4.6 Review

Previous Lung Diseases and Lung Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 6, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017479

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute [020214]
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research Canada

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: In order to review the epidemiologic evidence concerning previous lung diseases as risk factors for lung cancer, a meta-analysis and systematic review was conducted. Methods: Relevant studies were identified through MEDLINE searches. Using random effects models, summary effects of specific previous conditions were evaluated separately and combined. Stratified analyses were conducted based on smoking status, gender, control sources and continent. Results: A previous history of COPD, chronic bronchitis or emphysema conferred relative risks (RR) of 2.22 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.66, 2.97) (from 16 studies), 1.52 (95% CI: 1.25, 1.84) (from 23 studies) and 2.04 (95% CI: 1.72, 2.41) (from 20 studies), respectively, and for all these diseases combined 1.80 (95% CI: 1.60, 2.11) (from 39 studies). The RR of lung cancer for subjects with a previous history of pneumonia was 1.43 (95% CI: 1.22-1.68) (from 22 studies) and for subjects with a previous history of tuberculosis was 1.76 (95% CI = 1.49, 2.08), (from 30 studies). Effects were attenuated when restricting analysis to never smokers only for COPD/emphysema/chronic bronchitis (RR = 1.22, 0.97-1.53), however remained significant for pneumonia 1.36 (95% CI: 1.10, 1.69) (from 8 studies) and tuberculosis 1.90 (95% CI: 1.45, 2.50) (from 11 studies). Conclusions: Previous lung diseases are associated with an increased risk of lung cancer with the evidence among never smokers supporting a direct relationship between previous lung diseases and lung cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available