Scientific Reports · 2024 · 15 citations · 53 references
MedicineOncologyPharmacologyCancer EpidemiologyCancer PharmacologyChemotherapyDose-response Meta-analysisToxicity Risk AssessmentCancer Risk AssessmentOncology PharmacovigilancePooled Relative RisksPubmed SearchRadiation Therapy CombinationsTherapeutic Drug Monographs
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.
53
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Matthew J. Page, Joanne E. McKenzie, Patrick M. Bossuyt et al. · BMJ · 2021 · 95K citations · Full text
IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans
James Hopkins · Food and Chemical Toxicology · 1989 · 2.9K citations
Medicine, Oncology, Toxicology +14
Cancer after Kidney Transplantation in the United States
Bertram L. Kasiske, Jon J. Snyder, David T. Gilbertson et al. · American Journal of Transplantation · 2004 · 1.1K citations