4.3 Review

Pancreatic Cancer in Celiac Disease Patients-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20021565

关键词

pancreatic cancer; celiac disease; autoimmune diseases

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the impact of celiac disease (CD) on the risk of pancreatic cancer (PC) through a systematic review and meta-analysis. The results indicated that patients with CD are more prone to develop PC when they have other malignancies. The association between CD and PC remains uncertain and further research is needed.
Background: Celiac disease (CD) is an autoimmune enteropathy affecting approximately 1% of the population and is associated with an increased risk of enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma and small bowel adenocarcinoma, whereas the association between CD and other malignancies is unclear. Since pancreatic cancer (PC) remains one of the most lethal neoplasms and its incidence is increasing despite numerous ongoing research on diagnostic biomarkers and novel therapies, we aimed to investigate whether CD has an impact on the risk of PC. Material and Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature published from January 2000 to March 2022 in two databases: Web of Science and Scopus and a meta-analysis of eligible studies. Results: Our search identified eight publications included in the systematic review. A total of five studies involving 47,941 patients, including 6399 CD patients with malignancies and 1231 PC cases were included in the meta-analysis and 221 cases of PC in CD patients with other cancers were recognized. The pooled OR for PC was 1.46 (95% CI 1.26-1.7) with significant heterogeneity (89.1%; p < 0.05), suggesting that CD patients with malignancies were at higher risk for PC. Conclusions: The association between CD and PC is uncertain. However, the results of the current meta-analysis may indicate an increased risk of PC in the group of patients with CD and other cancers. Further multicenter studies are warranted.

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