Association of gallstone disease with risk of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have assessed the association of gallstones or cholecystectomy (CE) with risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the findings are mixed. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and meta-analyse the association between the presence of gallstone disease (GD), or CE and the incidence of CRC. Secondary endpoints were the risk based on type of exposure, study design, tumour subsites and sex. METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE were searched from September 2020 to May 2021. The protocol was registered on the Open Science Foundation Platform. We identified and classified studies according to their design into prospective cohort, population-based case-control, hospital-based case-control and necropsy studies reporting CRC incidence among individuals with diagnosed GD or after CE (or both). Among 2157 retrieved studies, 65 (3%) met the inclusion criteria. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. We evaluated the quality of the study according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and only studies with a score of 6 and above were included in the final analyses. We pooled log-transformed odds ratios/risk ratios from the available adjusted models to estimate a summary relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random-effects model. The primary outcome was overall CRC incidence. We also conducted secondary analyses according to sex and CRC subsites (proximal colon, distal colon and rectum). The outcome was measured by RRs with 95% CIs. RESULTS: The overall association of GD and/or CE with CRC was RR = 1.15 (1.08; 1.24), primarily driven by hospital-based case-control studies [RR = 1.61 (1.29; 2.01)], whereas a more modest association was found in population-based case-control and cohort studies [RR = 1.10 (1.02; 1.19)]. Most hospital-based case-control and necropsy studies reported estimates that were adjusted for age and sex only, leaving room for residual confounding; therefore we restricted to population-based case-control and cohort studies for our subsequent analyses. Similar associations were found for women [RR = 1.21 (1.05; 1.4) and men (RR = 1.24 (1.06; 1.44)]. When assessed by CRC subsites, GD and CE were primarily associated with higher risk of proximal colon cancer [RR = 1.16 (1.07; 1.26)] but not distal colon cancer [RR = 0.99 (0.96; 1.03)] or rectal cancer [RR = 0.94 (0.89; 1.00)]. CONCLUSIONS: Gallstones are associated with a modestly increased risk of colon cancer, primarily in the proximal colon.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,012 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».