4.2 Review

Risk Factors for Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses

Journal

CLINICAL LYMPHOMA MYELOMA & LEUKEMIA
Volume 15, Issue 10, Pages 563-577

Publisher

CIG MEDIA GROUP, LP
DOI: 10.1016/j.clml.2015.06.003

Keywords

Epidemiology; Meta-analysis; Multiple myeloma; Risk factors; Systematic review

Funding

  1. World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) - Wereld Kanker Onderzoek Fonds (WCRF NL) [WCRF 2013/995]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The epidemiology of multiple myeloma (MM) is an increasingly investigated field, with many controversies. This systematic review aims to synthesize meta-analyses examining risk factors for MM so as to provide a comprehensive, parsimonious summary of the current evidence. Eligible meta-analyses were sought in Pub Med adopting a predefined algorithm, without any restriction of publication language; end-of-search date was October 10, 2014. The selection of eligible studies and data extraction were performed by working in pairs, independently and blindly to each other; in case of disagreement, consensus with the whole team was reached. Among the 22 ultimately included meta-analyses, 9 examined occupational factors, 4 assessed aspects of lifestyle (smoking, alcohol, body mass index), 5 evaluated the presence of other diseases, and 4 addressed genetic factors as potential risk factors of MM. A vast compendium of significant associations arose, including farming, occupation as a firefighter, occupation as a hairdresser, exposures to chemicals or pesticides, overweight and obesity, patterns of alcohol intake, pernicious anemia, ankylosing spondylitis, gene promoter methylation, and polymorphisms. In conclusion, MM is a multifactorial disease, encompassing a wide variety of risk factors that span numerous life aspects. Further accumulation of evidence through meta-analyses is anticipated in this rapidly growing field.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available