4.3 Article

Circulating levels of C-reactive protein, interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor-β and risk of colorectal adenomas: a meta-analysis

Journal

ONCOTARGET
Volume 7, Issue 39, Pages 64371-64379

Publisher

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.11853

Keywords

C-reactive protein; interleukin-6; tumor necrosis factor-alpha; colorectal adenomas; meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Results from publications on inflammatory markers of C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-beta) and risk of colorectal adenomas are not consistent. A meta-analysis was conducted to explore the above-mentioned associations. Relevant studies were identified by a search of Embase, Medline and PubMed through February 2016. A random effect model was adopted to combine study-specific odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Between-study heterogeneity and publications bias were assessed. Dose-response relationships were assessed by restricted cubic splines. Nineteen observational studies were included. For highest vs. lowest levels, results from this meta-analysis did not support an association between circulating levels of CRP [OR (95% CI): 1.15 (0.94-1.40)], IL-6 [1.17 (0.94-1.46)] and TNF-beta [0.99 (0.75-1.31)] and risk of colorectal adenomas, respectively. The findings were supported by sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis. In dose-response analysis, the risk of colorectal adenomas increased by 2% [1.02 (0.97-1.08)] for each 1 mg/L increment in circulation CRP levels, 9% [1.09 (0.91-1.31)] for each 1 ng/L increment in circulation IL-6 levels, and 6% [1.06 (0.93-1.21)] for each 1 pg/mL increment in circulation TNF-beta levels. Moderate between-study heterogeneity was found. No evidence of publication bias was found. Circulation levels of CRP, IL-6 and TNF-beta might be not useful biomarkers for identifying colorectal adenomas, respectively.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available