| Literature DB >> 32517676 |
Juan Gómez-Izquierdo1, Kristian B Filion2,3,4, Jean-Franҫois Boivin3,4, Laurent Azoulay2,3,5, Michael Pollak6,7, Oriana Hoi Yun Yu8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thyroid hormone has been shown to be involved in carcinogenesis via its effects on cell proliferation pathways. The objective of this study is to determine the association between subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) and the risk of incident cancer and cancer mortality via systematic review.Entities:
Keywords: Cancer; Mortality; Subclinical hypothyroidism; Systematic review
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32517676 PMCID: PMC7285584 DOI: 10.1186/s12902-020-00566-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Endocr Disord ISSN: 1472-6823 Impact factor: 2.763
Fig. 1PRISMA Flow Diagram showing the selection of studies assessing the association between subclinical hypothyroidism and cancer incident risk and cancer mortality. The flow diagram template was adapted from the 2009 PRISMA statement [14]
Study characteristics of comparative studies evaluating subclinical hypothyroidism and cancer risk and mortality
| Study | Study design | n | Data origin | Study period | Population | Definition of SCH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kuijpens 2005 [ | Prospective cohort | 2738 | The Eindhoven Cancer Registry | 1994–2003 | All women between 47 and 54 years old living in the city of Eindhoven were invited to participate in the Eindhoven perimenopausal osteoporosis study. All women who did not have breast cancer in 1994 were followed | TSH > 6mIU/L and T4 within normal range (8 to 26 pmol/L) |
| Hellevik 2009 [ | Prospective cohort | 29,691 | Nord-Trøndelag Health Study | 1995–2005 | Participants completed questionnaire with thyroid function tests drawn and were followed for cancer incidence, defined using the Cancer Registry of Norway | TSH > 3.5mIU/L |
| Razvi 2012 [ | Retrospective cohort | 4735 | United Kingdom General Practitioner Research Database | 2011–2009 | Patients with incident subclinical hypothyroidism followed for ischemic heart disease and all-cause mortality (cancer mortality also assessed). | TSH 5.01 to 10mIU/L |
| Mondul 2012 [ | Case-control | 1201 | Alpha-Tocophenol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study | 1985–1993 | Prostate cancer patients diagnosed 3 years after baseline matched with up to 2 controls | TSH > 3mIU/ L; T4 < 4.6 μg/dL |
| Waring 2012 [ | Prospective study | 1337 | Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study (MrOs) Cohort | 2000–2011 | Men ≥65 years of age in six clinical centers in the United States | TSH above upper limit of normal and < 10 mU/L |
| Fighera 2015 [ | Retrospective cohort | 622 | Federal University of Parana | 1999–2008 | Patients with subclinical hypothyroidism with thyroid nodules that had thyroidectomy versus fine needle aspiration biopsy | TSH was assessed as a continuous variable |
| Boursi 2015 [ | Nested case-control | 103,044 | The Health Improvement Network (THIN) | 1995–2013 | Case patients identified in THIN with colorectal cancer matched to up to 4 eligible control patients | TSH > 4 mg/dL |
| Tseng 2015 [ | Prospective cohort | 115,746 | Taiwan | 1998–2008 | Patients with no known thyroid disorders on medication treatment that had a health examination in one of 4 private nationwide MJ Health Screening Centers in Taiwan, followed for cancer mortality | TSH 5 to 19.96 mIU/L |
| Pinter 2017 [ | Retrospective cohort | 667 | Medical University of Vienna | 1992–2013 | Patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma with thyroid function tests, followed for overall survival | Free T4 ≤ 1.66 ng/dL |
Abbreviations: n number of individuals, SCH subclinical hypothyroidism, TSH thyroid stimulating hormone, T4 thyroxine
Effect estimates of cancer risk and mortality in studies comparing patients with untreated to treated subclinical hypothyroidism or euthyroidism
| Study | Treated SCH/ | Untreated SCH | Effect measure | Point estimate | 95% CI | TPOAb | Finding summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kuijpens 2005 [ | NA | NA | OR | 1.9 | 0.8–4.9 | More prevalent in women with previous or current diagnosis of breast cancer. | There was no association between subclinical hypothyroidism and the risk of breast cancer. However, women with a history of breast cancer were more likely to have anti-TPO antibodies. |
| Hellevik 2009 [ | 12,389 | 2149 | HR | 0.96 | 0.82–1.12 | NA | There was no association between the risk of overall cancer incidence and TSH level of > 3.5mIU/L. |
| Mondul 2012 [ | 800 prostate cancer patients | 401 controls | OR | 0.71 | 0.47–1.06 | NA | Men with elevated TSH levels were associated with a decreased risk of prostate cancer. |
| Razvi 2012 [ | 1634 (age 40–70); 819 (age > 70) | 1459(age 40–70); 823 (age > 70) | HR | 0.59 (age 40–70) 0.51 (age > 70) | 0.21–0.99 (age 40–70) 0.24–1.09 (age > 70) | NA | Treatment of SCH was associated with a decreased risk of cancer mortality among adults age 40 to70 years. |
| Waring 2012 [ | 1248 (men age ≥ 65) | 89 (men age ≥ 65) | RH | 0.88 | 0.44–1.74 | NA | Subclinical hypothyroidism was not associated with cancer mortality among men ≥65 years of age. |
| Boursi 2015 [ | 20,990 colorectal cancer patients | 82,054 controls | OR | 1.16 | 1.08–1.24 | NA | SCH was associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. |
| Fighera 2015 [ | NA | NA | OR | 2.57 | 1.41–4.70 | NA | Risk of thyroid carcinoma increased with increasing TSH levels above 1.64mIU/L. |
| Tseng 2015 [ | 113,905 | 1841 | RR | 1.51 | 1.06–2.15 | NA | SCH was associated with an increased risk of cancer mortality. |
| Pinter 2017 [ | 548 | 69 | HR | 2.1 | 1.3–3.3 | NA | Higher free thyroxine levels (i.e. > 1.66 vs. |
Abbreviations: n number of individuals, CI confidence interval, TPOAb anti- thyroperoxidase antibodies, NA not available, TSH thyroid stimulating hormone, HR hazard ratio, OR odds ratio, RH relative hazard, RR relative risk ratio, HCC hepatocellular carcinoma
Quality assessment of cohort studies using the Cochrane Tool to assess the risk of bias
| Author, year | Selection of exposed and non-exposed from same population? | Can we be confident in the assessment of exposure? | Outcome of interest was not present at start of the study? | The study matched exposed and non-exposed for all the variables associated with the outcome of interest or did the statistical analysis adjust for these prognostic variables? | Can we be confident in the assessment of absence and presence of prognostic factors? | Can we be confident in the assessment of outcome? | Was the follow-up of cohorts adequate? | Were con-interventions similar between groups? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kuijpens, 2005 [ | DY | DY | DY | DY | DY | DY | PN | DY |
| Hellevik, 2009 [ | DY | DY | DY | PY | DY | DY | PY | PY |
| Razvi, 2012 [ | PY | DY | DY | PN | DY | DY | DY | PY |
| Waring, 2012 [ | DY | DY | DY | PY | PY | DY | DY | PY |
| Tseng, 2015 [ | PY | DY | DY | PY | DY | DY | DY | PY |
| Fighera, 2015 [ | DN | DY | PN | PN/PY | DY | DY | PY | PY |
| Pinter, 2017 [ | DY | DY | DY | PN | DY | DY | PY | PY |
Abbreviations: DY definitely yes, low risk of bias, PY probably yes, PN probably no, DN definitely no, high risk of bias
Quality assessment of case-control studies using the Newcastle –Ottawa quality assessment scale
| Author, year | Selection | Comparability of cases and controlse | Exposure | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case definition adequatea | Representativ-eness of the casesb | Selection of controlsc | Definition of controlsd | Ascertainment of exposuref | Same method of ascertainment for cases and controlsg | Non-response rateh | ||
| Mondul, 2012 [ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ |
| Boursi, 2015 [ | B | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ |
a:★ = Requires some independent validation (e.g. > 1 person/record/time/process to extract information, or reference to primary record source such as X-rays or medical/hospital records; B = Record linkage (e.g. ICD codes in database) or self-report with no reference to primary record; C = No description
b:★All eligible cases with outcome of interest over a defined period of time, all cases in a defined catchment area, all cases in a defined hospital or clinic, group of hospitals, health maintenance organization, or an appropriate sample of those cases (e.g. random sample); B = Not satisfying requirements in part (★), or not stated
c:★Community controls (i.e. same community as cases and would be cases if had outcome; B = Hospital controls, within same community as cases (i.e. not another city) but derived from a hospitalized population; C = No description
d:★ If cases are first occurrence of outcome, then it must explicitly state that controls have no history of this outcome. If cases have new (not necessarily first) occurrence of outcome, then controls with previous occurrences of outcome of interest should not be excluded; B = No mention of history of outcome
e: A maximum of 2 stars can be allotted in this category: either cases and controls must be matched in the design and/or confounders must be adjusted for in the analysis. Statements of no differences between groups or that differences were not statistically significant are not sufficient for establishing comparability. Note: If the odds ratio for the exposure of interest is adjusted for the confounders listed, then the groups will be considered to be comparable on each variable used in the adjustment. Age = ★, other controlled factors = ★
f:★ = secure record (e.g. surgical records) or structured interview where blind to case/control status; C = interview not blinded to case/control status; D = written self-report or medical record only; E = no description
g:★ = yes; B = no.
h:★ = same rate for both groups; B = non-respondents described; C = rate different and no designation