4.5 Review

Blood pressure and kidney cancer risk: meta-analysis of prospective studies

Journal

JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
Volume 35, Issue 7, Pages 1333-1344

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001286

Keywords

dose-response; hypertension; kidney cancer; meta-analysis; renal cell carcinoma

Funding

  1. Suzhou Social Development Fund [SYSD2013080, SYS201455]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Globally, kidney cancer is the twelfth most common cancer, accounting for 337 860 cases recorded in 2012. By 2020, this number has been estimated to reach 412 929 or increase by 22%. Over the past few decades, a number of prospective studies have investigated the association between blood pressure (BP) and risk of kidney cancer, using either recorded BP levels or reported hypertension as the principal exposure variable. However, the relation of BP to kidney cancer remains incompletely understood, and the data on sex-specific differences in risk estimates have been inconsistent. Method: PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for studies assessing the association between BP and kidney cancer through July 2016. The summary relative risk with 95% confidence intervals was calculated using a random-effects model. Result: A total of 18 prospective studies with 8097 kidney cancer cases from 3 628 479 participants were included in our meta-analysis. History of hypertension was associated with 67% increased risk of kidney cancer. Significant heterogeneity and evidence of publication bias were observed. However, the results remain unchanged after introducing the trim and fill method to correct the publication bias. Accordingly, each 10-mmHg increase in SBP and DBP was associated with 10 and 22% increased risk of kidney cancer. Conclusion: Collectively, the present meta-analysis of 18 prospective studies provides further support for a positive association between hypertension and kidney cancer risk.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available