Dataset Information

Weight Gain After Breast Cancer Diagnosis and All-Cause Mortality: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Overweight and obesity are associated with breast cancer mortality. However, the relationship between postdiagnosis weight gain and mortality is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of weight gain after breast cancer diagnosis and breast cancer-specific, all-cause mortality and recurrence outcomes.Electronic databases identified articles up through December 2014, including: PubMed (1966-present), EMBASE (1974-present), CINAHL (1982-present), and Web of Science. Language and publication status were unrestricted. Cohort studies and clinical trials measuring weight change after diagnosis and all-cause/breast cancer-specific mortality or recurrence were considered. Participants were women age 18 years or older with stage I-IIIC breast cancer. Fixed effects analysis summarized the association between weight gain (?5.0% body weight) and all-cause mortality; all tests were two-sided.Twelve studies (n = 23 832) were included. Weight gain (?5.0%) compared with maintenance (<±5.0%) was associated with increased all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03 to 1.22, P = .01, I(2) = 55.0%). Higher risk of mortality was apparent for weight gain ?10.0% (HR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.09 to 1.39, P < .001); 5% to 10.0% weight gain was not associated with all-cause mortality (P = .40). The association was not statistically significant for those with a prediagnosis body mass index (BMI) of less than 25 kg/m(2) (HR = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.31, P = .07) or with a BMI of 25 kg/m(2) or higher (HR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.86 to 1.16, P = .19). Weight gain of 10.0% or more was not associated with hazard of breast cancer-specific mortality (HR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.38, P = .05).Weight gain after diagnosis of breast cancer is associated with higher all-cause mortality rates compared with maintaining body weight. Adverse effects are greater for weight gains of 10.0% or higher.

SUBMITTER: Playdon MC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4715249 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Weight Gain After Breast Cancer Diagnosis and All-Cause Mortality: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Playdon Mary C MC Bracken Michael B MB Sanft Tara B TB Ligibel Jennifer A JA Harrigan Maura M Irwin Melinda L ML

Journal of the National Cancer Institute 20150930 12

<h4>Background</h4>Overweight and obesity are associated with breast cancer mortality. However, the relationship between postdiagnosis weight gain and mortality is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of weight gain after breast cancer diagnosis and breast cancer-specific, all-cause mortality and recurrence outcomes.<h4>Methods</h4>Electronic databases identified articles up through December 2014, including: PubMed (1966-present), EMBASE (1974-present), CINAHL (1982-presen ...[more]

PMID: 26424778

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGroup visits for chronic medical conditions in non-pregnant populations have demonstrated successful outcomes including greater weight loss compared to individual visits for weight management. It is plausible that group prenatal care can similarly assist women in meeting gestational weight gain goals. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of group vs. traditional prenatal care on gestational weight gain.MethodsA keyword search of Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar was performed up to April 2017. Studies were included if they compared gestational weight gain in a group prenatal care setting to traditional prenatal care in either randomized controlled trials, cohort, or case-control studies. The primary and secondary outcomes were excessive and adequate gestational weight gain according to the Institute of Medicine guidelines. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Q test and I2 statistic. Pooled relative risks (RRs) and confidence intervals (CI) were reported with random-effects models from the randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies.ResultsOne RCT, one secondary analysis of an RCT, one study with "random assignment", and twelve cohort studies met the inclusion criteria for a total of 13,779 subjects. Thirteen studies used the CenteringPregnancy model, defined by 10 sessions that emphasize goal setting and self-monitoring. Studies targeted specific populations such as adolescents, African-Americans, Hispanics, active-duty military or their spouses, and women with obesity or gestational diabetes. There were no significant differences in excessive [7 studies: pooled rates 47% (1806/3582) vs. 43% (3839/8521), RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97-1.23] or adequate gestational weight gain [6 studies: pooled rates 31% (798/2875) vs. 30% (1410/5187), RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79-1.08] in group and traditional prenatal care among the nine studies that reported categorical gestational weight gain outcomes in the meta-analysis.ConclusionsGroup prenatal care was not associated with excessive or adequate gestational weight gain in the meta-analysis. Since outcomes were overall inconsistent, we propose that prenatal care models (e.g., group vs. traditional) should be evaluated in a more rigorous fashion with respect to gestational weight gain.

