The Association Between Smoking and Hodgkin Lymphoma
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Abstract 2560 Introduction: Few risk factors for the development of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) have been described. A relationship between smoking and the subsequent development of HL has been suggested from previous reports; however, the available data are largely conflicting. The primary objective of this meta-analysis of observational studies is to evaluate the potential epidemiologic relationship, if any, between smoking and HL. Methods: We searched MEDLINE from January 1, 1960 to June 30, 2010 for observational studies on the association between smoking and HL in adults using the keywords “smoking” and “lymphoma”. Prospective cohort studies and case-control studies that reported relative risks (RR), hazard ratios, or odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were included. Literature search, study selection and data gathering were performed independently by the two of authors. Cases were subdivided in ever smokers and current smokers and analyzed separately. Fixed-effect model (FEM) and random-effects models (REM) were used to assess the combined outcome of individual studies. The outcome measured in our study is reported as RR (95% CI). REM was used, if needed, to account for heterogeneity between studies. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the Cochrane Q and I2 statistics. Publication bias was assessed by direct observation of a funnel plot as well as trim-and-fill statistics. Quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: Our initial search rendered 577 articles. After reviewing the titles and abstracts, 36 papers were selected for full-text retrieval and reference list search, from which 4 prospective and 11 case-control studies were included in the final analysis. All studies were of high quality with both case-control and prospective studies averaging a score of 8 on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. When pooling all studies, ever smokers had a RR of 1.20 (95% CI 1.07–1.34; p=0.001); there was no heterogeneity between studies or dissemination bias. Current smokers had a RR of 1.42 (95% CI 1.20–1.68; p<0.001, Figure); there was mild heterogeneity between studies (Q=28.5, I2=45.8%, p=0.046) but no dissemination bias was identified. Based on case-control studies, ever smoking was associated with a RR of 1.16 (95% CI 1.02–1.31; p=0.02) while current smoking was associated with a RR of 1.39 (95% CI 1.14–1.69; p<0.001). Based on prospective studies, ever smoking had a RR 1.40 (95% CI 1.10–1.77; p=0.005) while current smoking had a RR 1.49 (1.02-2.18; p=0.04). Conclusions: In both retrospective and prospective studies, there is a 20% increased risk of developing HL in those patients who have ever smoked. However, the risk increases to 42% in those who were current smokers at time of diagnosis of HL. Our findings confirm a previously reported association between smoking and the development of HL, giving additional support in favor of smoking cessation. The lymphomagenic mechanism of smoking is currently unclear but could be related to a direct carcinogenic effect of tobacco-related agents or the immunomodulatory effect of smoking. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,028 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,014 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».