| Literature DB >> 35936707 |
Salah Eddine O Kacimi1, Anas Elgenidy2, Huzaifa Ahmad Cheema3, Mounir Ould Setti4,5, Atulya Aman Khosla6, Amira Yasmine Benmelouka7, Mohammad Aloulou8, Kawthar Djebabria9, Laila Salah Shamseldin10, Omar Riffi1, Nabil Smain Mesli1,11, Hanane Z Sekkal1, Ahmed M Afifi12, Jaffer Shah13, Sherief Ghozy14,15.
Abstract
Background: Exposure to recurrent infections in childhood was linked to an increased risk of cancer in adulthood. There is also evidence that a history of tonsillectomy, a procedure often performed in children with recurrent infections, is linked to an increased risk of leukemia and Hodgkin lymphoma. Tonsillectomy could be directly associated with cancer risk, or it could be a proxy for another risk factor such as recurrent infections and chronic inflammation. Nevertheless, the role of recurrent childhood infections and tonsillectomy on the one hand, and the risk of breast cancer (BC) in adulthood remain understudied. Our study aims to verify whether a history of tonsillectomy increases the risk of BC in women.Entities:
Keywords: breast; meta-analysis; oral infection; risk; tonsillectomy
Year: 2022 PMID: 35936707 PMCID: PMC9350012 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.925596
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Figure 1The Prisma flow diagram of the study.
Study characteristics.
| Study | Country | Study design | No. of patients with breast cancer | No. of controls | No. of patients with breast cancer with tonsils removed | No. of controls with tonsils removed | Risk measurement | Risk of bias |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brasky et al. ( | USA | Case control | 736 | 801 | 389 | 380 | Adj OR | High quality |
| Gross et al. ( | USA | Case control | 110 | 200 | 22 | 46 | NR | Very high risk |
| Howie et al. ( | Scotland | Case control | 149 | 478 | 54 | 117 | NR | High risk |
| Kessler et al. ( | USA | Case control | 89 | 85 | 29 | 20 | NR | Very high risk |
| Lubin et al. ( | Canada | Case control | 558 | 824 | 286 | 384 | Adj OR | High risk |
| Sun et al. ( | Taiwan | R. Cohort | 440a | 1760b | 7 | 14c | IRR | High quality |
| Yasui et al. ( | USA | Case control | 537 | 492 | 362 | 314 | Adj OR | High quality |
| Cassimos et al. ( | Greece | Case control | 52 | 255 | 2 | 31 | NR | Very high risk |
a, number of patients with tonsillectomy; b, number of patients without tonsillectomy; c, number of patients with breast cancer without tonsils removed.Adj OR, Adjusted Odds Ratio; IRR, Incidence Rate Ratio; NR, Not Reported; R. Cohort, Retrospective Cohort.
Figure 2The forest plots of (A) All studies included (Unadjusted analysis) (B) Only high-quality studies included based on NOS (Unadjusted analysis) (C) Adjusted analysis.
Results of the subgroup analysis.
| Subgroup | All | US | Non-US | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Studies | OR (95% CI) | I2, | Studies | OR (95% CI) | I2, | Studies | OR (95% CI) | I2, | |
| Age at diagnosis | NA* | NA* | NA* | ||||||
| Premenopausal | 2 | 1.71 (1.36; 2.15) | 0%, 0.49 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Postmenopausal | 2 | 1.30 (1.05; 1.60) | 86%, < 0.01 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Study design | 0.29* | 0.51* | 0.34* | ||||||
| Case control | 7 | 1.23 (1.10; 1.38) | 36%, 0.16 | 4 | 1.20 (1.03; 1.39) | 0%, 0.51 | 3 | 1.28 (1.06; 1.55) | 70%, 0.03 |
| Cohort | 1 | 2.02 (0.81; 5.03) | NA | 0 | NA | NA | 1 | 2.02 (0.81; 5.03) | NA |
| Year | 0.91* | 0.65* | 0.34* | ||||||
| > 2000 | 3 | 1.23 (1.06; 1.44) | 0%, 0.53 | 2 | 1.22 (1.04; 1.42) | 0%, 0.73 | 1 | 2.02 (0.81; 5.03) | NA |
| < 2000 | 5 | 1.25 (1.05; 1.48) | 56%, 0.06 | 2 | 1.09 (0.71; 1.69) | 49%, 0.16 | 3 | 1.28 (1.06; 1.55) | 70%, 0.03 |
| Continent | 0.26* | NA* | 0.33* | ||||||
| America | 5 | 1.20 (1.06; 1.36) | 0%, 0.68 | 4 | 1.20 (1.03; 1.39) | 0%, 0.51 | 1 | 1.20 (0.97; 1.49) | NA |
| Europe | 2 | 1.55 (1.06; 2.27) | 82%, 0.02 | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 1.55 (1.06; 2.27) | 82%, 0.02 |
| Asia | 1 | 2.02 (0.81; 5.03) | NA | NA | NA | NA | 1 | 2.02 (0.81; 5.03) | NA |
| Country | 0.49* | NA* | NA* | ||||||
| US | 4 | 1.20 (1.03; 1.39) | 0%, 0.51 | 4 | 1.20 (1.03; 1.39) | 0%, 0.51 | NA | NA | NA |
| Non-US | 4 | 1.30 (1.09; 1.57) | 61%, 0.05 | NA | NA | NA | 4 | 1.30 (1.09; 1.57) | 61%, 0.05 |
| Population | 0.99* | 0.62* | 0.31* | ||||||
| > 1000 | 3 | 1.24 (1.07; 1.43) | 0%, 0.56 | 1 | 1.24 (1.02; 1.52) | NA | 2 | 1.55 (1.06; 2.27) | 82%, 0.02 |
| < 1000 | 5 | 1.24 (1.03; 1.50) | 57%, 0.05 | 3 | 1.15 (0.92; 1.44) | 2%, 0.36 | 2 | 1.24 (1.00; 1.53) | 14%, 0.28 |
| NOS risk of bias | NA* | NA* | NA* | ||||||
| High quality | 3 | 1.23 (1.06; 1.44) | 0%, 0.53 | 2 | 1.22 (1.04; 1.42) | 0%, 0.73 | 1 | 2.02 (0.81; 5.03) | NA |
*, p-value of subgroup differences; NA, Not Applicable.
Figure 3Influence (leave-one out sensitivity) analysis; (A) Sorted by effect size (B) Sorted by I2.