{Reference Type}: Meta-Analysis
{Title}: Group I pharmaceuticals of IARC and associated cancer risks: systematic review and meta-analysis.
{Author}: Lim W;Moon S;Lee NR;Shin HG;Yu SY;Lee JE;Kim I;Ko KP;Park SK;
{Journal}: Sci Rep
{Volume}: 14
{Issue}: 1
{Year}: 2024 01 3
{Factor}: 4.996
{DOI}: 10.1038/s41598-023-50602-6
{Abstract}: We aimed to summarize the cancer risk among patients with indication of group I pharmaceuticals as stated in monographs presented by the International Agency for Research on Cancer working groups. Following the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted using the PubMed database. Pharmaceuticals with few studies on cancer risk were identified in systematic reviews; those with two or more studies were subjected to meta-analysis. For the meta-analysis, a random-effects model was used to calculate the summary relative risks (SRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Heterogeneity across studies was presented using the Higgins I square value from Cochran's Q test. Among the 12 group I pharmaceuticals selected, three involved a single study [etoposide, thiotepa, and mustargen + oncovin + procarbazine + prednisone (MOPP)], seven had two or more studies [busulfan, cyclosporine, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, methoxsalen + ultraviolet (UV) radiation therapy, melphalan, and chlorambucil], and two did not have any studies [etoposide + bleomycin + cisplatin and treosulfan]. Cyclosporine and azathioprine reported increased skin cancer risk (SRR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.07-1.62; SRR = 1.56, 95% CI 1.25-1.93) compared to non-use. Cyclophosphamide increased bladder and hematologic cancer risk (SRR = 2.87, 95% CI 1.32-6.23; SRR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.65-3.58). Busulfan increased hematologic cancer risk (SRR = 6.71, 95% CI 2.49-18.08); melphalan was associated with hematologic cancer (SRR = 4.43, 95% CI 1.30-15.15). In the systematic review, methoxsalen + UV and MOPP were associated with an increased risk of skin and lung cancer, respectively. Our results can enhance persistent surveillance of group I pharmaceutical use, establish novel clinical strategies for patients with indications, and provide evidence for re-categorizing current group I pharmaceuticals into other groups.