| Literature DB >> 34350107 |
Bo Fan1, Alradhi Mohammed1, Yuanbin Huang1, Hong Luo2, Hongxian Zhang1, Shenghua Tao1, Weijiao Xu2, Qian Liu3, Tao He1, Huidan Jin4, Mengfan Sun5, Man Sun2, Zhifei Yun2, Rui Zhao5, Guoyu Wu6, Xiancheng Li1.
Abstract
Aspirin, widely used to prevent cardiovascular disease, had been linked to the incidence of bladder cancer (BCa). Existing studies focusing on Chinese populations are relatively rare, especially for Northeast China. Meanwhile, relevant studies on the effects of aspirin on the occurrence or prognosis of BCa are inconsistent or even controversial. First, in the case control study, logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the association between aspirin intake and risk of BCa including 1121 patients with BCa and the 2242 controls. Subsequently, Kaplan-Meier curve and Cox regression analyses were applied to explore the association between aspirin intake and clinicopathological factors which may predict overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of BCa patients. Finally, we quantificationally combined the results with those from the published literature evaluating aspirin intake and its effects on the occurrence, outcome of surgery and prognosis of BCa by meta-analysis up to May 1, 2021.Our case-control study demonstrated that the regular use of aspirin was not associated with a reduced incidence of BCa (P=0.175). Stratified analyses of sex showed that aspirin intake did not lead to a lower risk of BCa in female patients (P=0.063). However, the male population who regularly took aspirin had a lower incidence of BCa (OR=0.748, 95% CI= 0.584-0.958, P=0.021). Subgroup analyses stratified by smoking found a significant reduction in the risk of BCa in current smokers with aspirin intake (OR=0.522, 95% CI=0.342-0.797, P=0.002). In terms of prognosis of BCa, patients with a history of aspirin intake did not had a markedly longer OS or RFS than those with no history of aspirin intake by Kaplan-Meier curves. Stratified analysis by sex showed no correlation between aspirin intake and the recurrence or survival of BCa for either male or female patients. However, in people younger than 68, aspirin intake seemed to have prolonged effects for overall survival (HR=3.876; 95% CI=1.326-11.325, P=0.019). Then, we performed a meta-analysis and the combined results from 19 articles and our study involving more than 39524 BCa cases indicated that aspirin intake was not associated with the occurrence of BCa (P=0.671). Subgroup analysis by whether regular use of aspirin, by the mean duration of use of aspirin, by sex, by smoking exposure, by research region and by study type also supported the above results. In terms of the impact of aspirin intake on the prognosis of patients with BCa, 11 articles and our study involving 8825 BCa cases were eligible. The combined results showed that patients with aspirin intake did not have significantly influence on survival, recurrence, progression and metastasis than those without aspirin intake. On the whole, both our retrospective study and literature meta-analysis suggested a lack of a strong relevant association between the use of aspirin and the incidence or prognosis of BCa. Thus, additional long-term follow-up prospective research is warranted to clarify the association of aspirin with BCa incidence and prognosis.Entities:
Keywords: aspirin; case-control; meta-analysis; prognosis; risk; urinary bladder neoplasms
Year: 2021 PMID: 34350107 PMCID: PMC8327774 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.633462
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
PRISMA checklist.
| Section/topic | # | Checklist item | Reported on page # |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Title | 1 | Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. | 1 |
|
| |||
| Structured summary | 2 | Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number. | 1-2 |
|
| |||
| Rationale | 3 | Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. | 2 |
| Objectives | 4 | Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). | 2 |
|
| |||
| Protocol and registration | 5 | Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number. | 3 |
| Eligibility criteria | 6 | Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale. | 3 |
| Information sources | 7 | Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched. | 3 |
| Search | 8 | Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated. | 3 |
| Study selection | 9 | State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis). | 3 |
| Data collection process | 10 | Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators. | 3 |
| Data items | 11 | List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made. | 3 |
| Risk of bias in individual studies | 12 | Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis. | 5; |
| Summary measures | 13 | State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means). | 5 |
| Synthesis of results | 14 | Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis. | 5 |
| Risk of bias across studies | 15 | Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies). | 5 |
| Additional analyses | 16 | Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified. | 5 |
|
| |||
| Study selection | 17 | Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram. | 8; |
| Study characteristics | 18 | For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations. | 8, 9; |
| Risk of bias within studies | 19 | Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item 12). | 5; |
| Results of individual studies | 20 | For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot. | 9, 10, 12-17; |
| Synthesis of results | 21 | Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. | 9, 10, 12-17; |
| Risk of bias across studies | 22 | Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15). | 9, 10, 12-17; |
| Additional analysis | 23 | Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see item 16]). | 9, 10, 12-17; |
|
| |||
| Summary of evidence | 24 | Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers). | 18, 19 |
| Limitations | 25 | Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias). | 19 |
| Conclusions | 26 | Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research. | 19 |
|
| |||
| Funding | 27 | Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. | 20 |
Figure 1Methodological quality graph for meta-analysis of the incidence (A), outcomes of surgery (B) and prognosis (C) of bladder cancer. The review authors’ judgements about each methodological quality item of ROBINS-I presented as different colors across all included studies. The red, yellow and green colors represent critical, moderate and low bias, respectively.
Demographic characteristics of bladder cancer cases and controls.
| Case group (n = 1121) | Control group (n = 2242) | Total |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender |
| |||
| Female | 193 | 487 | 680 | |
| Male | 928 | 1755 | 2683 | |
| Asprin use | 0.181 | |||
| No | 1008 | 1981 | 2989 | |
| Yes | 113 | 261 | 374 | |
| Age, years | 0.661 | |||
| <68 | 562 | 1142 | 1704 | |
| ≥ 68 | 559 | 1100 | 1659 | |
| Marriage |
| |||
| No | 55 | 19 | 74 | |
| Yes | 1066 | 2223 | 3289 | |
| Smoking |
| |||
| Non-smoker | 609 | 1390 | 1999 | |
| Current smoker | 449 | 531 | 980 | |
| Former smoker | 63 | 321 | 384 | |
| Alcohol use |
| |||
| Non-drinker | 861 | 1631 | 2492 | |
| Current drinker | 239 | 478 | 717 | |
| Former drinker | 21 | 133 | 154 | |
| History of cardiovascular disease |
| |||
| No | 1025 | 1970 | 2995 | |
| Yes | 96 | 272 | 368 | |
| History of diabetes |
| |||
| No | 928 | 1736 | 2664 | |
| Yes | 193 | 506 | 699 | |
| History of cerebrovascular disease |
| |||
| No | 1049 | 1661 | 2710 | |
| Yes | 72 | 581 | 653 | |
| Metformin use | 0.177 | |||
| No | 1067 | 2108 | 3175 | |
| Yes | 54 | 134 | 188 |
The bold values were applied to highlight P-values which had statistically significance (i.e. P<0.05).
Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis of risk factors for bladder cancer.
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95%CI) | p value | HR (95%CI) |
| |
| Sex Female vs. Male | 1.334 (1.109-1.605) |
| 1.263 (1.026-1.556) |
|
| Aspirin use Yes vs. no | 0. 851 (0.674-1.075) | 0.175 | ||
| Age <68 vs. >68 | 1.033 (0.895-1.192) | 0.661 | ||
| Marital Status Yes vs. Others | 0.166 (0.098-0.280) |
| 0.165 (0.94-0.289) |
|
| Smoking | ||||
| Non-smoker | ||||
| Current smoker | 1.930 (1.648-2.260) |
| 2.360 (1.936-2.875) |
|
| Former smoker | 0.448 (0.336-0.596) |
| 0.744 (0.537-1.031) | 0.076 |
| Alcohol use | ||||
| Non-drinker | ||||
| Current drinker | 0.947 (0.794-1.129) | 0.545 | 0.615 (0.496-0.762) |
|
| Former drinker | 0.299 (0.187-0.477) |
| 0.314 (0.188-0.525) |
|
| History of cerebrovascular disease yes vs. others | 0.678 (0.531-0.866) |
| 0.863 (0.662-1.126) | 0.279 |
| diabetes yes vs. others | 0.714 (0.594-0.858) |
| 0.845 (0.694-1.028) | 0.093 |
| History of cardiovascular disease yes vs. others | 0.196 (0.152-0.254) |
| 0.212 (0.162-0.276) |
|
| Metformin use yes vs. others | 0.796 (0.576-1.101) | 0.168 | ||
The bold values were applied to highlight P-values which had statistically significance (i.e. P<0.05).
Association between aspirin intake and clinico-pathological characteristics of 1121 BCa patients.
| Regular Aspirin use | Total |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | Yes | |||
| Gender | 0.090 | |||
| Male | 828 | 100 | 928 | |
| Female | 180 | 13 | 193 | |
| Age, years |
| |||
| Less than 68 | 529 | 33 | 562 | |
| 68 or Greater | 479 | 80 | 559 | |
| pT stage | 0.475 | |||
| Tis-T1 | 702 | 75 | 777 | |
| T2-T4 | 306 | 38 | 344 | |
| Pathologic grade | 0.852 | |||
| G1 | 393 | 41 | 434 | |
| G2 | 165 | 19 | 184 | |
| G3 | 450 | 53 | 503 | |
| Lymph node status | 0.866 | |||
| No | 951 | 108 | 1059 | |
| N1 | 37 | 4 | 41 | |
| N2 | 18 | 1 | 19 | |
| N3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
| Distant metastasis | 0.693 | |||
| M0 | 979 | 109 | 1088 | |
| M1 | 29 | 4 | 33 | |
| Type of surgery | 0.172 | |||
| TURBT | 773 | 81 | 854 | |
| PC | 54 | 4 | 58 | |
| RC | 181 | 28 | 209 | |
TURBT, Transurethral resection of bladder tumor; PC, Partial cystectomy; RC, Radical cystectomy.
The bold values were applied to highlight P-values which had statistically significance (i.e. P<0.05).
Univariate and multivariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) including known parameters in 1121 BCa patients treated with surgery.
| Overall Survival | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95%CI) |
| HR (95%CI) |
| |
| Gender | 2.344 (1.018–5.397) |
| 2.137 (0.924-4.944) | 0.076 |
| Age | 1.697 (1.077–2.675) |
| 1.392 (0.869-2.229) | 0.169 |
| pT stage | 1.810 (1.157–2.832) |
| 1.218 (0.728-2.037) | 0.453 |
| Pathologic grade | 1.201 (0.939–1.535) | 0.145 | ||
| Lymph node status | 0.662(0.273–1.606) | 0.362 | ||
| Distant metastasis | 3.552 (1.626-7.760) |
| 2.611 (1.170-5.826) |
|
| Type of surgery | 1.598 (1.263-2.023) |
| 1.398 (1.066-1.833) |
|
| Aspirin use | 2.045 (1.100–3.802) |
| 1.653 (0.871-3.137) | 0.124 |
The bold values were applied to highlight P-values which had statistically significance (i.e. P<0.05).
Univariate and multivariate Cox regression model for recurrence-free survival (RFS) including known parameters in 1121 BCa patients treated with surgery.
| Overall Survival | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95%CI) |
| HR (95%CI) |
| |
| Gender | 1.070 (0.753–1.521) | 0.706 | ||
| Age | 1.284 (0.992–1.663) | 0.058 | ||
| pT stage | 1.812 (1.396–2.351) |
| 1.728 (1.324-2.254) |
|
| Pathologic grade | 1.173 (1.016–1.353) |
| 1.103 (0.954-1.227) | 0.186 |
| Lymph node status | 1.321(0.960–1.819) | 0.087 | ||
| Distant metastasis | 1.936 (1.055-3.551) |
| 1.702 (0.925-3.132) | 0.087 |
| Type of surgery | 1.133 (0.971-1.321) | 0.112 | ||
| Aspirin use | 1.170 (0.772–1.774) | 0.459 | ||
The bold values were applied to highlight P-values which had statistically significance (i.e. P<0.05).
Figure 2Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) flow diagram for the selection of articles.
