| 1. |
- Rota, M, et al.
(författare)
-
Erratum
- 2020
-
Ingår i: International journal of cancer. - : Wiley. - 1097-0215 .- 0020-7136. ; 146:11, s. E6-E6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Vitelli-Storelli, F, et al.
(författare)
-
Family History and Gastric Cancer Risk: A Pooled Investigation in the Stomach Cancer Pooling (STOP) Project Consortium
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Cancers. - : MDPI AG. - 2072-6694. ; 13:15
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Although there is a clear relationship between family history (FH) and the risk of gastric cancer (GC), quantification is still needed in relation to different histological types and anatomical sites, and in strata of covariates. The objective was to analyze the risk of GC according to first-degree FH in a uniquely large epidemiological consortium of GC. This investigation includes 5946 cases and 12,776 controls from 17 studies of the Stomach Cancer Pooling (StoP) Project consortium. Summary odds ratios (OR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by pooling study-specific ORs using fixed-effect model meta-analysis techniques. Stratified analyses were carried out by sex, age, tumor location and histological type, smoking habit, socioeconomic status, alcohol intake and fruit consumption. The pooled OR for GC was 1.84 (95% CI: 1.64–2.04; I2 = 6.1%, P heterogeneity = 0.383) in subjects with vs. those without first-degree relatives with GC. No significant differences were observed among subgroups of sex, age, geographic area or study period. Associations tended to be stronger for non-cardia (OR = 1.82; 95% CI: 1.59–2.05 for subjects with FH) than for cardia GC (OR = 1.38; 95% CI: 0.98–1.77), and for the intestinal (OR = 1.92; 95% CI: 1.62–2.23) than for the diffuse histotype (OR = 1.62; 95% CI: 1.28–1.96). This analysis confirms the effect of FH on the risk of GC, reporting an approximately doubled risk, and provides further quantification of the risk of GC according to the subsite and histotype. Considering these findings, accounting for the presence of FH to carry out correct prevention and diagnosis measures is of the utmost importance.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Ferro, Ana, et al.
(författare)
-
Alcohol intake and gastric cancer : Meta-analyses of published data versus individual participant data pooled analyses (StoP Project)
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Cancer Epidemiology. - : ELSEVIER SCI LTD. - 1877-7821 .- 1877-783X. ; 54, s. 125-132
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Individual participant data pooled analyses allow access to non-published data and statistical reanalyses based on more homogeneous criteria than meta-analyses based on systematic reviews. We quantified the impact of publication-related biases and heterogeneity in data analysis and presentation in summary estimates of the association between alcohol drinking and gastric cancer.Methods: We compared estimates obtained from conventional meta-analyses, using only data available in published reports from studies that take part in the Stomach Cancer Pooling (StoP) Project, with individual participant data pooled analyses including the same studies.Results: A total of 22 studies from the StoP Project assessed the relation between alcohol intake and gastric cancer, 19 had specific data for levels of consumption and 18 according to cancer location; published reports addressing these associations were available from 18, 5 and 5 studies, respectively. The summary odds ratios [OR, (95%CI)] estimate obtained with published data for drinkers vs. non-drinkers was 10% higher than the one obtained with individual StoP data [18 vs. 22 studies: 1.21 (1.07-1.36) vs. 1.10 (0.99-1.23)] and more heterogeneous (1(2): 63.6% vs 54.4%). In general, published data yielded less precise summary estimates (standard errors up to 2.6 times higher). Funnel plot analysis suggested publication bias.Conclusion: Meta-analyses of the association between alcohol drinking and gastric cancer tended to overestimate the magnitude of the effects, possibly due to publication bias. Additionally, individual participant data pooled analyses yielded more precise estimates for different levels of exposure or cancer subtypes.
|
|
| 9. |
- Ferro, Ana, et al.
(författare)
-
Fruits and vegetables intake and gastric cancer risk : A pooled analysis within the Stomach cancer Pooling Project.
- 2020
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Cancer. - : Wiley. - 0020-7136 .- 1097-0215. ; 147:11, s. 3090-3101
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- A low intake of fruits and vegetables is a risk factor for gastric cancer, although there is uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the associations. In our study, the relationship between fruits and vegetables intake and gastric cancer was assessed, complementing a previous work on the association betweenconsumption of citrus fruits and gastric cancer. Data from 25 studies (8456 cases and 21 133 controls) with information on fruits and/or vegetables intake were used. A two-stage approach based on random-effects models was used to pool study-specific adjusted (sex, age and the main known risk factors for gastric cancer) odds ratios (ORs) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Exposure-response relations, including linear and nonlinear associations, were modeled using one- and two-order fractional polynomials. Gastric cancer risk was lower for a higher intake of fruits (OR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.64-0.90), noncitrus fruits (OR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.73-1.02), vegetables (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.56-0.84), and fruits and vegetables (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.49-0.75); results were consistent across sociodemographic and lifestyles categories, as well as study characteristics. Exposure-response analyses showed an increasingly protective effect of portions/day of fruits (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.57-0.73 for six portions), noncitrus fruits (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.61-0.83 for six portions) and vegetables (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.43-0.60 for 10 portions). A protective effect of all fruits, noncitrus fruits and vegetables was confirmed, supporting further dietary recommendations to decrease the burden of gastric cancer.
|
|
| 10. |
- Ferro, Ana, et al.
(författare)
-
Tobacco smoking and gastric cancer: : meta-analyses of published data versus pooled analyses of individual participant data (StoP Project).
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Cancer Prevention. - 0959-8278 .- 1473-5709. ; 27:3, s. 197-204
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Tobacco smoking is one of the main risk factors for gastric cancer, but the magnitude of the association estimated by conventional systematic reviews and meta-analyses might be inaccurate, due to heterogeneous reporting of data and publication bias. We aimed to quantify the combined impact of publication-related biases, and heterogeneity in data analysis or presentation, in the summary estimates obtained from conventional meta-analyses. We compared results from individual participant data pooled-analyses, including the studies in the Stomach Cancer Pooling (StoP) Project, with conventional meta-analyses carried out using only data available in previously published reports from the same studies. From the 23 studies in the StoP Project, 20 had published reports with information on smoking and gastric cancer, but only six had specific data for gastric cardia cancer and seven had data on the daily number of cigarettes smoked. Compared to the results obtained with the StoP database, conventional meta-analyses overvalued the relation between ever smoking (summary odds ratios ranging from 7% higher for all studies to 22% higher for the risk of gastric cardia cancer) and yielded less precise summary estimates (SE ≤2.4 times higher). Additionally, funnel plot asymmetry and corresponding hypotheses tests were suggestive of publication bias. Conventional meta-analyses and individual participant data pooled-analyses reached similar conclusions on the direction of the association between smoking and gastric cancer. However, published data tended to overestimate the magnitude of the effects, possibly due to publication biases and limited the analyses by different levels of exposure or cancer subtypes.
|
|
