Literature DB >> 35068876

Use of oral contraceptives and risk of pancreatic cancer in women: A recalculated meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.

Jong-Myon Bae1.   

Abstract

In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies, the author found potential errors in the selection and extraction processes. The recalculated summary relative risks and the results of a dose-response meta-analysis showed that oral contraceptive use may not be associated with the risk of pancreatic cancer in women. ©The Author(s) 2021. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Meta-analysis; Oral contraceptives; Pancreas neoplasms; Risk assessment; Risk factor; Systematic review

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 35068876      PMCID: PMC8717024          DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i48.8374

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 1007-9327            Impact factor:   5.742


Core Tip: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies conducted recently concluded that oral contraceptive use was associated with a decreased risk of pancreatic cancer in women. However, the author found potential errors in the selection and extraction processes. The recalculated summary relative risks and the results of a dose-response meta-analysis showed that oral contraceptive use may not be associated with the risk of pancreatic cancer in women. As this conclusion contradicted that reported recently, it is necessary to re-evaluate the direction and statistical significance of this risk through an updated meta-analysis in the future.

TO THE EDITOR

I recently read the systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by Ilic et al[1] comprising 10 case-control studies and 11 cohort studies, which concluded that the use of oral contraceptives (OCU) was associated with a decreased risk of pancreatic cancer in women (PCW) [summary relative risk (sRR) = 0.85; 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 0.73-0.98; P = 0.03]. Interestingly, the subgroup analysis according to the study design showed no statistical significance in case-control studies but showed borderline statistical significance in cohort studies (sRR = 0.84; 95%CI = 0.70-1.00; P = 0.05). However, while reviewing the results of the 11 selected cohort studies, I found the following potential errors. First, among the 11 selected studies, the study by Teras et al[2] was a cohort study that analyzed the mortality of PCW; therefore, excluding this study would be valid based on the research hypothesis; second, it would be necessary to include the two cohort studies[3,4] that were considered in other studies on the risk of various cancers associated with OCU[5,6]; finally, in the two studies that did not provide an RR for the ever group[7,8], the RR's direction was opposite to that of the forest plot shown in the study by Ilic et al[1]. Considering these issues, I recalculated the sRR of the longest duration (LD) group as well as the ever group. The statistical significance disappeared in both groups, and the sRRs were 1 or higher (Figure 1). Egger’s test was performed to evaluate publication bias, and no statistical significance was noted in either group (P = 0.439 and 0.817 in the ever group and LD group, respectively).
Figure 1

Forest plots in the ever and the longest duration group.

Forest plots in the ever and the longest duration group. Eight of the 12 selected cohorts[3,7-13] provided the information necessary for performing a dose-response meta-analysis. A two-stage random-effects dose-response model was used with a dosing unit of 1 year (P of goodness-of-fit = 0.041). The results showed borderline statistical significance with a linear dose-response relationship between OCU duration and PCW risk (sRR = 1.015; 95%CI = 0.999-1.030; P = 0.057) (Figure 2).
Figure 2

The linear dose-response relationship between duration (year) of oral contraceptive usage and risk of pancreatic cancer in women. RR: Relative risk.

The linear dose-response relationship between duration (year) of oral contraceptive usage and risk of pancreatic cancer in women. RR: Relative risk. Based on the results of the recalculated sRRs and DRMA, the OCU may not be associated with the risk of PCW. Because my conclusion contradicts that reported by Ilic et al[1], it is necessary to re-evaluate the direction and statistical significance of risk through an updated meta-analysis in the future.
  13 in total

1.  Hormonal and reproductive factors and pancreatic cancer risk: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Stephanie A Navarro Silvera; Anthony B Miller; Thomas E Rohan
Journal:  Pancreas       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.327

2.  Parity, other reproductive factors, and risk of pancreatic cancer mortality in a large cohort of U.S. women (United States).

Authors:  Lauren R Teras; Alpa V Patel; Carmen Rodriguez; Michael J Thun; Eugenia E Calle
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 2.506

3.  Reproductive factors, exogenous hormone use, and risk of pancreatic cancer in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  Geoffrey C Kabat; Victor Kamensky; Thomas E Rohan
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2017-05-15       Impact factor: 2.984

4.  Menstrual and reproductive factors in women, genetic variation in CYP17A1, and pancreatic cancer risk in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition (EPIC) cohort.

Authors:  Eric J Duell; Noémie Travier; Leila Lujan-Barroso; Laure Dossus; Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault; Françoise Clavel-Chapelon; Rosario Tumino; Giovanna Masala; Vittorio Krogh; Salvatore Panico; Fulvio Ricceri; Maria Luisa Redondo; Miren Dorronsoro; Esther Molina-Montes; José M Huerta; Aurelio Barricarte; Kay-Tee Khaw; Nick J Wareham; Naomi E Allen; Ruth Travis; Peter D Siersema; Petra H M Peeters; Antonia Trichopoulou; Eirini Fragogeorgi; Eleni Oikonomou; Heiner Boeing; Madlen Schuetze; Federico Canzian; Annekatrin Lukanova; Anne Tjønneland; Nina Roswall; Kim Overvad; Elisabete Weiderpass; Inger Torhild Gram; Eiliv Lund; Björn Lindkvist; Dorthe Johansen; Weimin Ye; Malin Sund; Veronika Fedirko; Mazda Jenab; Dominique S Michaud; Elio Riboli; H Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2012-10-30       Impact factor: 7.396

5.  Oral Contraceptive Use and Risks of Cancer in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study.

Authors:  Kara A Michels; Louise A Brinton; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Britton Trabert
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Oral contraceptives and the risk of all cancers combined and site-specific cancers in Shanghai.

Authors:  Karin A Rosenblatt; Dao L Gao; Roberta M Ray; Zakia C Nelson; Karen J Wernli; Wenjin Li; David B Thomas
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2008-08-15       Impact factor: 2.506

7.  Parity, reproductive factors, and the risk of pancreatic cancer in women.

Authors:  Halcyon G Skinner; Dominique S Michaud; Graham A Colditz; Edward L Giovannucci; Meir J Stampfer; Walter C Willett; Charles S Fuchs
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  Lifetime cancer risk and combined oral contraceptives: the Royal College of General Practitioners' Oral Contraception Study.

Authors:  Lisa Iversen; Selvaraj Sivasubramaniam; Amanda J Lee; Shona Fielding; Philip C Hannaford
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-02-08       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 9.  An Overview of Lung Cancer in Women and the Impact of Estrogen in Lung Carcinogenesis and Lung Cancer Treatment.

Authors:  Vianey Rodriguez-Lara; Maria Rosa Avila-Costa
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-05-17

10.  Hormonal contraceptive use and risk of pancreatic cancer-A cohort study among premenopausal women.

Authors:  Sedrah Arif Butt; Øjvind Lidegaardi; Charlotte Skovlund; Philip C Hannaford; Lisa Iversen; Shona Fielding; Lina Steinrud Mørch
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-30       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.