Melatonin and Prostate Cancer: Anti-tumor Roles and Therapeutic Application.

Melatonin is an endogenous indoleamine that has been shown to inhibit tumor growth in laboratory models of prostate cancer. Prostate cancer risk has additionally been associated with exogenous factors that interfere with normal pineal secretory activity, including aging, poor sleep, and artificial light at night. Therefore, we aim to expand on the important epidemiological evidence, and to review how melatonin can impede prostate cancer. More specifically, we describe the currently known mechanisms of melatonin-mediated oncostasis in prostate cancer, including those that relate to the indolamine's ability to modulate metabolic activity, cell cycle progression and proliferation, androgen signaling, angiogenesis, metastasis, immunity and oxidative cell status, apoptosis, genomic stability, neuroendocrine differentiation, and the circadian rhythm. The outlined evidence underscores the need for clinical trials to determine the efficacy of supplemental, adjunct, and adjuvant melatonin therapy for the prevention and treatment of prostate cancer.

Treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review of in vitro, in vivo, and clinical trials.

Rationale: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide and poses a threat to humanity. However, no specific therapy has been established for this disease yet. We conducted a systematic review to highlight therapeutic agents that might be effective in treating COVID-19. Methods: We searched Medline, Medrxiv.org, and reference lists of relevant publications to identify articles of in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies on treatments for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and COVID-19 published in English until the last update on October 11, 2020. Results: We included 36 studies on SARS, 30 studies on MERS, and 10 meta-analyses on SARS and MERS in this study. Through 12,200 title and 830 full-text screenings for COVID-19, eight in vitro studies, 46 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on 6,886 patients, and 29 meta-analyses were obtained and investigated. There was no therapeutic agent that consistently resulted in positive outcomes across SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. Remdesivir showed a therapeutic effect for COVID-19 in two RCTs involving the largest number of total participants (n = 1,461). Other therapies that showed an effect in at least two RCTs for COVID-19 were sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (n = 114), colchicine (n = 140), IFN-ß1b (n = 193), and convalescent plasma therapy (n = 126). Conclusions: This review provides information to help establish treatment and research directions for COVID-19 based on currently available evidence. Further RCTs are required.

Tea Consumption and Risk of Cancer: An Umbrella Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

Tea is one of the most widely consumed beverages, but its association with cancer risk remains controversial and unclear. We performed an umbrella review to clarify and determine the associations between tea consumption and various types of cancer by summarizing and recalculating the existing meta-analyses. Meta-analyses of observational studies reporting associations between tea consumption and cancer risk were searched on PubMed and Embase. Associations found to be statistically significant were further classified into levels of evidence (convincing, suggestive, or weak), based on P value, between-study heterogeneity, prediction intervals, and small study effects. Sixty-four observational studies (case-control or cohort) corresponding to 154 effect sizes on the incidence of 25 types of cancer were included. Forty-three (27.9%) results in 15 different types of cancer were statistically significant. When combining all studies on the same type of cancer, 19 results in 11 different types of cancer showed significant associations with lower risk of gastrointestinal tract organ cancer (oral, gastric, colorectal, biliary tract, and liver cancer), breast cancer, and gynecological cancer (endometrial and ovarian cancer) as well as leukemia, lung cancer, and thyroid cancer. Only the reduced risk of oral cancer in tea-consuming populations (OR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.72; P value < 10-6) was supported by convincing evidence. Suggestive evidence was found for 6 results on biliary tract, breast, endometrial, liver, and oral cancer. To summarize, tea consumption was shown to have protective effects on some types of cancer, particularly oral cancer. More well-designed prospective studies are needed with consideration of other factors that can cause biases.

Consumption of Fish and ω-3 Fatty Acids and Cancer Risk: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies.

Multiple studies have suggested that ω-3 fatty acid intake may have a protective effect on cancer risk; however, its true association with cancer risk remains controversial. We performed an umbrella review of meta-analyses to summarize and evaluate the evidence for the association between ω-3 fatty acid intake and cancer outcomes. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to December 1, 2018. We included meta-analyses of observational studies that examined associations between intake of fish or ω-3 fatty acid and cancer risk (gastrointestinal, liver, breast, gynecologic, prostate, brain, lung, and skin) and determined the level of evidence of associations. In addition, we appraised the quality of the evidence of significant meta-analyses by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. We initially screened 598 articles, and 15 articles, including 57 meta-analyses, were eligible. Among 57 meta-analyses, 15 reported statistically significant results. We found that 12 meta-analyses showed weak evidence of an association between ω-3 fatty acid intake and risk of the following types of cancer: liver cancer (n = 4 of 6), breast cancer (n = 3 of 14), prostate cancer (n = 3 of 11), and brain tumor (n = 2 of 2). In the other 3 meta-analyses, studies of endometrial cancer and skin cancer, there were no assessable data for determining the evidence levels. No meta-analysis showed convincing, highly suggestive, or suggestive evidence of an association. In the sensitivity analysis of meta-analyses by study design, we found weak associations between ω-3 fatty acid intake and breast cancer risk in cohort studies, but no statistically significant association in case-control studies. However, the opposite results were found in case of brain tumor risk. Although ω-3 fatty acids have been studied in several meta-analyses with regard to a wide range of cancer outcomes, only weak associations were identified in some cancer types, with several limitations. Considering the nonsignificant or weak evidence level, clinicians and researchers should cautiously interpret reported associations between ω-3 fatty acid consumption and cancer risks.