22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Association of Obesity With Survival Outcomes in Patients With Cancer : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          Is obesity associated with better prognosis in patients with cancer?

          Findings

          This meta-analysis of 203 studies with more than 6.3 million participants found that obesity was associated with increased overall and cancer-specific mortality, especially among patients with breast, colon, and uterine cancer. In contrast, patients with obesity and renal cell carcinoma, lung cancer, or melanoma had better survival than patients without obesity.

          Meaning

          These findings suggest that survival outcomes are poor among patients with obesity and cancer, except in lung cancer and melanoma.

          Abstract

          This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses the association between obesity and survival outcomes following a diagnosis of cancer.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Obesity, defined as a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30, is associated with a significant increase in the risk of many cancers and in overall mortality. However, various studies have suggested that patients with cancer and no obesity (ie, BMI 20-25) have worse outcomes than patients with obesity.

          Objective

          To assess the association between obesity and outcomes after a diagnosis of cancer.

          Data Sources

          PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched from inception to January 2020.

          Study Selection

          Studies reporting prognosis of patients with obesity using standard BMI categories and cancer were included. Studies that used nonstandard BMI categories, that were limited to children, or that were limited to patients with hematological malignant neoplasms were excluded. Screening was performed independently by multiple reviewers. Among 1892 retrieved studies, 203 (17%) met inclusion criteria for initial evaluation.

          Data Extraction and Synthesis

          The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were reporting guideline was followed. Data were extracted by multiple independent reviewers. Risk of death, cancer-specific mortality, and recurrence were pooled to provide an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% CI . A random-effects model was used for the retrospective nature of studies.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          The primary outcome of the study was overall survival (OS) in patients with cancer, with and without obesity. Secondary end points were cancer-specific survival (CSS) and progression-free survival (PFS) or disease-free survival (DFS). The risk of events was reported as HRs with 95% CIs, with an HR greater than 1 associated with a worse outcome among patients with obesity vs those without.

          Results

          A total of 203 studies with 6 320 365 participants evaluated the association of OS, CSS, and/or PFS or DFS with obesity in patients with cancer. Overall, obesity was associated with a reduced OS (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.09-1.19; P < .001) and CSS (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.12-1.23; P < .001). Patients were also at increased risk of recurrence (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.07-1.19; P < .001). Conversely, patients with obesity and lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, or melanoma had better survival outcomes compared with patients without obesity and the same cancer (lung: HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.98; P = .02; renal cell: HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53-0.89; P = .02; melanoma: HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.96; P < .001).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this study, obesity was associated with greater mortality overall in patients with cancer. However, patients with obesity and lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and melanoma had a lower risk of death than patients with the same cancers without obesity. Weight-reducing strategies may represent effective measures for reducing mortality in these patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references274

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

          Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

            Because of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Twenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods. From the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed. The proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Operating Characteristics of a Rank Correlation Test for Publication Bias

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                29 March 2021
                March 2021
                29 March 2021
                : 4
                : 3
                : e213520
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Oncology Unit, Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Bergamo Ovest, Treviglio, Italy
                [2 ]Oncology Unit, Department of Biotechnology and Applied Clinical Sciences, San Salvatore Hospital, University of L’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy
                [3 ]Oncology Unit, Fondazione Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milano, Italy
                [4 ]Oncology Unit, Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Sette Laghi, Ospedale di Circolo, Varese, Italy
                [5 ]Oncology Unit, University Hospital of Modena, Modena Cancer Centre, Modena, Italy
                [6 ]Oncology Unit, Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Bergamo Est, Seriate, Italy
                [7 ]Surgical Oncology Unit, Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Bergamo Ovest, Treviglio, Italy
                [8 ]Endocrine Diseases Unit–Diabetes Regional Center, Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Bergamo Ovest, Treviglio, Italia
                [9 ]Oncology Unit, Casa di Cura Igea, Milano, Italy
                [10 ]Oncology Unit, Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: February 8, 2021.
                Published: March 29, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.3520
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Petrelli F et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Fausto Petrelli, Oncology Unit, Medical Sciences Department, Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Bergamo Ovest, Piazzale Ospedale 1, 24047, Treviglio (BG) Italy ( faupe@ 123456libero.it ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Petrelli had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Cortellini, Salati, Dottorini, Iaculli, Rampulla, Barni, Cabiddu, A. Ghidini, Zaniboni.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Petrelli, Cortellini, Indini, Tomasello, M. Ghidini, Nigro, Iaculli, Varricchio, Rampulla, Bossi, A. Ghidini.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Petrelli, Cortellini, Indini, Tomasello, M. Ghidini, Nigro, Dottorini, Iaculli, Varricchio, Rampulla, A. Ghidini.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Cortellini, Indini, Salati, Barni, Cabiddu, Bossi, Zaniboni.
                Statistical analysis: Petrelli, Cortellini, Dottorini, Varricchio.
                Obtained funding: Salati.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Nigro, Rampulla, Bossi, A. Ghidini.
                Supervision: Cortellini, Indini, M. Ghidini, Iaculli, Barni, Bossi, A. Ghidini, Zaniboni.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Cortellini reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas, and Novartis outside the submitted work. Dr Bossi reported receiving grants from Lilly Italia, Novo Nordisk, Bayer, Merck Sharpe and Dohme Italia, Sanofi, and Pikdare outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Article
                zoi210129
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.3520
                8008284
                33779745
                12e71a6f-1439-4435-ae7d-4a78306b78ee
                Copyright 2021 Petrelli F et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 18 November 2020
                : 8 February 2021
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Nutrition, Obesity, and Exercise

                Comments

                Comment on this article