Metabolic Syndrome Is Associated with Increased Breast Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Background. Although individual metabolic risk factors are reported to be associated with breast cancer risk, controversy surrounds risk of breast cancer from metabolic syndrome (MS). We report the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between MS and breast cancer risk in all adult females.Methods. Studies were retrieved by searching four electronic reference databases [PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science, and ProQuest through June 30, 2012] and cross-referencing retrieved articles. Eligible for inclusion were longitudinal studies reporting associations between MS and breast cancer risk among females aged 18 years and older. Relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each study and pooled using random-effects models. Publication bias was assessed quantitatively (Trim and Fill) and qualitatively (funnel plots). Heterogeneity was examined usingQandI2statistics.Results. Representing nine independent cohorts and 97,277 adult females, eight studies met the inclusion criteria. A modest, positive association was observed between MS and breast cancer risk (RR: 1.47, 95% CI, 1.15–1.87;z=3.13;p=0.002;Q=26.28,p=0.001;I2=69.55%). No publication bias was observed.Conclusions. MS is associated with increased breast cancer risk in adult women.

Download Full-text

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Dietary patterns and breast cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.5381956.5335054 ◽

2010 ◽

Author(s):

Suzanne C Ho ◽

Caixia Zhang

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Breast Cancer Risk ◽

Cancer Risk ◽

Dietary Patterns ◽

Meta Analysis

Download Full-text

Cardiac glycosides and breast cancer risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

International Journal of Cancer ◽

10.1002/ijc.30520 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 140 (5) ◽

pp. 1035-1041 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Reema A. Karasneh ◽

Liam J. Murray ◽

Chris R. Cardwell

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Breast Cancer Risk ◽

Cancer Risk ◽

Observational Studies ◽

Cardiac Glycosides ◽

Meta Analysis

Download Full-text

Use of Statins and Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Seven Randomized Clinical Trials and Nine Observational Studies

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2005.02.7045 ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 23 (34) ◽

pp. 8606-8612 ◽

Cited By ~ 139

Author(s):

Stefanos Bonovas ◽

Kalitsa Filioussi ◽

Nikolaos Tsavaris ◽

Nikolaos M. Sitaras

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Breast Cancer Risk ◽

Cancer Risk ◽

Publication Bias ◽

Observational Studies ◽

Fixed Effects ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Sensitivity Analyses ◽

Fixed Effects Model

Purpose A growing body of evidence suggests that statins may have chemopreventive potential against breast cancer. Laboratory studies demonstrate that statins induce apoptosis and reduce cell invasiveness in various cell lines, including breast carcinoma cells. However, the clinical relevance of these data remains unclear. The nonconclusive nature of the epidemiologic data prompted us to conduct a detailed meta-analysis of the studies published on the subject in peer-reviewed literature. Patients and Methods A comprehensive search for articles published up until 2005 was performed; reviews of each study were conducted; and data were abstracted. Before meta-analysis, the studies were evaluated for publication bias and heterogeneity. Pooled relative risk (RR) estimates and 95% CIs were calculated using the random and the fixed-effects models. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also performed. Results Seven large randomized trials and nine observational studies (five case-control and four cohort studies) contributed to the analysis. We found no evidence of publication bias or heterogeneity among the studies. Statin use did not significantly affect breast cancer risk (fixed effects model: RR = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.14; random effects model: RR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.18). When the analyses were stratified into subgroups, there was no evidence that study design substantially influenced the estimate of effects. Furthermore, the sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of our results. Conclusion Our meta-analysis findings do not support a protective effect of statins against breast cancer. However, this conclusion is limited by the relatively short follow-up times of the studies analyzed. Further studies are required to investigate the potential decrease in breast cancer risk among long-term statin users.

Download Full-text