Cancer incidence other than gastric cancer in pernicious anemia: a systematic review with meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pernicious anemia (PA) has been associated with an increased risk of cancer development. While an increased incidence of gastric cancer and carcinoids was demonstrated, evidence is still quite conflicting on the risk for other cancer types. The aim of this study was to systematically review the available literature on PA and the development of gastrointestinal-other than gastric cancers (GI-other than GCs) and non-gastrointestinal cancers (non-GICs) to estimate their incidence-rates. Methods: According to PRISMA, we identified studies on PA patients reporting the incidence of GI-other than GCs and non-GICs. Studies quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Meta-analysis on annual cancer incidence rates was performed. Results: Twenty studies met the eligibility criteria. On a total PA population of 82,257 patients, cumulative cancer incidence rates per 100,000 person-years (PY) were 13.0, 8.2, and 17.5 for all cancers, GI-other than GCs and non-GICs, respectively, with calculated pooled cancer incidence-rates (PY) of 0.27 and 0.23, respectively. Compared to published data on the general population, meta-analysis showed an overall cancer relative risk in PA as 0.68 (95% CI: 0.48-0.95). PA patients showed a lower cancer relative risk for colorectum (0.14: 0.098-0.19), breast (0.17: 0.13-0.22), liver (0.18: 0.13-0.24), esophagus (0.26: 0.18-0,37), lung (0.26: 0.21-0.31), thyroid (0.34: 0,21-0,57), ovary (0.45: 0.30-0.67), non-melanoma skin cancer (0.56: 0.50-0.61), kidney (0.61: 0.43-0.86); in contrast, PA patients showed a higher relative risk for biliary tract cancer (1.81: 1.21 to 2.70) and multiple myeloma (2.83: 1.76-4.55), Hodgkin lymphoma (3.0: 1.35-6.68), non Hodgkin lymphoma (2.08: 1.58-2.75), and leukemia (1.56: 1.16-2.12). Conclusions: This systematic review showed an overall lower cancer relative risk in PA patients, but nearly a twofold relative risk of biliary tract cancers and a twofold-three fold relative risk of hematological malignancies. Further high quality studies are needed to confirm the higher risk of these specific cancers in PA patients.
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 | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".