4.6 Article

Hepatitis C virus infection and the risk of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 case-control studies

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-015-0583-9

关键词

HCV; Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; Extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; Risk factor; Meta-analysis

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [NSFC 81170721]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Studies investigating the association between hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections and the occurrence of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), especially intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), have shown inconsistent findings. Although previous meta-analyses referred to HCV and CCA, they mainly focused on ICC rather than CCA or extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC). Since then, relevant new studies have been published on the association between HCV and ICC. Since the different anatomic locations of CCA have distinct epidemiologic features and different risk factors, it is necessary to evaluate the relationship between HCV infection and ICC, ECC, and CCA. Methods: Relevant studies were identified by searching PUBMED, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases prior to 1 August 2013. Pooled risk estimates were calculated with random-effects models using STATA 11.0. Results: A total of 16 case-control studies were included in the final analysis. Pooled risk estimates showed a statistically significant increasing risk of CCA (odds ratio (OR) = 5.44, 95% CI, 2.72 to 10.89). The pooled risk estimate of ICC (OR = 3.38, 95% CI, 2.72 to 4.21) was higher than that of ECC (OR = 1.75, 95% CI, 1.00 to 3.05). In a subgroup analysis, the pooled risk estimate of ICC in studies from North America was obviously higher than in Asia (6.48 versus 2.01). The Begg funnel plot and Egger test showed no evidence of publication bias. Conclusions: HCV infection is associated with the increasing risk of CCA, especially ICC.

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

4.6
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