Project description:BackgroundSalivary diagnostics and their utility as a nonaggressive approach for breast cancer diagnosis have been extensively studied in recent years. This meta-analysis assesses the diagnostic value of salivary biomarkers in differentiating between patients with breast cancer and controls.MethodsWe conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review of studies related to salivary diagnostics published in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Ovid, Science Direct, Web of Science (WOS), and Google Scholar. The articles were chosen utilizing inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as assessing their quality. Specificity and sensitivity, along with negative and positive likelihood ratios (NLR and PLR) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), were calculated based on random- or fixed-effects model. Area under the curve (AUC) and summary receiver-operating characteristic (SROC) were plotted and evaluated, and Fagan's Nomogram was evaluated for clinical utility.ResultsOur systematic review and meta-analysis included 14 papers containing 121 study units with 8639 adult subjects (4149 breast cancer patients and 4490 controls without cancer). The pooled specificity and sensitivity were 0.727 (95% CI: 0.713-0.740) and 0.717 (95% CI: 0.703-0.730), respectively. The pooled NLR and PLR were 0.396 (95% CI: 0.364-0.432) and 2.597 (95% CI: 2.389-2.824), respectively. The pooled DOR was 7.837 (95% CI: 6.624-9.277), with the AUC equal to 0.801. The Fagan's nomogram showed post-test probabilities of 28% and 72% for negative and positive outcomes, respectively. We also conducted subgroup analyses to determine specificity, sensitivity, DOR, PLR, and NLR based on the mean age of patients (≤52 or >52 years old), saliva type (stimulated and unstimulated saliva), biomarker measurement method (mass spectrometry [MS] and non-MS measurement methods), sample size (≤55 or >55), biomarker type (proteomics, metabolomics, transcriptomics and proteomics, and reagent-free biophotonic), and nations.ConclusionSaliva, as a noninvasive biomarker, has the potential to accurately differentiate breast cancer patients from healthy controls.

Project description:Although weight gain is a serious but variable adverse effect of antipsychotics that has genetic underpinnings, a comprehensive meta-analysis of pharmacogenetics of antipsychotic-related weight gain is missing. In this review, random effects meta-analyses were conducted for dominant and recessive models on associations of specific single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) with prospectively assessed antipsychotic-related weight or body mass index (BMI) changes (primary outcome), or categorical increases in weight or BMI (?7%; secondary outcome). Published studies, identified via systematic database search (last search: December 31, 2014), plus 3 additional cohorts, including 222 antipsychotic-naïve youth, and 81 and 141 first-episode schizophrenia adults, each with patient-level data at 3 or 4 months treatment, were meta-analyzed. Altogether, 72 articles reporting on 46 non-duplicated samples (n = 6700, mean follow-up = 25.1wk) with 38 SNPs from 20 genes/genomic regions were meta-analyzed (for each meta-analysis, studies = 2-20, n = 81-2082). Eleven SNPs from 8 genes were significantly associated with weight or BMI change, and 4 SNPs from 2 genes were significantly associated with categorical weight or BMI increase. Combined, 13 SNPs from 9 genes (Adrenoceptor Alpha-2A [ADRA2A], Adrenoceptor Beta 3 [ADRB3], Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor [BDNF], Dopamine Receptor D2 [DRD2], Guanine Nucleotide Binding Protein [GNB3], 5-Hydroxytryptamine (Serotonin) Receptor 2C [HTR2C], Insulin-induced gene 2 [INSIG2], Melanocortin-4 Receptor [MC4R], and Synaptosomal-associated protein, 25kDa [SNAP25]) were significantly associated with antipsychotic-related weight gain (P-values < .05-.001). SNPs in ADRA2A, DRD2, HTR2C, and MC4R had the largest effect sizes (Hedges' g's = 0.30-0.80, ORs = 1.47-1.96). Less prior antipsychotic exposure (pediatric or first episode patients) and short follow-up (1-2 mo) were associated with larger effect sizes. Individual antipsychotics did not significantly moderate effect sizes. In conclusion, antipsychotic-related weight gain is polygenic and associated with specific genetic variants, especially in genes coding for antipsychotic pharmacodynamic targets.

Dataset Information

Weight Gain After Breast Cancer Diagnosis and All-Cause Mortality: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Weight Gain After Breast Cancer Diagnosis and All-Cause Mortality: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure