4.7 Review

Effect of 5-aminosalicylate use on colorectal cancer and dysplasia risk: A systematic review and metaanalysis of observational studies

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 100, 期 6, 页码 1345-1353

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.41442.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: We performed a systematic review with metaanalysis of observational studies evaluating the association between 5-ASA use and colorectal cancer (CRC) or dysplasia among patients with ulcerative colitis. METHODS: We conducted a search of Medline Embase Biosis, Web of Science, Cochrane Collaboration, manually reviewed the literature, and consulted with experts. Studies were included if they 1) evaluated and clearly defined exposure to 5-aminosalicylates in patients with ulcerative colitis, 2) reported CRC or dysplasia outcomes, 3) reported relative risks or odds ratio or provided data for their calculations. Quantitative analysis using a random-effects model is presented. RESULTS: Nine studies (3 cohort, 6 case-control) containing 334 cases of CRC, 140 cases of dysplasia, and a total of 1,932 subjects satisfied all inclusion criteria. Five studies reported CRC outcomes alone, two studies reported separate cancer and dysplasia outcomes, and two studies reported a combined outcome of CRC or dysplasia. All primary estimates are homogenous. Pooled analysis showed a protective association between use of 5-aminosalicylates and CRC (OR = 0.51; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.37-0.69) or a combined endpoint of CRC/dysplasia (OR 0.51; 95% CI: 0.38-0.69). 5-ASA use was not associated with a lower risk of dysplasia, although only two studies evaluated this outcome (OR = 1.18; 95% CI: 0.41-3.43). CONCLUSION: Pooled results of observational studies support a protective association between 5-aminosalicylates and CRC or a combined endpoint of CRC/dysplasia in patients with ulcerative colitis. Additional studies analyzing the effect of 5-ASA on risk of dysplasia are needed.

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

4.7
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