Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Science Communicator Platform

Stay connected! Follow us on X network (Twitter):
Share this content! On (X network) By
Tobacco Smoking and Gastric Cancer: Meta-Analyses of Published Data Versus Pooled Analyses of Individual Participant Data (Stop Project) Publisher Pubmed



Ferro A1 ; Morais S1 ; Rota M3 ; Pelucchi C4 ; Bertuccio P4 ; Bonzi R4 ; Galeone C7 ; Zhang ZF8 ; Matsuo K13 ; Ito H13 ; Hu J14 ; Johnson KC16 ; Yuo GP15 ; Palli D5 Show All Authors
Authors
  1. Ferro A1
  2. Morais S1
  3. Rota M3
  4. Pelucchi C4
  5. Bertuccio P4
  6. Bonzi R4
  7. Galeone C7
  8. Zhang ZF8
  9. Matsuo K13
  10. Ito H13
  11. Hu J14
  12. Johnson KC16
  13. Yuo GP15
  14. Palli D5
  15. Ferraroni M4
  16. Muscat J9
  17. Malekzadeh R18
  18. Ye W20
  19. Song H20
  20. Zaridze D22
  21. Maximovitch D23, 24, 25
  22. Aragones N24, 26, 27, 28
  23. Castanovinyals G29
  24. Vioque J29
  25. Navarretemunoz EM17, 18, 30
  26. Pakseresht M1, 18, 19
  27. Pourfarzi F21
  28. Wolk A21
  29. Orsini N21
  30. Bellavia A21
  31. Hakansson N11
  32. Mu L6
  33. Pastorino R10
  34. Kurtz RC18, 31
  35. Derakhshan MH32
  36. Lagiou A12, 33
  37. Lagioul P9
  38. Boffetta P9
  39. Boccia S6, 7
  40. Negri E3
  41. Vecchia CL4
  42. Peleteiro B1, 2
  43. Lunet N1, 2
Show Affiliations
Authors Affiliations
  1. 1. EPI Unit, Instituto de Saude Publica, Universidade do Porto, Portugal
  2. 2. Departamento de Ciencias da Saude Publica E Forenses E Educacao Medica, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade do Porto, Alameda Professor Hernani Monteiro, Porto, 4200-319, Portugal
  3. 3. Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Portugal
  4. 4. Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
  5. 5. Cancer Research and Prevention Institute-Istituto per Lo Studio E la Prevenzione Oncologica (ISPO), Molecular and Nutritional Epidemiology Unit, Florence, Italy
  6. 6. Section of Hygiene, Institute of Public Health, Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Italy
  7. 7. IRCCS San Raffaele Pisana, Rome, Italy
  8. 8. Department of Epidemiology, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, United States
  9. 9. Tisch Cancer Institute, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, United States
  10. 10. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre, NY, United States
  11. 11. Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Health Professions, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, United States
  12. 12. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States
  13. 13. Aichi Cancer Center Research Institute, Division of Molecular Medicine, Nagoya, Japan
  14. 14. Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China
  15. 15. Medical Informatics Center, Peking University, Peking, China
  16. 16. Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, School of Epidemiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
  17. 17. Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
  18. 18. Digestive Oncology Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  19. 19. Department of Community Medicine, Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, Ardabil, Iran
  20. 20. Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Iran
  21. 21. Unit of Nutritional Epidemiology, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Stockholm, Sweden
  22. 22. Russian N.N. Blokhin Cancer Research Center, Department of Epidemiology and Prevention, Moscow, Russian Federation
  23. 23. National Center of Epidemiology, Environmental and Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Germany
  24. 24. Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Germany
  25. 25. Oncology and Hematology Area, Cancer Epidemiology Research Group, Madrid, Spain
  26. 26. Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology (CREAL), ISGlobal, Spain
  27. 27. IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Spain
  28. 28. Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, Spain
  29. 29. Miguel Hernandez University and ISABIAL-FISABIO Foundation, Campus San Juan, Alicante, Spain
  30. 30. Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Nutritional Epidemiology Group, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
  31. 31. Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
  32. 32. Department of Public Health and Community Health, Athens Technological Educational Institute and, School of Health Professions, Greece
  33. 33. Department of Hygiene, Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

Source: European Journal of Cancer Prevention Published:2018


Abstract

Tobacco smoking is one of the main risk factors for gastric cancer, but the magnitude of the association estimated by conventional systematic reviews and meta-Analyses might be inaccurate, due to heterogeneous reporting of data and publication bias. We aimed to quantify the combined impact of publication-related biases, and heterogeneity in data analysis or presentation, in the summary estimates obtained from conventional meta-Analyses. We compared results from individual participant data pooled-Analyses, including the studies in the Stomach Cancer Pooling (StoP) Project, with conventional meta-Analyses carried out using only data available in previously published reports from the same studies. Fromthe 23 studies in the StoP Project, 20 had published reports with information on smoking and gastric cancer, but only six had specific data for gastric cardia cancer and seven had data on the daily number of cigarettes smoked. Compared to the results obtained with the StoP database, conventional meta-Analyses overvalued the relation between ever smoking (summary odds ratios ranging from 7% higher for all studies to 22% higher for the risk of gastric cardia cancer) and yielded less precise summary estimates (SE ≤2.4 times higher). Additionally, funnel plot asymmetry and corresponding hypotheses tests were suggestive of publication bias. Conventional meta-Analyses and individual participant data pooled-Analyses reached similar conclusions on the direction of the association between smoking and gastric cancer. However, published data tended to overestimate the magnitude of the effects, possibly due to publication biases and limited the analyses by different levels of exposure or cancer subtypes. European Journal of Cancer Prevention 27:197-204 Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Other Related Docs
34. The National Trend of the Gastric Cancer Burden in Iran From 1990 to 2017, Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology (2022)