| Literature DB >> 29769113 |
Jennifer A Steele1,2, Carsten H Richter3,4, Pierre Echaubard3,5, Parichat Saenna3,6, Virginia Stout7, Paiboon Sithithaworn8, Bruce A Wilcox3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a fatal bile duct cancer associated with infection by the liver fluke, Opisthorchis viverrini, in the lower Mekong region. Numerous public health interventions have focused on reducing exposure to O. viverrini, but incidence of CCA in the region remains high. While this may indicate the inefficacy of public health interventions due to complex social and cultural factors, it may further indicate other risk factors or interactions with the parasite are important in pathogenesis of CCA. This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of described risk factors for CCA in addition to O. viverrini to guide future integrative interventions. MAIN BODY: We searched five international and seven Thai research databases to identify studies relevant to risk factors for CCA in the lower Mekong region. Selected studies were assessed for risk of bias and quality in terms of study design, population, CCA diagnostic methods, and statistical methods. The final 18 included studies reported numerous risk factors which were grouped into behaviors, socioeconomics, diet, genetics, gender, immune response, other infections, and treatment for O. viverrini. Seventeen risk factors were reported by two or more studies and were assessed with random effects models during meta-analysis. This meta-analysis indicates that the combination of alcohol and smoking (OR = 11.1, 95% CI: 5.63-21.92, P < 0.0001) is most significantly associated with increased risk for CCA and is an even greater risk factor than O. viverrini exposure. This analysis also suggests that family history of cancer, consumption of raw cyprinoid fish, consumption of high nitrate foods, and praziquantel treatment are associated with significantly increased risk. These risk factors may have complex relationships with the host, parasite, or pathogenesis of CCA, and many of these risk factors were found to interact with each other in one or more studies.Entities:
Keywords: Cholangiocarcinoma; Mekong; Opisthorchis viverrini; Public health; Risk factors; Southeast Asia; Thailand
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29769113 PMCID: PMC5956617 DOI: 10.1186/s40249-018-0434-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Infect Dis Poverty ISSN: 2049-9957 Impact factor: 4.520
Fig. 1PRISMA search strategy summary
Summary of included references evaluating risk factors for cholangiocarcinoma
| Reference | Year | Country | Source of patients or samples | Study design | Sample size: cases/controls | Risk factor categories reported | Measure of effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parkin et al. [ | 1991 | Thailand | Maharat Nakorn Ratchasima Hospital, Ubon Ratchathani Hospital, National Cancer Institute | case-control | 103/103 | behaviors, socioeconomics, diet, immune response, other infection | odds ratio |
| Itoh et al. [ | 1994 | Thailand/ Japan | Khon Kaen province hospitals, Japan | case-control | 47/68 | immune response, gender | mean or proportion difference |
| Haswell-Elkins et al. [ | 1994 | Thailand | Villages in Khon Kaen and Mahasarkham provinces | cross-sectional survey | 15 CCA cases of 1807 patients screened | gender | odds ratio |
| Honjo et al. [ | 2005 | Thailand | Nakhon Phanom province hospitals | case-control | 129/129 | behaviors, socioeconomics, diet, genetics, treatment | odds ratio |
| Jinawath et al. [ | 2006 | Thailand/ Japan | Srinagarind Hospital and Kyoto University Hospital | case-control | 20/10 | genetics | median gene expression |
