4.6 Article

Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi and gallbladder cancer: a case-control study and meta-analysis

期刊

CANCER MEDICINE
卷 5, 期 11, 页码 3310-3325

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.915

关键词

Chile; epidemiology; gallbladder cancer; meta-analysis; Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi; Vi antibodies

类别

资金

  1. Fondo Nacional de Investigacion y Desarrollo en Salud (FONIS) [SA11I2205]
  2. Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Cientifico y Tecnologico (FONDECYT) [1130303, 1130204, CONICYT/FONDAP/15130011]
  3. Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics
  4. Office of Research on Women's Health (ORWH), NIH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Chile, where gallbladder cancer (GBC) rates are high and typhoid fever was endemic until the 1990s, we evaluated the association between Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi (S. Typhi) antibodies and GBC. We tested 39 GBC cases, 40 gallstone controls, and 39 population-based controls for S. Typhi Vi antibodies and performed culture and quantitative polymerase chain reaction for the subset with bile, gallstone, tissue, and stool samples available. We calculated gender and education-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association with GBC. We also conducted a meta-analysis of > 1000 GBC cases by combining our results with previous studies. GBC cases were more likely to have high Vi antibody titer levels than combined controls (OR: 4.0, 95% CI: 0.9-18.3), although S. Typhi was not recovered from bile, gallstone, tissue, or stool samples. In our meta-analysis, the summary relative risk was 4.6 (95% CI: 3.1-6.8, P-heterogeneity = 0.6) for anti-Vi and 5.0 (95% CI: 2.7-9.3, P-heterogeneity = 0.2) for bile or stool culture. Our results are consistent with the meta-analysis. Despite differences in study methods (e.g., S. Typhi detection assay), most studies found a positive association between S. Typhi and GBC. However, the mechanism underlying this association requires further investigation

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