A95 INCIDENCE OF LUMINAL GASTROINTESTINAL CANCERS IN PATIENTS WITH CIRRHOSIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The global incidence of cirrhosis is increasing, as is the incidence of luminal gastrointestinal cancers. It is unknown, however, if cirrhosis itself is a predisposing factor for luminal gastrointestinal cancer. Such an association would have significant clinical implications, particularly for cancer screening prior to liver transplantation. Aims To investigate the incidence of luminal gastrointestinal cancers in patients with underlying cirrhosis. Methods An electronic search was conducted to study the incidence of luminal gastrointestinal cancers in patients with cirrhosis. Study-specific standardized incidence ratios (SIR) along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals for both overall cancer incidence and luminal cancer incidence were analyzed using a random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran’s Q test and I2 statistic. Subgroup analysis was performed based on cirrhosis etiology and location of luminal malignancy. Results We identified 5054 articles; 4 studies were selected for data extraction. The overall incidence of all cancers was significantly higher in patients with cirrhosis, with a SIR of 2.79 (95% CI 2.18–3.57). When stratified by cirrhosis etiology, the incidence of all cancers remained significantly elevated for alcohol (SIR 3.13, 95% CI 2.24–4.39), PBC (SIR 1.40, 95% CI 1.10–1.79), and unspecified cirrhosis (SIR 3.52, 95% CI 1.87–6.65). Unspecified cirrhosis had the greatest overall cancer risk followed by alcohol, and PBC cirrhosis (p ampersand:003C 0.01). Alcohol related cirrhosis was significantly associated with an increased incidence of luminal cancers (SIR 4.39, 95% CI 2.84–6.78). Specifically, the highest incidence was observed for oral cavity and pharyngeal cancer (SIR 10.44, 95% CI 8.90–12.24), followed by esophageal cancer (SIR 7.85, 95% CI 4.98–12.36), and colorectal cancer (SIR 2.43, 95% CI 1.62–3.66) (p ampersand:003C 0.01). PBC cirrhosis was significantly associated with an increased incidence of luminal cancers (SIR 2.11, 95% CI 1.10–4.04). However, subgroup analysis did not reveal a significant association with the incidence of any subgroups. Unspecified cirrhosis was significantly associated with an increased incidence of luminal cancers (SIR 2.60, 95% CI 1.65–4.09). Risk of oral cavity and pharynx cancers (SIR 4.75, 95% CI 2.18–10.33) were greatest, followed by esophageal (SIR 4.52, 95% CI 1.57–12.99), stomach (SIR 2.12, 95% CI 1.31–3.42), and colorectal cancer (SIR 1.57, 95% CI 1.14–2.16) (p = 0.03). Conclusions The incidence of luminal gastrointestinal cancer is increased amongst patients with cirrhosis. Oral cavity, pharyngeal and esophageal cancer had increased incidence across all cirrhosis etiologies compared to gastric and colorectal cancer. Therefore, increased screening of luminal cancers should be considered in this population. Funding Agencies None
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".