| Marahatta et al. [ | 2006 | Thailand | LFCRC Repositorya | case-control | 30/30 | genetics | odds ratio |
| Prawan et al. [ | 2005 | Thailand | Srinagarind Hospital | case-control | 216/233 | genetics | odds ratio |
| Poomphakwaen et al. [ | 2009 | Thailand | Khon Kaen Cohort Study | nested case-control | 108/108 | behaviors, diet, treatment, genetics | odds ratio |
| Srivatanakul et al. [ | 2010 | Thailand | Nakhon Phanom province hospitals | case-control | 106/106 | other infections, immune response | odds ratio |
| Songserm et al. [ | 2011 | Thailand | Khon Kaen Cohort Study | nested case-control | 219/438 | genetics, diet, socioeconomics | odds ratio |
| Sripa et al. [ | 2012 | Thailand | Khon Kaen area villages, non-OV endemic Thailand, LFCRC Repositorya | case-control | 121/21 | immune response | odds ratio |
| Yongvanit et al. [ | 2012 | Thailand | Khon Kaen province hospitals | case-control | 13/10 | genetics | mean difference |
| Songserm et al. [ | 2012 | Thailand | Khon Kaen Cohort Study | nested case-control | 219/438 | behaviors, socioeconomics, diet, genetics | odds ratio |
| Zeng et al. [ | 2013 | Thailand | Ubon Ratchathani Cancer Center Hospital | case-control | 105/105 | genetics | odds ratio |
| Manwong et al. [ | 2013 | Thailand | Sappasit Prasong Hospital and Ubon Ratchathani Cancer Center | case-control | 123/123 | socioeconomics, diet, treatment, behaviors, immune response | odds ratio |
| Plieskatt et al. [ | 2014 | Thailand | LFCRC Repositorya | case-control | 16/13 | genetics | mean difference |
| Songserm et al. [ | 2014 | Thailand | Khon Kaen Cohort Study | case-control | 219/438 | behaviors, genetics | odds ratio |
| Prayong et al. [ | 2014 | Thailand | Srinagarind Hospital and community | case-control | 79/80 | genetics | odds ratio |
aLiver Fluke and Cholangiocarcinoma Research Center (LFCRC) Biological Repository, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
Dietary risk factors and association with CCA
| Food | Odds ratio | 95% | Casesa | Comparison | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw fish dishes | ||||||
| koi pla | 10.2 | 3.05–34.1 | 77 | never vs daily | Songserm 2012 [ | |
| raw cyprinoid fish | 3.4 | 1.05–11.01 | 100 | no or < 1/month vs 3/week | Manwong 2013 [ | |
| raw fish | 2.94 | 1.24–6.96 | 75 | none vs > 2/month | Honjo 2005 [ | |
| koi pla | 2.5 | 1.05–5.74 | 104 | never vs weekly | Songserm 2012 [ | |
| koi pla | 1.6 | 0.7–3.5 | 97 | < monthly vs more | Parkin 1991 [ | |
| Fermented fish or meat dishes | ||||||
| nitrate containing foodsb | 4.91 | 1.04–23.24 | 216 | never vs often | Poomphakwaen 2009 [ | |
| fermented fish or pork | 4.5 | 1.3–15.54 | 71 | none vs > 2/month | Honjo 2005 [ | |
| beef sausage | 3.7 | 1.28–10.7 | 95 | never vs daily | Songserm 2012 [ | |
| cooked pla ra | 3 | 0.31–28.84 | 34 | no or < 1/month vs 1–4/week | Manwong 2013 [ | |
| pla ra, pla chao | 2.25 | 0.92–5.53 | 129 | < 3/day vs > 3/day | Honjo 2005 [ | |
| sour shrimp | 1.93 | 0.47–7.93 | 101 | no or < 1/month vs 3/week | Manwong 2013 [ | |
| uncooked pla ra | 1.75 | 0.74–4.19 | 86 | no or < 1/month vs 3/week | Manwong 2013 [ | |
| pla ra | 1.6 | 0.9–2.8 | 96 | < 3/daily vs more | Parkin 1991 [ | |
| pla chom | 1.6 | 0.57–4.51 | 94 | no or < 1/month vs 3/week | Manwong 2013 [ | |
| sour beef or pork | 1.37 | 0.51–3.65 | 88 | no or < 1/month vs 3/week | Manwong 2013 [ | |
| Chinese or Northeast sausage | 1.3 | 0.51–3.35 | 103 | none vs > 1/month | Honjo 2005 [ | |
| salted fish or meat | 1.01 | 0.41–2.44 | 113 | none vs > 6/year | Honjo 2005 [ | |
| pla chom | 1 | 0.5–1.9 | 98 | < monthly vs more | Parkin 1991 [ | |
| pla som | 0.7 | 0.4–1.3 | 97 | never vs ever | Parkin 1991 [ | |
