Biological sex disparity in survival outcomes following treatment for renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:3
作者
Nkemjika, Stanley [5 ]
Tokede, Oluwatosin [2 ]
Okosun, Ike S. [1 ]
Jadotte, Yuri [3 ,4 ]
Pigott, Therese [1 ]
机构
[1] Georgia State Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Populat Hlth Sci, Atlanta, GA USA
[2] River Valley Hlth & Dent Ctr, Williamsport, PA USA
[3] SUNY Stony Brook, Dept Family Populat & Prevent Med, Stony Brook, NY USA
[4] Rutgers Sch Nursing, Northeast Inst Evidence Synth & Translat NEST, JBI Ctr Excellence, Newark, NJ USA
[5] Interfaith Med Ctr, Dept Psychiat & Behav Sci, Brooklyn, NY 11213 USA
关键词
Biological sex disparity; Survival outcomes; Renal cancer; Systematic review; Meta-analysis; CLINICOPATHOLOGICAL FEATURES; RADICAL NEPHRECTOMY; KIDNEY CANCER; GENDER; RISK; SURGERY; OBESITY; IMPACT; AGE;
D O I
10.1016/j.canep.2023.102409
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Introduction: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC), a type of kidney cancer has biological sex-based differences that play a role in cancer incidence. Specifically, the incidence of urinary system cancers in men is two times greater than in women, while the incidence of genital cancers is three times greater. There is conflicting epidemiologic and limited evidence in the literature to suggest apparent biological sex discrepancy. The primary objective of this review and meta-analysis is to synthesize evidence to understand biological sex disparity in the survival out -comes of RCC following any treatment intervention.Methods: A three-step search strategy was utilized in this review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases for manuscript on biological sex differences in treatment outcomes. Study screening, critical appraisal, and data extraction were executed independently by pairs of reviewers among co-authors. Studies that had any form of treatment modality in the management of RCC were included. Study designs included observational studies in the form of prospective and retrospective studies that utilized cox proportional hazard assumption to conduct survival analysis.The data synthesis was carried out using the R metafor software package (Software version of 1.2.8) and Microsoft Office Excel 2019 package (Microsoft Corporation, USA). The random effects model was estimated using restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML). Data synthesis included narrative review and meta-analysis.Results: We had 23 eligible studies for this review. On review of the full text, 35 studies were excluded due to irrelevances to measure estimates utilized. Finally, 12 studies were selected for the meta-analysis with a total of n = 21,2453 individuals. Females had a better survival outcome following a treatment intervention for RCC than their male counterpart [Mean effect size =-0.1737 (95 % CI:-0.2524,-0.0949)].Conclusion: Females were more likely to be cancer free than their male counterpart following treatment for RCC. This finding will inform appropriate decision making for stakeholders.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 47 条
  • [41] Cigarette Smoking Is Associated With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma
    Tsivian, Matvey
    Moreira, Daniel M.
    Caso, Jorge R.
    Mouraviev, Vladimir
    Polascik, Thomas J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2011, 29 (15) : 2027 - 2031
  • [42] Fixed or random effects meta-analysis? Common methodological issues in systematic reviews of effectiveness
    Tufanaru, Catalin
    Munn, Zachary
    Stephenson, Matthew
    Aromataris, Edoardo
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE-BASED HEALTHCARE, 2015, 13 (03) : 196 - 207
  • [43] Diagnostic Imaging for Solid Renal Tumors: A Pictorial Review
    van Oostenbrugge, Tim J.
    Futterer, Jurgen J.
    Mulders, Peter F. A.
    [J]. KIDNEY CANCER, 2018, 2 (02) : 79 - 93
  • [44] Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
    Viechtbauer, Wolfgang
    [J]. JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL SOFTWARE, 2010, 36 (03): : 1 - 48
  • [45] Population-based comparative effectiveness of nephron-sparing surgery vs ablation for small renal masses
    Whitson, Jared M.
    Harris, Catherine R.
    Meng, Maxwell V.
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2012, 110 (10) : 1438 - 1443
  • [46] Wilson KM, 2016, RECENT RESULTS CANC, V208, P81, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42542-9_5
  • [47] Using systematic reviews in guideline development: The GRADE approach
    Zhang, Yuan
    Akl, Elie A.
    Schunemann, Holger J.
    [J]. RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2019, 10 (03) : 312 - 329