K Sun1, J M Liu, H X Sun, N Lu, G Ning. 1. Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Rui-Jin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases, Shanghai Clinical Center for Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases, Rui-Jin 2nd Road, Shanghai, 200025, China.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The use of bisphosphonates and the risk of esophageal cancer have recently received increasing concern and related studies have yielded controversial results. The present meta-analysis of observational studies shows that no clear association between bisphosphonate treatment and risk of esophageal cancer was observed. INTRODUCTION: Epidemiological evidence suggests that bisphosphonate treatment can increase the risk of esophageal cancer. However, data on this issue are unstable and controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to provide a quantitative assessment of the association between use of bisphosphonates and risk of esophageal cancer. METHODS: We searched the Medline and Embase databases up to May 2012 to identify studies related to bisphosphonates and esophageal cancer. Summary effect estimates with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were derived using a fixed or random effects model, depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies. RESULTS: Seven epidemiologic studies that consisted of four cohort studies and three case-control studies were included in this meta-analysis. In our primary analysis, bisphosphonate treatment was not associated with risk of esophageal cancer in both cohort studies [pooled relative risk (RR) 1.23, 95 % CI 0.79-1.92] and case-control studies [pooled odds ratio (OR) 1.24, 95 % CI 0.98-1.57]. Evidence for the presence of significant heterogeneity was found in cohort studies (p = 0.009, I (2) = 74 %) but not in case-control studies (p = 0.338, I (2) = 7.8 %). In our secondary analysis, no significant increased risk of esophageal cancer was found in alendronate users (pooled RR 1.08, 95 % CI 0.67-1.75 in cohort studies; pooled OR 1.16, 95 % CI 0.82-1.63 in case-control studies). CONCLUSIONS: Based on current evidences, bisphosphonate treatment was not significantly associated with excess risk of esophageal cancer.
UNLABELLED: The use of bisphosphonates and the risk of esophageal cancer have recently received increasing concern and related studies have yielded controversial results. The present meta-analysis of observational studies shows that no clear association between bisphosphonate treatment and risk of esophageal cancer was observed. INTRODUCTION: Epidemiological evidence suggests that bisphosphonate treatment can increase the risk of esophageal cancer. However, data on this issue are unstable and controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to provide a quantitative assessment of the association between use of bisphosphonates and risk of esophageal cancer. METHODS: We searched the Medline and Embase databases up to May 2012 to identify studies related to bisphosphonates and esophageal cancer. Summary effect estimates with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were derived using a fixed or random effects model, depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies. RESULTS: Seven epidemiologic studies that consisted of four cohort studies and three case-control studies were included in this meta-analysis. In our primary analysis, bisphosphonate treatment was not associated with risk of esophageal cancer in both cohort studies [pooled relative risk (RR) 1.23, 95 % CI 0.79-1.92] and case-control studies [pooled odds ratio (OR) 1.24, 95 % CI 0.98-1.57]. Evidence for the presence of significant heterogeneity was found in cohort studies (p = 0.009, I (2) = 74 %) but not in case-control studies (p = 0.338, I (2) = 7.8 %). In our secondary analysis, no significant increased risk of esophageal cancer was found in alendronate users (pooled RR 1.08, 95 % CI 0.67-1.75 in cohort studies; pooled OR 1.16, 95 % CI 0.82-1.63 in case-control studies). CONCLUSIONS: Based on current evidences, bisphosphonate treatment was not significantly associated with excess risk of esophageal cancer.
Authors: Anna N A Tosteson; Margaret R Grove; Cristina S Hammond; Megan M Moncur; G Thomas Ray; Gwen M Hebert; Alice R Pressman; Bruce Ettinger Journal: Am J Med Date: 2003-08-15 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: P C de Groen; D F Lubbe; L J Hirsch; A Daifotis; W Stephenson; D Freedholm; S Pryor-Tillotson; M J Seleznick; H Pinkas; K K Wang Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-10-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Catherine MacLean; Sydne Newberry; Margaret Maglione; Maureen McMahon; Veena Ranganath; Marika Suttorp; Walter Mojica; Martha Timmer; Alicia Alexander; Melissa McNamara; Sheetal B Desai; Annie Zhou; Susan Chen; Jason Carter; Carlo Tringale; Di Valentine; Breanne Johnsen; Jennifer Grossman Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2007-12-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Alfonso Carvajal; Luis H Martín Arias; María Sáinz; Antonio Escudero; Inmaculada Fierro; Odile Sauzet; Victoria R Cornelius; Mariam Molokhia Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-01-14 Impact factor: 3.240