4.3 Article

Cytotoxin-Associated Gene A-Negative Strains of Helicobacter pylori as a Potential Risk Factor of Pancreatic Cancer A Meta-Analysis Based on Nested Case-Control Studies

期刊

PANCREAS
卷 44, 期 8, 页码 1340-1344

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000000414

关键词

pancreatic cancer; Helicobacter pylori; cytotoxin-associated gene A; virulent strain; enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; etiology

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81372344, 81301866]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Risk of pancreatic cancer between Helicobacter pylori infected and noninfected persons is controversial, and therefore a meta-analysis was performed. Methods: PubMed was searched up to September 2014. Only population-based nested case-control studies comparing the serological prevalence of Helicobacter pylori between pancreatic cancer cases and cancer-free controls were eligible. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for pancreatic cancer risk between Helicobacter pylori infected and noninfected persons were estimated. Results: Five eligible nested case-control studies were included, with 1446 pancreatic cancer cases and 2235 cancer-free controls. On the whole, the proportion of pancreatic cancer cases among those infected with Helicobacter pylori was not significant different from those noninfected (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.65-1.50; P = 0.96). Likewise, seropositivity of cytotoxin-associated gene A (CagA) showed nonsignificant association with pancreatic cancer (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.65-1.30; P = 0.63). The CagA-positive virulent strains of Helicobacter pylori did not increase the risk of pancreatic cancer (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.50-1.89; P = 0.93). However, CagA-negative nonvirulent strains of Helicobacter pylori had a significant increased risk for pancreatic cancer (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.11-1.96; P = 0.008). Conclusions: The CagA-negative non-virulent strains of Helicobacter pylori may be a potential risk factor of pancreatic cancer. High-quality prospective large-scaled studies are required for more conclusive results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据