1.
Endogenous Circulating Sex Hormone Concentrations and Colon Cancer Risk in Postmenopausal Women: A Prospective Study and Meta-Analysis.
Mori, N, Keski-Rahkonen, P, Gicquiau, A, Rinaldi, S, Dimou, N, Harlid, S, Harbs, J, Van Guelpen, B, Aune, D, Cross, AJ, et al
JNCI cancer spectrum. 2021;(6)
Abstract
BACKGROUND Observational studies have consistently reported that postmenopausal hormone therapy use is associated with lower colon cancer risk, but epidemiologic studies examining the associations between circulating concentrations of endogenous estrogens and colorectal cancer have reported inconsistent results. METHODS We investigated the associations between circulating concentrations of estrone, estradiol, free estradiol, testosterone, free testosterone, androstenedione, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), progesterone, and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) with colon cancer risk in a nested case-control study of 1028 postmenopausal European women (512 colon cancer cases, 516 matched controls) who were noncurrent users of exogenous hormones at blood collection. Multivariable conditional logistic regression models were used to compute odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals to evaluate the association between circulating sex hormones and colon cancer risk. We also conducted a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies of circulating estrone and estradiol with colorectal, colon, and rectal cancer risk in postmenopausal women. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS In the multivariable model, a nonstatistically significantly positive relationship was found between circulating estrone and colon cancer risk (odds ratio per log2 1-unit increment = 1.17 [95% confidence interval = 1.00 to 1.38]; odds ratioquartile4-quartile1 = 1.33 [95% confidence interval = 0.89 to 1.97], P trend = .20). Circulating concentrations of estradiol, free estradiol, testosterone, free testosterone, androstenedione, DHEA, progesterone, and SHBG were not associated with colon cancer risk. In the dose-response meta-analysis, no clear evidence of associations were found between circulating estradiol and estrone concentrations with colorectal, colon, and rectal cancer risk. CONCLUSION Our observational and meta-analysis results do not support an association between circulating concentrations of endogenous sex hormones and colon or rectal cancer in postmenopausal women.
2.
The anti-spasmodic effect of peppermint oil during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Aziz, M, Sharma, S, Ghazaleh, S, Fatima, R, Acharya, A, Ghanim, M, Sheikh, T, Lee-Smith, W, Hamdani, SU, Nawras, A
Minerva gastroenterologica e dietologica. 2020;(2):164-171
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Multiple pharmacological agents have been studied in literature with antispasmodic effect during colonoscopy. Peppermint oil, with its relaxing effect on colon has demonstrated varying results. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature to evaluate its role during colonoscopy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Literature search of the following databases was undertaken: PubMed\Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CINAHL. Outcomes that were evaluated included incidence of any spasticity, severe spasticity, and peristalsis during examination. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) was evaluated as a quality outcome metric. Risk ratios (RR), risk difference (RD) and mean difference (MD) were calculated using the DerSimonian-Laird method and random effects where applicable. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Overall, six studies (with one abstract) were included in this review. Peppermint oil resulted in overall lower incidence for spasticity (RD: -0.39, P=0.02), severe spasticity (RD: -0.15, P=0.04), and peristalsis (-0.27, P≤0.001) during colonoscopy examination. An improved ADR (RR: 1.31, P=0.01) was also noted, however only two studies evaluated this effect. CONCLUSIONS Peppermint oil resulted in relaxation of colon during colonoscopy with decrease incidence of spasticity, severe spasticity, peristalsis and improved ADR. These results are encouraging however results are limited due to significant heterogeneity found in the outcomes. Larger studies with standardized dosing are needed to evaluate this effect. Furthermore, studies evaluating additional colonoscopy outcomes such as polyp detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate, and serrated adenoma detection rate are needed.
3.
Comparing the safety, efficacy, and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open colectomy in transverse colon cancer: a meta-analysis.
Baloyiannis, I, Perivoliotis, K, Ntellas, P, Dadouli, K, Tzovaras, G
International journal of colorectal disease. 2020;(3):373-386
Abstract
INTRODUCTION In order to compare the safety, efficacy, and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic (LC) and open colectomy (OC) for transverse colon cancer (TCC) patients, the present systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis was designed. METHODS This study was conducted following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic screening of the electronic databases was performed (Medline, Web of Science and Scopus). The validity of the pooled results was verified through the performance of trial sequential analysis (TSA). The level of evidence was estimated using the GRADE approach. RESULTS Overall, 21 studies and 2498 patients were included in our study. Pooled comparisons and TSA analyses reported a superiority of LC over OC in terms of postoperative complications (OR 0.64, p = 0.0003), blood loss (WMD - 86.84, p < 0.00001), time to first flatus (WMD - 0.94, p < 0.00001) and oral diet (WMD - 1.25, p < 0.00001), and LOS (WMD - 2.39, p < 0.00001). Moreover, OC displayed a lower operation duration (p < 0.00001). A higher rate of complete mesocolic excision (p = 0.001) was related to OC. Although inconclusive in TSA, the recurrence rate in LC group was lower. LC and OC were equivalent in terms of postoperative survival outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Considering several limitations of the eligible studies and the subsequent low level of evidence, further RCTs of a higher quality and methodological level are required to verify the findings of our meta-analysis.