PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) has been related to increased risks of a variety of cancers. However, the association between MetS and the risk of renal cell cancer (RCC) remains not fully determined. This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate whether MetS is independently associated with the risk of RCC in adults.
UNASSIGNED: Relevant observational studies were obtained by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane\'s Library, and Web of Science databases. Study characteristics and outcome data were extracted independently by two authors. The random-effect model was used for meta-analysis considering the possible influence of between-study heterogeneity. Predefined subgroup analyses were used to evaluate the possible influences of study characteristics on the outcome.
UNASSIGNED: Eight studies involving 10,601,006 participants contributed to the meta-analysis. Results showed that MetS was independently associated with a higher risk of RCC in adult population (risk ratio [RR]: 1.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41 to 1.87, p<0.001; I2 = 85%). Subgroup analyses showed consistent association in men (RR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.23 to 1.89, p<0.001) and in women (RR: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.28 to 2.27, p<0.001), in Asians (RR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.25 to 1.83, p<0.001) and in Caucasians (RR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.46 to 2.12, p<0.001), and in community derived (RR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.34 to 1.82, p<0.001) and non-community derived population (RR: 1.87, 95% CI: 1.71 to 2.04, p<0.001). Differences in study design or quality score also did not significantly affect the association (p for subgroup difference both >0.05).
UNASSIGNED: MetS may be independently associated with RCC in adult population.
UNASSIGNED: Relevant observational studies were obtained by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane\'s Library, and Web of Science databases. Study characteristics and outcome data were extracted independently by two authors. The random-effect model was used for meta-analysis considering the possible influence of between-study heterogeneity. Predefined subgroup analyses were used to evaluate the possible influences of study characteristics on the outcome.
UNASSIGNED: Eight studies involving 10,601,006 participants contributed to the meta-analysis. Results showed that MetS was independently associated with a higher risk of RCC in adult population (risk ratio [RR]: 1.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41 to 1.87, p<0.001; I2 = 85%). Subgroup analyses showed consistent association in men (RR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.23 to 1.89, p<0.001) and in women (RR: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.28 to 2.27, p<0.001), in Asians (RR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.25 to 1.83, p<0.001) and in Caucasians (RR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.46 to 2.12, p<0.001), and in community derived (RR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.34 to 1.82, p<0.001) and non-community derived population (RR: 1.87, 95% CI: 1.71 to 2.04, p<0.001). Differences in study design or quality score also did not significantly affect the association (p for subgroup difference both >0.05).
UNASSIGNED: MetS may be independently associated with RCC in adult population.
摘要：
■代谢综合征（MetS）与多种癌症的风险增加有关。然而,MetS与肾细胞癌(RCC)风险之间的关联仍未完全确定.这项荟萃分析旨在调查MetS是否与成人RCC的风险独立相关。
■通过搜索PubMed，Embase,科克伦图书馆,和WebofScience数据库。研究特征和结果数据由两名作者独立提取。考虑到研究间异质性的可能影响，使用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析。使用预定义的亚组分析来评估研究特征对结果的可能影响。
■涉及10,601,006名参与者的8项研究为荟萃分析做出了贡献。结果显示，在成年人群中，MetS与较高的RCC风险独立相关（风险比[RR]：1.62，95％置信区间[CI]：1.41至1.87，p<0.001；I2=85％）。亚组分析显示，男性（RR：1.52，95％CI：1.23至1.89，p<0.001）和女性（RR：1.71，95％CI：1.28至2.27，p<0.001）的相关性一致。亚洲人（RR：1.51，95％CI：1.25至1.83，p<0.001）和高加索人（RR：1.76，95％CI：1.46至2.12，p<0.001），社区来源的（RR：1.56，95％CI：1.34至1.82，p<0.001）和非社区来源的人群（RR：1.87，95％CI：1.71至2.04，p<0.001）。研究设计或质量评分的差异也没有显着影响相关性（亚组差异均>0.05）。
■MetS可能与成年人群的RCC独立相关。
■通过搜索PubMed，Embase,科克伦图书馆,和WebofScience数据库。研究特征和结果数据由两名作者独立提取。考虑到研究间异质性的可能影响，使用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析。使用预定义的亚组分析来评估研究特征对结果的可能影响。
■涉及10,601,006名参与者的8项研究为荟萃分析做出了贡献。结果显示，在成年人群中，MetS与较高的RCC风险独立相关（风险比[RR]：1.62，95％置信区间[CI]：1.41至1.87，p<0.001；I2=85％）。亚组分析显示，男性（RR：1.52，95％CI：1.23至1.89，p<0.001）和女性（RR：1.71，95％CI：1.28至2.27，p<0.001）的相关性一致。亚洲人（RR：1.51，95％CI：1.25至1.83，p<0.001）和高加索人（RR：1.76，95％CI：1.46至2.12，p<0.001），社区来源的（RR：1.56，95％CI：1.34至1.82，p<0.001）和非社区来源的人群（RR：1.87，95％CI：1.71至2.04，p<0.001）。研究设计或质量评分的差异也没有显着影响相关性（亚组差异均>0.05）。
■MetS可能与成年人群的RCC独立相关。
