 55 [89%]). Among patients with autoantibodies, those with anti-glutamic acid decarboxylase or anticell surface responded to treatment and had a favorable prognosis (100%). However, patients with other autoantibodies had poor outcomes (17 of 24 [71%]). Antineuronal autoantibodies (13 of 24 [54%] vs 5 of 41 [12%]; P < .001), focal syndrome (16 of 39 [41%] vs 4 of 43 [9%]; P = .001), and abnormal magnetic resonance imaging findings (14 of 39 [36%] vs 4 of 32 [13%]; P = .02) were associated with poor outcomes. Conversely, fever (21 of 23 [91%] vs 41 of 59 [70%]; P = .04) and more inflammatory changes in cerebrospinal fluid (30 of 31 [97%] vs 21 of 33 [64%]; P = .001) were associated with a better prognosis.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Immune checkpoint inhibitors may induce mainly 2 different encephalitic syndromes: a focal limbic or extralimbic encephalitis and a meningoencephalitis. Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced encephalitis is associated with an overall favorable outcome, with a low rate of fatal events. An undetected preexisting paraneoplastic encephalitic syndrome may be triggered by ICIs, and this type of syndrome has the worst outcome among all the different types of ICI-induced encephalitis syndromes. Clinical presentation and systematic measurement of autoantibodies will be a helpful guide for the therapeutic strategy and for counseling regarding prognosis.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Autoantibodies; Encephalitis; Female; Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Ipilimumab; Lung Neoplasms; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Melanoma; Middle Aged; Nivolumab
PubMed: 33720308
DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.0249 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Cutaneous melanoma is amongst the most aggressive of all skin cancers. Neoadjuvant treatment is a form of induction therapy, given to shrink a cancerous tumour prior to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cutaneous melanoma is amongst the most aggressive of all skin cancers. Neoadjuvant treatment is a form of induction therapy, given to shrink a cancerous tumour prior to the main treatment (usually surgery). The purpose is to improve survival and surgical outcomes. This review systematically appraises the literature investigating the use of neoadjuvant treatment for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of neoadjuvant treatment in adults with stage III or stage IV melanoma according to the seventh edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 10 August 2021 inclusive: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and four trials registers, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We also handsearched proceedings from specific conferences from 2016 to 2020 inclusive.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with stage III and IV melanoma, comparing neoadjuvant treatment strategies (using targeted treatments, immunotherapies, radiotherapy, topical treatments or chemotherapy) with any of these agents or current standard of care (SOC), were eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and adverse effects (AEs). Secondary outcomes included time to recurrence (TTR), quality of life (QOL), and overall response rate (ORR). We used GRADE to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs involving 402 participants. Studies enrolled adults, mostly with stage III melanoma, investigated immunotherapies, chemotherapy, or targeted treatments, and compared these with surgical excision with or without adjuvant treatment. Duration of follow-up and therapeutic regimens varied, which, combined with heterogeneity in the population and definitions of the endpoints, precluded meta-analysis of all identified studies. We performed a meta-analysis including three studies. We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases OS when compared to no neoadjuvant treatment (hazard ratio (HR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.21; 2 studies, 171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neoadjuvant treatment may increase the rate of AEs, but the evidence is very uncertain (26% versus 16%, risk ratio (RR) 1.58, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.55; 2 studies, 162 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases TTR (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17; 2 studies, 171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report ORR as a comparative outcome or measure QOL data. We are very uncertain whether neoadjuvant targeted treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib increases OS (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.25; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or TTR (HR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.22; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence) when compared to surgery. The study did not report comparative rates of AEs and overall response, and did not measure QOL. We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant immunotherapy with talimogene laherparepvec increases OS when compared to no neoadjuvant treatment (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.64; 1 study, 150 participants, very low-certainty evidence). It may have a higher rate of AEs, but the evidence is very uncertain (16.5% versus 5.8%, RR 2.84, 95% CI 0.96 to 8.37; 1 study, 142 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if it increases TTR (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.79; 1 study, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report comparative ORRs or measure QOL. OS was not reported for neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) when compared to the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab as adjuvant treatment. There may be little or no difference in the rate of AEs between these treatments (9%, RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.34; 1 study, 20 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not report comparative ORRs or measure TTR and QOL. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) likely results in little to no difference in OS when compared to neoadjuvant nivolumab monotherapy (P = 0.18; 1 study, 23 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase the rate of AEs, but the certainty of this evidence is very low (72.8% versus 8.3%, RR 8.73, 95% CI 1.29 to 59; 1 study, 23 participants); this trial was halted early due to observation of disease progression preventing surgical resection in the monotherapy arm and the high rate of treatment-related AEs in the combination arm. Neoadjuvant combination treatment may lead to higher ORR, but the evidence is very uncertain (72.8% versus 25%, RR 2.91, 95% CI 1.02 to 8.27; 1 study, 23 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It likely results in little to no difference in TTR (P = 0.19; 1 study, 23 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure QOL. OS was not reported for neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) when compared to neoadjuvant sequential immunotherapy (ipilimumab then nivolumab). Only Grade 3 to 4 immune-related AEs were reported; fewer were reported with combination treatment, and the sequential treatment arm closed early due to a high incidence of severe AEs. The neoadjuvant combination likely results in a higher ORR compared to sequential neoadjuvant treatment (60.1% versus 42.3%, RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.32; 1 study, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure TTR and QOL. No data were reported on OS, AEs, TTR, or QOL for the comparison of neoadjuvant interferon (HDI) plus chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Neoadjuvant HDI plus chemotherapy may have little to no effect on ORR, but the evidence is very uncertain (33% versus 22%, RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 4.95; 1 study, 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases OS or TTR compared with no neoadjuvant treatment, and it may be associated with a slightly higher rate of AEs. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of neoadjuvant treatment in clinical practice. Priorities for research include the development of a core outcome set for neoadjuvant trials that are adequately powered, with validation of pathological and radiological responses as intermediate endpoints, to investigate the relative benefits of neoadjuvant treatment compared with adjuvant treatment with immunotherapies or targeted therapies.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antineoplastic Agents; Ipilimumab; Melanoma; Nivolumab; Skin Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Neoplasm Staging; Melanoma, Cutaneous Malignant
PubMed: 36648215
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012974.pub2 -
Annals of Oncology : Official Journal... Dec 2019Adoptive cell therapy (ACT) using autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) has been tested in advanced melanoma patients at various centers. We conducted a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Adoptive cell therapy (ACT) using autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) has been tested in advanced melanoma patients at various centers. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess its efficacy on previously treated advanced metastatic cutaneous melanoma. The PubMed electronic database was searched from inception to 17 December 2018 to identify studies administering TIL-ACT and recombinant interleukin-2 (IL-2) following non-myeloablative chemotherapy in previously treated metastatic melanoma patients. Objective response rate (ORR) was the primary end point. Secondary end points were complete response rate (CRR), overall survival (OS), duration of response (DOR) and toxicity. Pooled estimates were derived from fixed or random effect models, depending on the amount of heterogeneity detected. Analysis was carried out separately for high dose (HD) and low dose (LD) IL-2. Sensitivity analyses were carried out. Among 1211 records screened, 13 studies (published 1988 - 2016) were eligible for meta-analysis. Among 410 heavily pretreated patients (some with brain metastasis), 332 received HD-IL-2 and 78 LD-IL-2. The pooled overall ORR estimate was 41% [95% confidence interval (CI) 35% to 48%], and the overall CRR was 12% (95% CI 7% to 16%). For the HD-IL-2 group, the ORR was 43% (95% CI 36% to 50%), while for the LD-IL-2 it was 35% (95% CI 25% to 45%). Corresponding pooled estimates for CRR were 14% (95% CI 7% to 20%) and 7% (95% CI 1% to 12%). The majority of HD-IL-2 complete responders (27/28) remained in remission during the extent of follow-up after CR (median 40 months). Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. Higher number of infused cells was associated with a favorable response. The ORR for HD-IL-2 compared favorably with the nivolumab/ipilimumab combination following anti-PD-1 failure. TIL-ACT therapy, especially when combined with HD-IL-2, achieves durable clinical benefit and warrants further investigation. We discuss the current position of TIL-ACT in the therapy of advanced melanoma, particularly in the era of immune checkpoint blockade therapy, and review future opportunities for improvement of this approach.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Disease-Free Survival; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Interleukin-2; Lymphocytes, Tumor-Infiltrating; Melanoma; Recombinant Proteins; Remission Induction; Skin Neoplasms; Transplantation, Autologous; Melanoma, Cutaneous Malignant
