Association of ankylosing spondylitis with the risk of cancer: a meta- analysis of cohort studies.

OBJECTIVES: The potential impact of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) on cancer risk remains unclear. This study seeks to investigate the relationship between AS and different types of cancers. METHODS: A literature search of the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library up to July 10th, 2023, was conducted. Two investigators selected eligible studies and extracted relevant data. The study used the random-effects model to explore the causality between AS and cancer, utilising relative risk (RR) as a measure for the study. RESULTS: A total of 20 cohorts with >330 000 participants were included. The pooling analysis shows AS being associated with a higher risk of cancers (RR = 1.16, 95% CI : 1.07-1.26, p= 0.001, I2=70.60%). In the subgroup analysis, AS has a higher cancer risk in Asia, but this association is not significant in Europe. Individual investigations indicate that AS is associated with an increased risk of bone cancer (RR = 3.41, 95% CI : 1.45-7.99, p= 0.005, I2=0.00%), thyroid gland cancer (RR = 1.76, 95% CI : 1.29-2.40, p< 0.001, I2=13.70%), multiple myeloma (RR = 1.74, 95% CI : 1.42-2.15, p< 0.001, I2=27.20%), leukaemia (RR = 1.52, 95% CI : 1.27-1.82, p< 0.001, I2=0.00%), kidney cancer (RR = 1.45, 95% CI : 1.08-1.94, p= 0.014, I2=0.00%), prostate cancer (RR = 1.43, 95% CI : 1.17-1.74, p< 0.001, I2=82.80%), and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (RR = 1.42, 95% CI : 1.17-1.73, p< 0.001, I2=0.00%). However, there is no significant correlation with connective tissue cancer, brain cancer, testicular and other male cancers, bladder cancer, female cancers, skin cancer, and cancers of the digestive system and respiratory system. CONCLUSION: AS appears to be related to cancer development. The results highlighted the necessity for large-scale studies, considering influencing factors such as AS course, medication histories, and potential biases when examining cancer risk.

Addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors to chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with triple-negative breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a relatively common malignant tumor with high mortality rates. There are limited treatment options and current therapy regimens often fall short of providing positive outcomes. The development of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have provided a vital treatment option although efficacy has varied. Here, we review patient response to current TNBC treatment with and without the addition of ICIs. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE library databases was done to search eligible studies published from their inception through April 3, 2022. The primary outcome indicators used were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), pathological complete response rate (pCR) and objective remission rate (ORR), while adverse events (AEs) were also analyzed. Publication bias and sensitivity analyses and were performed to evaluate the quality of assessment. RESULTS: Overall, the meta-analysis looked at seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included 4631 patients with TNBC. Results showed an improvement in PFS for patients receiving ICI in addition to chemotherapy (CT) in both the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and PD-L1 positive patients. Increased pCR rates were observed in all patients irrespective of PD-L1 status as well as increased ORR in the ITT which was more notable in PD-L1 positive subjects. While significant improvement in OS was observed only in PD-L1 positive individuals, the use of ICIs plus CT resulted in severe adverse reactions, specifically immune-related. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the increased efficacy of ICIs in combination with CT compared to CT alone in patients with TNBC, with the most notable benefit observed in PD-L1 positive patients. However, combination therapy increases the risk of adverse reactions which warrants further investigation.

No association between cholecystectomy and risk of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of cohort studies.