| salted fish | 0.5 | 0.2–0.9 | 96 | < monthly vs more | Parkin 1991 [ | |
| pla chao | 0.5 | 0.2–1.4 | 98 | < monthly vs more | Parkin 1991 [ | |
| Other fish and seafood | ||||||
| total fish and shellfish | 1.31 | 0.56–3.04 | 147 | < 0.4 vs > 0.8/day | Poomphakwaen 2009 [ | |
| raw shellfish | 0.85 | 0.27–2.74 | 97 | no or < 1/month vs 3/week | Manwong 2013 [ | |
| Fresh meat dishes | ||||||
| raw beef or pork | 3.38 | 1.25–9.12 | 91 | no or < 1/month vs 3/week | Manwong 2013 [ | |
| raw sausage | 1.19 | 0.48–2.97 | 86 | no or < 1/month vs 3/week | Manwong 2013 [ | |
| roast meat | 0.74 | 0.25–2.18 | 78 | < 2/week vs > 1/day | Honjo 2005 [ | |
| poultry | 0.62 | 0.23–1.7 | 216 | < 0.2 vs > 0.4/day | Poomphakwaen 2009 [ | |
| beef and pork | 0.31 | 0.08–1.2 | 216 | < 0.45 vs > 1/day | Poomphakwaen 2009 [ | |
| Fruits and vegetables | ||||||
| fruit | 1.72 | 0.85–3.47 | 98 | no or < 1/month vs 3/week | Manwong 2013 [ | |
| fresh fruit | 1.63 | 0.64–4.12 | 107 | < 1/week vs > 2/week | Honjo 2005 [ | |
| cooked fresh vegetables | 1.48 | 0.62–3.51 | 110 | < 3/week vs > 1/day | Honjo 2005 [ | |
| vegetables | 1.36 | 0.61–3.02 | 95 | no or < 1/month vs 3/week | Manwong 2013 [ | |
| fermented vegetables or fruits | 1.18 | 0.44–3.2 | 86 | < 4/week vs > 2/day | Honjo 2005 [ | |
| fruit | 0.7 | 0.33–0.98 | 219 | < 52 vs > 52 times/month | Songserm 2012 [ | |
| fresh vegetables | 0.67 | 0.27–1.67 | 95 | < 1/week vs > 2/day | Honjo 2005 [ | |
| vegetables | 0.6 | 0.27–1.36 | 190 | < 1.7 vs > 1.7/day | Poomphakwaen 2009 [ | |
| fresh fruit | 0.5 | 0.3–0.9 | 93 | < 3/month vs more | Parkin 1991 [ | |
| fruit | 0.44 | 0.23–0.85 | 156 | < 1 vs > 1/day | Poomphakwaen 2009 [ | |
| vegetables | 0.4 | 0.23–0.76 | 219 | < 52 vs > 52/month | Songserm 2012 [ | |
| Grains | ||||||
| sticky rice | 2.6 | 1.4–4.9 | 94 | < 2/week vs more | Parkin 1991 [ | |
| rice | 1.35 | 0.55–3.27 | 99 | < 4/year vs > 3/month | Honjo 2005 [ | |
| sticky rice | 1.03 | 0.47–2.24 | 125 | < 3/day vs > 3/day | Honjo 2005 [ | |
| rice | 0.7 | 0.4–1.2 | 94 | < 3/day vs more | Parkin 1991 [ | |
| Betel nut | ||||||
| betel nut | 6.4 | 1.1–39.3 | n/a | < 1/day vs more | Parkin 1991 [ | |
| betel nut | 3 | 0.81–11.08 | 123 | yes or no | Manwong 2013 [ | |
| betel nut | 0.69 | 0.18–2.7 | 122 | regular vs never chewing | Honjo 2005 [ | |
| Other | ||||||
| somtam | 1.9 | 0.55–6.62 | 42 | never vs daily | Songserm 2012 [ | |
| monosodium glutamate | 1.8 | 1.0–3.2 | 97 | < 2/day vs more | Parkin 1991 [ | |
| milk | 0.5 | 0.3–0.9 | 95 | < monthly vs more | Parkin 1991 [ | |
Foods in each category are organized by odds ratio in descending order
aNumber of CCA cases included in the comparison
bNitrate containing foods are fermented and salted items that are high in volatile nitrosamines
Genetic risk factors for CCA
| Gene | Title | Function | CCA Risk | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OGG1 | 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase 1 | DNA repair | not significanta | Zeng 2013 [ |
| OGG1 | 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase 1 | DNA repair | not significanta | Songserm 2014 [ |
| PARP-1 | poly-ADP-ribose polymerase 1 | DNA repair | not significanta | Zeng 2013 [ |
| XRCC1 | X-ray repair cross-compelementing protein 1 | DNA repair | not significanta | Songserm 2014 [ |
| XRCC1 | X-ray repair cross-complementing protein 1 | DNA repair | not significanta | Zeng 2013 [ |
| IL-6R | interleukin 6 receptor | inflammation | increased C allele frequency decreased risk | Prayong 2014 [ |
| CHST4 | sulfotransferase | metabolism | upregulated in Thai CCA | Jinawath 2006 [ |
| CYP1A2 | cytochrome P450 oxidase | metabolism | CYP1A2*1A/*1A decreased risk in mena | Prawan 2005 [ |
