Ultra-Processed Food Consumption and Gastrointestinal Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Ultra-processed food (UPF) intake has been associated with a higher risk of obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases. The initial data on the relationship between UPF consumption and cancer risk were derived from retrospective observational studies with conflicting results. This systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies aimed to investigate the association between UPF consumption and gastrointestinal cancer risk. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for prospective cohort studies that compared the highest vs the lowest level of UPF consumption according to NOVA food classification and reported the risk of gastrointestinal cancers by subsite. The association with cancer was quantified as hazard ratios (HR) using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Five prospective cohort studies were included in this review comprising 1,128,243 participants (241,201 participants in the highest and 223,366 in the lowest levels of UPF consumption). The mean follow-up ranged from 5.4 to 28 years. The highest UPF consumption was significantly associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (HR 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.21; P = 0.01; I2 = 31%), colon cancer (HR 1.12; 95% CI 1.02-1.23; P = 0.02; I2 = 0%), and non-cardia gastric cancer (HR 1.43; 95% CI 1.02-2.00; P = 0.04; I2 = 0%) compared with the lowest UPF intake. However, no association was found between high UPF consumption and hepatocellular, esophageal, pancreatic, gastric cardia, and rectal cancer. DISCUSSION: The highest level of UPF consumption was significantly associated with colorectal and non-cardia gastric cancer.

Remimazolam versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Propofol has a favourable efficacy profile in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, however adverse events remain frequent. Emerging evidence supports remimazolam use in gastrointestinal endoscopy. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares remimazolam and propofol, both combined with a short-acting opioid, for sedation of adults in gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomised controlled trials comparing efficacy-, safety-, and satisfaction-related outcomes between remimazolam and propofol, both combined with short-acting opioids, for sedation of adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. We performed sensitivity analyses, subgroup assessments by type of short-acting opioid used and age range, and meta-regression analysis using mean patient age as a covariate. We used R statistical software for statistical analyses. RESULTS: We included 15 trials (4516 subjects). Remimazolam was associated with a significantly lower sedation success rate (risk ratio [RR] 0.991; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.984-0.998; high-quality evidence) and a slightly longer induction time (mean difference [MD] 9 s; 95% CI 4-13; moderate-quality evidence), whereas there was no significant difference between the sedatives in other time-related outcomes. Remimazolam was associated with significantly lower rates of respiratory depression (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.30-0.56; high-quality evidence), hypotension (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.35-0.51; moderate-quality evidence), hypotension requiring treatment (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.12-0.52; high-quality evidence), and bradycardia (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.30-0.58; high-quality evidence). There was no difference in patient (MD 0.41; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.89; moderate-quality evidence) and endoscopist satisfaction (MD -0.31; 95% CI -0.65 to 0.04; high-quality evidence) between both drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Remimazolam has clinically similar efficacy and greater safety when compared with propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopies.

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) is the established method for the resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRL) ≥ 10 mm. In the last decade, underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has been introduced as a potential alternative. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to compare the recurrence and safety of UEMR and CEMR by analyzing only randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE until April 2023. Studies met the following inclusion criteria: (1) RCTs, (2) comparing UEMR with CEMR, (3) NPCRL ≥ 10 mm, and (4) reporting the outcomes of interest. Primary outcomes were recurrence and safety. Secondary outcomes were en bloc, R0, complete resection, clipping and adverse events per type. RESULTS: Five RCTs were included. UEMR was associated with a lower recurrence rate (OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.32-0.97). Thus, the RR of recurrence was 1.7 times higher in the CEMR group (95% CI, 1.04-2.77). There was no significant difference in the pooled safety analysis. UEMR showed better en bloc resection rates (OR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.15-2.07), but subgroup analysis showed comparable rates in lesions ≥ 20 mm. R0 resection was higher in UEMR (OR: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.23-2.41). Other outcomes were not different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: UEMR is as safe as CEMR, with a higher overall R0 rate and a higher en bloc resection rate for lesions < 20 mm, leading to a lower overall recurrence rate. The results of this meta-analysis support the widespread use of UEMR.