Risk Factors for Ovarian Cancer: An Umbrella Review of the Literature.

Several non-genetic factors have been associated with ovarian cancer incidence or mortality. To evaluate the strength and validity of the evidence we conducted an umbrella review of the literature that included systematic reviews/meta-analyses that evaluated the link between non-genetic risk factors and ovarian cancer incidence and mortality. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and performed a manual screening of references. Evidence was graded into strong, highly suggestive, suggestive or weak based on statistical significance of the random effects summary estimate and the largest study in a meta-analysis, the number of cases, between-study heterogeneity, 95% prediction intervals, small study effects, and presence of excess significance bias. We identified 212 meta-analyses, investigating 55 non-genetic risk factors for ovarian cancer. Risk factors were grouped in eight broad categories: anthropometric indices, dietary intake, physical activity, pre-existing medical conditions, past drug history, biochemical markers, past gynaecological history and smoking. Of the 174 meta-analyses of cohort studies assessing 44 factors, six associations were graded with strong evidence. Greater height (RR per 10 cm 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-1.20), body mass index (BMI) (RR ≥ 30 kg/m2 versus normal 1.27, 95% CI 1.17-1.38) and three exposures of varying preparations and usage related to hormone replacement therapy (HRT) use increased the risk of developing ovarian cancer. Use of oral contraceptive pill reduced the risk (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69-0.80). Refining the significance of genuine risk factors for the development of ovarian cancer may potentially increase awareness in women at risk, aid prevention and early detection.

Type 2 Diabetes and Cancer: An Umbrella Review of Observational and Mendelian Randomization Studies.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has been associated with an increased risk of developing several common cancers, but it is unclear whether this association is causal. We aimed to summarize the evidence on T2DM and cancer and evaluate the validity of associations from both observational and Mendelian randomization (MR) studies. METHODS: We performed an umbrella review of the evidence across meta-analyses of observational studies that examined associations of T2DM with risk of developing or dying from site-specific cancers, and MR studies that explored the potential causal association of T2DM and associated biomarkers with cancer risk. RESULTS: We identified eligible observational meta-analyses that assessed associations between T2DM and cancer incidence for 18 cancer sites, cancer mortality for seven sites, and cancer incidence or mortality for four sites. Positive associations between T2DM and six cancers reached strong or highly suggestive evidence. We found eight MR studies assessing the association of genetically predicted T2DM and seven and eight studies assessing the association of genetically predicted fasting insulin or fasting glucose concentrations, respectively, upon site-specific cancers. Positive associations were found between genetically predicted T2DM and fasting insulin and risk of six cancers. There was no association between genetically predicted fasting plasma glucose and cancer except for squamous cell lung carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: We found robust observational evidence for the association between T2DM and colorectal, hepatocellular, gallbladder, breast, endometrial, and pancreatic cancers. IMPACT: Potential causal associations were identified for genetically predicted T2DM and fasting insulin concentrations and risk of endometrial, pancreas, kidney, breast, lung, and cervical cancers.

Association between blood pressure and risk of cancer development: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

With the exception of renal cell carcinoma, studies assessing the association between hypertension and other cancers are inconsistent. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess this evidence. We included observational studies investigating the association between any definition of hypertension or systolic and diastolic blood pressure and risk of any cancer, after searching PubMed until November 2017. We calculated summary relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using inverse-variance weighted random effects methods. A total of 148 eligible publications were identified out of 39,891 initially screened citations. Considering only evidence from 85 prospective studies, positive associations were observed between hypertension and kidney, colorectal and breast cancer. Positive associations between hypertension and risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, liver and endometrial cancer were also observed, but the majority of studies did not perform comprehensive multivariable adjustments. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure were positively associated with risk of kidney cancer but not with other cancers. In addition to the previously well-described association between hypertension and risk of kidney cancer, the current meta-analysis suggested that hypertensive individuals may also be at higher risk of colorectal and breast cancer. However, careful interpretation is required as most meta-analyses included relatively small number of studies, several relative risks had weak or moderate magnitude and maybe affected by residual confounding.

Risk factors for endometrial cancer: An umbrella review of the literature.

Although many risk factors could have causal association with endometrial cancer, they are also prone to residual confounding or other biases which could lead to over- or underestimation. This umbrella review evaluates the strength and validity of evidence pertaining risk factors for endometrial cancer. Systematic reviews or meta-analyses of observational studies evaluating the association between non-genetic risk factors and risk of developing or dying from endometrial cancer were identified from inception to April 2018 using PubMed, the Cochrane database and manual reference screening. Evidence was graded strong, highly suggestive, suggestive or weak based on statistical significance of random-effects summary estimate, largest study included, number of cases, between-study heterogeneity, 95% prediction intervals, small study effects, excess significance bias and sensitivity analysis with credibility ceilings. We identified 171 meta-analyses investigating associations between 53 risk factors and endometrial cancer incidence and mortality. Risk factors were categorised: anthropometric indices, dietary intake, physical activity, medical conditions, hormonal therapy use, biochemical markers, gynaecological history and smoking. Of 127 meta-analyses including cohort studies, three associations were graded with strong evidence. Body mass index and waist-to-hip ratio were associated with increased cancer risk in premenopausal women (RR per 5 kg/m2 1.49; CI 1.39-1.61) and for total endometrial cancer (RR per 0.1unit 1.21; CI 1.13-1.29), respectively. Parity reduced risk of disease (RR 0.66, CI 0.60-0.74). Of many proposed risk factors, only three had strong association without hints of bias. Identification of genuine risk factors associated with endometrial cancer may assist in developing targeted prevention strategies for women at high risk.