4.0 Review

Body Mass Index, Diet-Related Factors, and Bladder Cancer Prognosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

BLADDER CANCER
卷 4, 期 1, 页码 91-112

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/BLC-170147

关键词

Body mass index; diet; dietary supplements; prognosis; urinary bladder cancer

资金

  1. Alpe d'HuZes/Dutch Cancer Society [KUN 2013-5926]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Urologists are frequently confronted with questions of urinary bladder cancer (UBC) patients about what they can do to improve their prognosis. Unfortunately, it is largely unknown which lifestyle factors can influence prognosis. Objective: To systematically review the available evidence on the association between body mass index (BMI), diet, dietary supplements, and physical activity and UBC prognosis. Methods: We searched PubMed and Embase up to May 2017. We included thirty-one articles reporting on observational and randomized controlled trials investigating BMI, diet and dietary supplements in relation to recurrence, progression, cancer-specific or all-cause mortality in UBC patients. Results: In non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) patients, both overweight (3 studies, pooled hazard ratio (HR) 1.29, 95% CI 1.05-1.58, I-2 = 0%) as well as obesity (3 studies, pooled HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.12-2.95, I-2 = 79%) were associated with increased risk of recurrence when compared to normal weight. No association of BMI with risk of progression was found. Results for BMI and prognosis in muscle-invasive or in all stages series were inconsistent. Observational studies on diet and randomized controlled trials with dietary supplements showed inconsistent results. No studies on physical activity and UBC prognosis have been published to date. Conclusions: Evidence for an association of lifestyle factors with UBC prognosis is limited, with some evidence for an association of BMI with risk of recurrence in NMIBC. Well-designed, prospective studies are needed to develop evidencebased guidelines on this topic.

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

4.0
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