| CYP2A6 | cytochrome P450 oxidase | metabolism | increased expression in CCA | Yongvanit 2012 [ |
| CYP2E1 | cytochrome P450 oxidase | metabolism | decreased expression in CCA | Yongvanit 2012 [ |
| GST01 | glutathione-s-transferase | metabolism | GST01*D140 increased risk | Marahatta 2006 [ |
| GST02 | glutathione-s-transferase | metabolism | not significant | Marahatta 2006 [ |
| GSTM1 | glutathione-S-transferase | metabolism | not significanta | Honjo 2005 [ |
| GSTT1 | glutathione-S-transferase | metabolism | not significanta | Honjo 2005 [ |
| MTHFR | methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase | metabolism | A1298C CC variant increased riska | Songserm 2011 [ |
| MTHFR | methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase | metabolism | A1298C CC variant increased riska | Songserm 2012 [ |
| NAT1 | catalyze N and O acetylation | metabolism | NAT1*11 decreased risk | Prawan 2005 [ |
| NAT2 | catalyze N and O acetylation | metabolism | NAT2*13, *6B, and *7A decreased risk | Prawan 2005 [ |
| SULT1C1 | sulfotransferase | metabolism | upregulated in Thai CCA | Jinawath 2006 [ |
| UGT1A10 | UDP-glucuronosyltransferase | metabolism | upregulated in Thai CCA | Jinawath 2006 [ |
| UGT2B11 | UDP-glucuronosyltransferase | metabolism | upregulated in Thai CCA | Jinawath 2006 [ |
aGene has significant interaction with or modification of other risk factors, see Table 4
Significant relationships between risk factors for CCA
| Risk Factors | |
|---|---|
| Increased risk of CCA | alcohol x smoking [ |
| Decreased risk of CCA | CYP1A2 x male [ |
Individual gene risk information in Table 3
aXRCC1 and OGG1 genes both exhibit multiple polymorphisms, and depending on the combination of polymorphisms present in the individual, the interaction between XRCC1 and OGG1 may increase or decrease risk
Random effects model meta-analyses of risk factors for cholangiocarcinoma
| Risk factor | Total CCA Cases (Studies) Included in Analysis | Summary Effect | Heterogeneity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Behaviors | |||
| Alcohol | 682 (5) [ | 2.61 (1.59–4.31, 0.002)** | 68% (0.01) |
| Smoking | 772 (5) [ | 1.33 (1.00–1.78, 0.049)* | 0% (0.56) |
| Alcohol x Smoking | 348 (2) [ | 11.1 (5.63–21.92, < 0.0001)*** | 0% (0.55) |
| Socioeconomics | |||
| Education | 559 (4) [ | 0.46 (0.22–0.97, 0.04)* | 51% (0.11) |
| Diet | |||
| Fruit | 682 (5) [ | 0.8 (0.47–1.38, 0.431) | 71% (0.01) |
| Vegetables | 579 (4) [ | 0.66 (0.38–1.13, 0.127) | 48% (0.12) |
| Betel nut | 355 (3) [ | 2.18 (0.62–7.63, 0.223) | 54% (0.11) |
| Raw fish | 574 (4) [ | 3.26 (1.58–6.71, 0.0014)** | 53% (0.10) |
| Fermented fish | 355 (3) [ | 1.18 (0.81–1.72, 0.401) | 42% (0.11) |
| Fermented meats | 471 (3) [ | 1.81 (0.96–3.39, 0.066) | 17% (0.28) |
| High nitrate foods | 682 (5) [ | 1.41 (1.05–1.91, 0.024)* | 46% (0.01) |
| Rice | 232 (2) [ | 0.88 (0.48–1.63, 0.688) | 34% (0.22) |
| Sticky rice | 232 (2) [ | 1.69 (0.68–4.17, 0.258) | 70% (0.07) |
| Genetics | |||
| Family history | 334 (3) [ | 3.0 (1.79–5.04, < 0.0001)*** | 0% (0.64) |
| Immune Response | |||
| Anti- | 461 (4) [ | 6.09 (2.54–14.57, < 0.0001)*** | 70% (0.03) |
| Treatment | |||
| Praziquantel use | 360 (3) [ | 1.93 (1.2–3.1, 0.0065)** | 31% (0.25) |
| Other Infection | |||
| Hepatitis B antigen | 209 (2) [ | 1.3 (0.59–2.85, 0.514) | 0% (0.34) |
Summary effect pooled odds ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and I2 were calculated using random effects models for risk factors reported by 2 or more studies in the systematic review. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001
Fig. 2Relationships of risk factors for cholangiocarcinoma. * P < 0.05 based on individual study, ** P < 0.05 based on this meta-analysis