期刊
CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
卷 15, 期 11, 页码 2056-2062出版社
AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0410
关键词
-
资金
- NCI NIH HHS [CA009001] Funding Source: Medline
Background: Studies investigating the association between diabetes mellitus and prostate cancer have reported inconsistent findings. We examined this association by conducting a detailed meta-analysis of the studies published on the subject. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and bibliographies of retrieved articles were searched. Studies investigating the relationship between diabetes mellitus and prostate cancer were included in the meta-analysis. Potential sources of heterogeneity between studies were explored and publication bias was evaluated. Pooled relative risk (RR) was calculated using the random-effects model. Numerous relevant subgroup analyses were also done. Results: We included 19 studies, published between 1971 and 2005, in the meta-analysis and found an inverse association between diabetes mellitus and prostate cancer [RR, 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.76-0.93, P for heterogeneity <= 0.01]. For cohort studies alone, the RR was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.92, P for heterogeneity <= 0.01) and for case-control studies alone, the RR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.72-1.11, P for heterogeneity = 0.02). The significant heterogeneity was mitigated in some of the subgroup analyses. For studies conducted before prostate-specific antigen screening was introduced as a common procedure, the RR was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.85-1.03, P for heterogeneity = 0.15), and for studies conducted after this time, the RR was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.64-0.83, P for heterogeneity = 0.10). For studies that adjusted for three or more potential confounders, the RR was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.65-0.85, P for heterogeneity = 0.06) and for studies that adjusted for less than three potential confounders, the RR was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.86-1.02, P for heterogeneity = 0.18). Conclusion: This study suggests an inverse relationship between diabetes and prostate cancer. Potential biological mechanisms underlying this association, as well as possible biases, are discussed.
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。
推荐
暂无数据