PubMed: 31566658
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdz398 -
JAMA Network Open Mar 2021Obesity, defined as a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30, is associated with a significant increase in the risk of many cancers and in overall mortality. However,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Obesity, defined as a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30, is associated with a significant increase in the risk of many cancers and in overall mortality. However, various studies have suggested that patients with cancer and no obesity (ie, BMI 20-25) have worse outcomes than patients with obesity.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the association between obesity and outcomes after a diagnosis of cancer.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched from inception to January 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies reporting prognosis of patients with obesity using standard BMI categories and cancer were included. Studies that used nonstandard BMI categories, that were limited to children, or that were limited to patients with hematological malignant neoplasms were excluded. Screening was performed independently by multiple reviewers. Among 1892 retrieved studies, 203 (17%) met inclusion criteria for initial evaluation.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were reporting guideline was followed. Data were extracted by multiple independent reviewers. Risk of death, cancer-specific mortality, and recurrence were pooled to provide an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% CI . A random-effects model was used for the retrospective nature of studies.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome of the study was overall survival (OS) in patients with cancer, with and without obesity. Secondary end points were cancer-specific survival (CSS) and progression-free survival (PFS) or disease-free survival (DFS). The risk of events was reported as HRs with 95% CIs, with an HR greater than 1 associated with a worse outcome among patients with obesity vs those without.
RESULTS
A total of 203 studies with 6 320 365 participants evaluated the association of OS, CSS, and/or PFS or DFS with obesity in patients with cancer. Overall, obesity was associated with a reduced OS (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.09-1.19; P < .001) and CSS (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.12-1.23; P < .001). Patients were also at increased risk of recurrence (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.07-1.19; P < .001). Conversely, patients with obesity and lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, or melanoma had better survival outcomes compared with patients without obesity and the same cancer (lung: HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.98; P = .02; renal cell: HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53-0.89; P = .02; melanoma: HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.96; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this study, obesity was associated with greater mortality overall in patients with cancer. However, patients with obesity and lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and melanoma had a lower risk of death than patients with the same cancers without obesity. Weight-reducing strategies may represent effective measures for reducing mortality in these patients.
Topics: Global Health; Humans; Incidence; Neoplasms; Obesity; Survival Rate
PubMed: 33779745
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.3520 -
Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and... 2022Oral nicotinamide is recommended in individuals with a field of cancerization or with ≥1 previous cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Oral nicotinamide is recommended in individuals with a field of cancerization or with ≥1 previous cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC).
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effect of nicotinamide in prevention of skin cancers.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effect of nicotinamide. We used Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science databases from their inception to October 2020 to search the following concepts: "nicotinamide"; "randomized controlled trial" (validated filters). Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts for intervention and study design before searching full texts for eligibility criteria. To be eligible, ≥1 outcome had to be covered. We used a standardized collection grid to complete data extraction in duplicate. The primary outcome was skin cancers (all types). Secondary outcomes were basal cell carcinomas (BCCs); cSCCs; actinic keratoses; melanomas; digestive, cutaneous, and biochemical adverse effects (AEs). Subgroup analyses were planned .
RESULTS
We screened 4730 citations and found 29 trials (3039 patients) meeting inclusion criteria. Nicotinamide was associated with a significant reduction in skin cancers compared to control (rate ratio 0.50 (95% CI, 0.29-0.85; = 64%; 552 patients; 5 trials); moderate strength of the evidence). Heterogeneity was explained by risk of bias. Nicotinamide was associated with a significant reduction in BCCs and cSCCs, and increased risk of digestive AEs.
CONCLUSION
Oral nicotinamide should be considered in healthy patients or organ transplant recipients with history of skin cancer (GRADE: weak recommendation; moderate-quality evidence), in particular of BCC and cSCC.
Topics: Carcinoma, Basal Cell; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Chemoprevention; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Keratosis, Actinic; Niacinamide; Skin Neoplasms
PubMed: 35134311
DOI: 10.1177/12034754221078201