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:BackgroundThe prevalence of excessive gestational weight gain (EGWG) during pregnancy is increasing, and it is extremely harmful to pregnant women and newborns. Previous studies have suggested that EGWG is associated with various factors. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify, quantify and analyze determinants of EGWG and evaluate the effect of these determinants on EGWG.MethodsWe searched for articles, from January 2009 to November 2020, related to the determinants of EGWG during pregnancy using four Chinese and four English databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement was utilized to guide the systematic review and meta-analysis process.ResultsSeventy studies, which identified EGWG factors in pregnant women (58 factors, 3 themes: individual [7 aspects, 37 factors]; family [4 aspects, 8 factors]; and social [4 aspects, 13 factors]), were included and analyzed in the systematic review. A meta-analysis was conducted for 13 factors (including 10 individual factors, 2 family factors, and 1 social factor) and revealed that pre-pregnancy overweight (including obesity), younger age (≤ 30 years old), unemployed, primiparity, smoking, and being unmarried (including divorced) were risk factors for EGWG, while prepregnancy underweight and inadequate antenatal care were protective factors for EGWG. There was no significant correlation between EGWG and education level, alcohol consumption, planning pregnancy, food security, and whether access to nutrition guidance during pregnancy.ConclusionsEGWG was prevalent in pregnant women, and its prevalence seemed to be high and similar in many countries. Based on observational studies with medium-level and high-level evidence, some individual, family, and social factors were found to be associated with EGWG using qualitative and quantitative methods. In the future, exposure of pregnant women to risk factors for EGWG should be avoided, and interventions should be developed around the identified factors.

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.

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

Tweets