Main characteristics of individual studies included in the meta-analysis on impact of aspirin intake on risk of BCa.
| First author (year) | Region | Study type | Study period | Age | Total number | BCa Cases | Dose of use | Frequency/duration of use | Adjusted HR/RR/OR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loomans-Kropp HA ( | Multi-regions | Cohort study;Prospective | 1993-2001 | 55-74 | 139896 | 1751 | NA | ≥3 times/week | 0.99 (0.90-1.10) |
| <3 times/week | 0.96 (0.87-1.06) | ||||||||
| Orchard SG ( | Multi-regions | Cohort study; Prospective | 2010-2014 | ≥ 65 | 19030 | 142 | 100mg/day | NA | 1.02 (0.59-1.77) |
| Sung JJ ( | China | Cohort study; Retrospective | 2000-2013 | >18 | 138966 | 2962 | ≥80mg/day | ≥6 months | 0.93 (0.83-1.05) |
| Tsoi K ( | China | Cohort study; Retrospective | 2000-2004 | 67.5 | 612509 | 5291 | 80mg/day | ≥6 months | 1.06 (0.98-1.14) |
| Guercio V ( | Italy | Case control; Retrospective | 2003-2014 | 67 | 1355 | 690 | NA | ≥1 times/week for ≥6 months | 1.21 (0.87-1.68) |
| Kang M ( | Korea | Cohort Study; Prospective | 2002-2013 | >40 | 320613 | 2121 | NA | NA | 1.05 (0.87-1.27) |
| Stegeman I ( | Multi-regions | Others | 2006-2015 | 40-85 | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0.94 (0.64-1.38) |
| Brasky TM ( | USA | Cohort study; Prospective | 1993-2010 | 50-79 | 126689 | 154 | ≤100mg/day | ≥2 times/week for ≥2 weeks | 1.12 (0.63-1.98) |
| Shih C ( | USA | Case control; Retrospective | 2000-2010 | 50-76 | 77048 | 385 | Low use 81mg | 1–3 days/week for <4 years | 0.87 (0.64-1.18) |
| 4 days/week for ≥4 years |
1.00 (0.73-1.38) | ||||||||
| Regular Aspirin NA | 1–3 days/week for <4 years |
1.00 (0.73-1.38) | |||||||
| 4 days/week for ≥4 years |
1.03 (0.77-1.38) | ||||||||
| Daugherty SE ( | USA | Case control; Retrospective | 1993-2001 | 63.5 | 508842 | 2489 | NA | <2 times/week | 1.03 (0.92-1.15) |
| >2 times/week | 1.04 (0.94-1.15) | ||||||||
| Genkinger JM ( | USA | Cohort study; Retrospective | 1986-2002 | 40-75 | 49448 | 607 | NA | ≥2 times/week | 0.99 (0.83–1.18) |
| Fortuny J ( | USA | Case control; Retrospective | 1997-2000 | 25-74 | 839 | 376 | NA | ≥ 4 times/week for ≥1 month | 0.60 (0.40–0.90) |
| Jacobs EJ ( | USA | Cohort Study; Prospective | 1992-2003 | ≥50 | 146113 | 18127 | ≥325mg/day | Nonregular use | 1.03 (0.86 - 1.24) |
| <5 years: | 0.97 (0.76 - 1.22) | ||||||||
| >5 years: | 0.83 (0.58 -1.19) | ||||||||
| Fortuny J ( | Spain | Case control; Retrospective | 1997-2000 | 20-80 | 1987 | 958 | NA | Nonregular use | 1.00 (0.80-1.20) |
| ≥ 2 times/week for ≥1 month | 1.00 (0.70-1.50) | ||||||||
| Friis S ( | Denmark | Cohort study; Prospective | 1989-1997 | 70 | 29470 | 134 | 75-150 mg/day | 1 time/day for 3 months | 1.20 (1.00-1.40) |
| Castelao JE ( | USA | Case control; Retrospective | 1987-1996 | 58 | 3028 | 1514 | NA | ≥ 2 times/week for ≥ 1 month | 0.85 (0.66-1.09) |
| Pommor W ( | Germany | Case control; Retrospective | 1990-1995 | NA | 2180 | 571 | NA | NA | 1.09 (0.73-1.64) |
| Schreinemachers DM ( | USA | Cohort study; Prospective | 1982-1987 | 25-74 | 12668 | 35 | NA | ≥ 1 time/month | 1.06 (0.54-2.09) |
| Paganini-Hill A ( | USA | Cohort study; Prospective | 1981-1988 | 73 | 13987 | 96 | NA | < 1 time/day | Male: 0.37 (0.13-1.02) Female: 1.52 (0.55-4.23) |
| ≥ 1 time/day | Male: 1.12 (0.63-1.99) Female: 0.89 (0.26-3.10) | ||||||||
| This study | China | Case control; Retrospective | 2002-2019 | 68 | 3363 | 1121 | ≥80mg/day | ≥1 months | 0.85(0.67-1.08) |
Main characteristics of eligible studies collected in the meta-analysis on effect of aspirin intake on outcome of surgery for BCa.
| First author (year) | Region | Study type | Study period | Age | BCa Cases | Surgical approach | Dose of use | Frequency/Duration of use | Adjusted HR/RR/OR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wessels F ( | Germany | Retrospective cohort study | 2011-2017 | 65 | 461 | RC | NA | NA | BTR:1.12(0.80-1.57) IACR:1.48 (0.77-2.86) |
| Prader R ( | France | Retrospective case-control study | 2013-2015 | 53-83 | 234 | TURBT | ≥75mg/day | NA | BTR:1.38 (0.09-21.70) |
| IACR:1.15 (0.36-3.64) | |||||||||
| IHO:4.12 (0.17-99.83) | |||||||||
| Ghali F ( | USA | Retrospective case-control study | 2011-2014 | 70 | 708 | TURBT | NA | NA | IACR:0.38 (0.15-0.92) |
| Picozzi S ( | Italy | Cohort study | 2007-2012 | 74-68 | 158 | TURBT | 100mg/day | NA | BTR:1.94 (0.36-10.39) |
| IHO:1.46 (0.25-8.55) |
IACR, Incidence of any-cause rehospitalization; BTR, Blood transfusion rate; IHO, Incidence of hemostatic operation; TURBT, Transurethral resection of bladder tumor; RC, Radical cystectomy.
Main characteristics of eligible studies collected in the meta-analysis on effect of aspirin intake on prognosis of BCa.
| First author (year) | Region | Study type | Study period | Age | Total number | BCa cases | Dose of use | Frequency/ Duration of use | Reported endpoints |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loomans-Kropp HA ( | Multi-regions | Cohort study; Prospective | 1993-2001 | 65 | 139896 | 1751 | NA | ≥ 3 times/week | CSS: 0.67 (0.51-0.88) |
| < 3 times/week | CSS:0.75 (0.58-0.98) | ||||||||
| Li P ( | USA | Cohort study; Retrospective | 2016 | 65 | 63308 | 2600 | NA | NA | OS: 1.01 (1.00-1.03) |
| Lyon TD ( | USA | Cohort study; Retrospective | 2007-2016 | NA | 1061 | 1061 | 25mg/day 81mg/day 162mg/day 325mg/day 650mg/day | 3 months | CSS: 0.64 (0.45-0.89) |
| OS: 0.70 (0.53-0.93) | |||||||||
| MFS: 0.96 (0.68-1.36) | |||||||||
| Gupta R ( | India | Cohort study; Prospective | 2015-2017 | 58 | 103 | 103 | 75mg/day | ≥3 months | RFS: 1.002 (0.24-4.16) |
| PFS:11.65 (0.11-1188.30) | |||||||||
| Singla N ( | USA | Cohort study; Prospective | 2006-2012 | 73 | 203 | 99 | 81mg/day 325mg/day | NA | CSS: 3.14 (0.37-26.91) |
| OS:1.91 (0.69-5.27) | |||||||||
| RFS:1.05 (0.64-1.74) | |||||||||
| Pastore AL ( | Italy | Cohort study; Retrospective | 2008-2013 | 62 | 574 | 574 | 100mg/day | ≥2 years | RFS: 0.74 (0.45-1.24) |
| Lipsky MJ ( | USA | Cohort study; Retrospective | 2001-2011 | 56-82 | 224 | 224 | NA | NA | RFS: 2.41 (1.08-5.35) |
| Jacobs EJ ( | USA | Cohort study; Prospective | 1997-2008 | NA | 100139 | 302 | Baby low dose; Adult strength dose | ≥1 months | OS:0.75 (0.48-1.16) |
| Boorjian SA ( | USA | Cohort study; Retrospective | 1990-2006 | 57-75 | 907 | 907 | NA | NA | RFS: 0.91 (0.751.10) |
| PFS: 0.71 (0.52- 0.96) | |||||||||
| Gee JR ( | USA | Cohort study; Retrospective | 1991-2003 | 67 | 43 | 43 | 81mg/day 325mg/day | NA | RFS:0.18 (0.06-0.52) |
| PFS: 1.15 (0.81-1.63) | |||||||||
| Ratnasinghe LD ( | USA | Cohort study; Prospective | 1982-1992 | 25-74 | 22794 | 40 | NA | NA | OS: 3.36 (1.03-10.97) |
| This study | China | Case control; Retrospective | 2002-2019 | 68 | 1121 | 1121 | ≥80mg/day | ≥1 months | OS: 1.653 (0.871-3.137) |