OBJECTIVE: Cohort studies have reported an association between colorectal cancer and cholecystectomy. However, the conclusions are inconsistent. Thus, this meta-analysis will quantify the risk of colorectal cancer following cholecystectomy. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant cohort studies. The quality of individual observational studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The relative risk of colorectal cancer after cholecystectomy was calculated using STATA 14.0 software. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were used to examine the source of heterogeneity. Funnel plots and Egger's test were finally performed to assess the publication bias. RESULTS: This meta-analysis included 14 studies comprising 2,283,616 subjects. Pooled analysis indicated that cholecystectomy was not a risk factor for colorectal cancer (Colorectal: RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.75-1.51, p = 0.739 Colon: RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.88-1.93, p = 0.182 Rectal: RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.74-1.32, p = 0.932). Subgroup showed that patients are at an increased risk of sigmoid colon following cholecystectomy (RR 1.42; 95% CI 1.27-1.58, p = 0.000). Furthermore, it was shown that both females and males undergoing cholecystectomy may have higher risks of colon cancer (Female: RR = 1.47, 95% CI 1.01-2.14, P = 0.042 Male: RR = 1.32; 95% CI 1.07-1.63, P = 0.010), which is similarly observed in the right colon (Female: RR 1.99; 95% CI 1.31-3.03, p = 0.001, P = 0.017 Male: RR 1.68; 95% CI 0.81-3.49, p = 0.166). CONCLUSIONS: No clear evidence to support the association between cholecystectomy and an increased risk of colorectal cancer. For patients with valid indications, timely cholecystectomy could be performed without the risk of colorectal cancer.

Exploring the Pharmacological Mechanism of the Effective Chinese Medicines Against Gynecological Cancer Based on Meta-Analysis Combined With Network Pharmacology Analysis.

This meta-analysis plus network pharmacology aimed to investigate whether traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) combined with chemotherapy is associated with more beneficial efficacy data in the treatment of gynecological cancer (GC). A total of 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) consisting of 863 GC patients were included. Results showed a better ORR (RR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.18-1.71; I 2 = 21.4%; p = 0.282), DCR (RR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.03-1.25; I 2 = 0.0%; p = 0.492), PD (RR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.11-0.65, p = 0.003; I 2 = 0.0%, p = 0.930), and QOL (SMD: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.38-1.33, p = 0.005) and higher proportions of CD3+ T (WMD: 5.65, 95% CI: 4.23-7.08, p = 0.000; I 2 = 68.3%, p = 0.004), CD4+ T (WMD: 6.97, 95% CI: 5.35-8.59, p = 0.000; I 2 = 83.4%, p = 0.000), and the CD4+/CD8+ T ratio (WMD: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.23-0.42, p = 0.000; I 2 = 78.0%, p = 0.000). The number of adverse events (AEs) was significantly lower in the TCM + chemotherapy group. The active components and targets of 19 high-frequency Chinese medicines obtained from the meta-analysis were screened and explored in network pharmacology analysis. Also, a regulatory network of active components and targets, a core network and key genes, a diagram of protein interaction, network topology analysis, and gene body GO function and KEGG pathway enrichment analysis were performed. A total of 120 active components were identified. NPM1 and HSPA8 are the most critical target proteins in the core network of protein interaction. HSP90AA1 is the most important target protein in the TCM group. KEGG enrichment analysis showed that it was highly significant in the lipid and atherosclerotic pathways. Therefore, moderate evidence revealed that TCM plus chemotherapy has obvious advantages over chemotherapy alone in terms of tumor responses, QOL, peripheral blood lymphocyte levels, and fewer AEs in the treatment of GC. The potential important targets and core genes were displayed. Systematic Review Registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42021252500.

Is antibody-drug conjugate a rising star for clinical treatment of solid tumors? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) show significant advantages in cancer treatment due to their high selectivity and anti-tumor activity, but the efficacy and safety of the treatment of solid tumors are unknown. We searched research databases, major conference proceedings and trial registries for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Then, we selected qualified studies and extracted dates. Studies were assessed for quality, and a meta-analysis was conducted to quantify effects of ADCs on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and adverse events (AEs). The within-study heterogeneity was evaluated by subgroup and sensitivity analysis. Eleven RCTs with 4353 participants were included. ADCs had better PFS (HR: 0.69, 95 % CI: 0.56-0.82) and OS (HR: 0.76, 95 % CI: 0.61-0.92). ADCs resulted in lower risk of febrile neutropenia in blood system. Conversely, ADC therapy had not a prepotent on ORR (RR: 1.36, 95 % CI: 0.71-2.60).