| RFS: 1.17 (0.772-1.774) |
OS, Overall survival; CSS, Cancer-specific survival; PFS, Progression-free survival; RFS, Recurrence-free survival; MFS, Metastasis-free survival.
Figure 3Forest plot (A) and funnel plot (B) showing the relationship between aspirin intake and the risk of bladder cancer in the overall analysis. The x-coordinate scale of solid lines perpendicular to the X-axis is 1. Each horizontal line segment parallel to the X-axis represents a confidence interval of the research results. The wider the confidence interval is, the longer the horizontal line segment. The small square in the middle of the horizontal line represents the position of the point estimate of the OR, and the size represents the weight of the study, which represents the percentage of the results of each study in the overall results. The intersection of the horizontal segment and the solid vertical line indicates that the study results are not statistically significant. Diamonds represent the overall effect of the estimate using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects model. The visual examination of the funnel plot showed no apparent asymmetry, indicating that the publication bias was small and that the effect on the combined effect was negligible.
Figure 4The leave-one-out sensitivity analysis for overall analysis. The forest plot (A, B) table showed the effects for heterogeneity of each study.
Figure 5Forest plot (A) and funnel plot (B) showing the association of aspirin intake and the risk of bladder cancer in subgroup analysis by whether regularly intake aspirin.
Figure 6Forest plot (A) and funnel plot (B) showing the association of aspirin intake and the risk of bladder cancer in subgroup analysis by the mean duration of aspirin use.
Figure 7Forest plot (A) and funnel plot (B) showing the association of aspirin intake and the risk of bladder cancer in subgroup analysis by gender.
Figure 8Forest plot (A) and funnel plot (B) showing the association of aspirin intake and the risk of bladder cancer in subgroup analysis by smoking status.
Figure 9Forest plot (A) and funnel plot (B) showing the association of aspirin intake and the risk of bladder cancer in subgroup analysis by region.
Figure 10Forest plot (A) and funnel plot (B) showing the association of aspirin intake and the risk of bladder cancer in subgroup analysis by study type.
Figure 11Forest plot (A) and funnel plot (B) showing the association of aspirin intake and the outcome of surgery, including blood transfusion rate, incidence of any-cause rehospitalization and the incidence of hemostatic operation; Forest plot (C) showing the association of aspirin intake and the outcome of surgery, including the mean duration of operation and mean loss of hemoglobin for BCa patients.
Figure 12Forest plot (A) and funnel plot (B) showing the relationship between aspirin intake and the survival of patients with bladder cancer, which included overall survival and cancer-specific survival.
Figure 13Forest plot (A) and funnel plot (B) showing the relationship between aspirin intake and recurrence-free survival and progression-free survival of patients with bladder cancer.