Search

Low socioeconomic position (SEP) is a strong risk factor for incidence and premature mortality from several cancers. Our study aimed at quantifying the association between SEP and gastric cancer (GC) risk through an individual participant data meta-analysis within the “Stomach cancer Pooling (StoP) Project”. Educational level and household income were used as proxies for the SEP. We estimated pooled odds ratios (ORs) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) across levels of education and household income by pooling study-specific ORs through random-effects meta-analytic models. The relative index of inequality (RII) was also computed. A total of 9,773 GC cases and 24,373 controls from 25 studies from Europe, Asia and America were included. The pooled OR for the highest compared to the lowest level of education was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.44–0.84), while the pooled RII was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.29–0.69). A strong inverse association was observed both for noncardia (OR 0.39, 95% CI, 0.22–0.70) and cardia GC (OR 0.47, 95% CI, 0.22–0.99). The relation was stronger among H. pylori negative subjects (RII 0.14, 95% CI, 0.04–0.48) as compared to H. pylori positive ones (RII 0.29, 95% CI, 0.10–0.84), in the absence of a significant interaction (p = 0.28). The highest household income category showed a pooled OR of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.48–0.89), while the corresponding RII was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.22–0.72). Our collaborative pooled-analysis showed a strong inverse relationship between SEP indicators and GC risk. Our data call for public health interventions to reduce GC risk among the more vulnerable groups of the population.

Background: Individual participant data pooled analyses allow access to non-published data and statistical reanalyses based on more homogeneous criteria than meta-analyses based on systematic reviews. We quantified the impact of publication-related biases and heterogeneity in data analysis and presentation in summary estimates of the association between alcohol drinking and gastric cancer. Methods: We compared estimates obtained from conventional meta-analyses, using only data available in published reports from studies that take part in the Stomach Cancer Pooling (StoP) Project, with individual participant data pooled analyses including the same studies. Results: A total of 22 studies from the StoP Project assessed the relation between alcohol intake and gastric cancer, 19 had specific data for levels of consumption and 18 according to cancer location; published reports addressing these associations were available from 18, 5 and 5 studies, respectively. The summary odds ratios [OR, (95%CI)] estimate obtained with published data for drinkers vs. non-drinkers was 10% higher than the one obtained with individual StoP data [18 vs. 22 studies: 1.21 (1.07-1.36) vs. 1.10 (0.99-1.23)] and more heterogeneous (1(2): 63.6% vs 54.4%). In general, published data yielded less precise summary estimates (standard errors up to 2.6 times higher). Funnel plot analysis suggested publication bias. Conclusion: Meta-analyses of the association between alcohol drinking and gastric cancer tended to overestimate the magnitude of the effects, possibly due to publication bias. Additionally, individual participant data pooled analyses yielded more precise estimates for different levels of exposure or cancer subtypes.

Tobacco smoking is one of the main risk factors for gastric cancer, but the magnitude of the association estimated by conventional systematic reviews and meta-analyses might be inaccurate, due to heterogeneous reporting of data and publication bias. We aimed to quantify the combined impact of publication-related biases, and heterogeneity in data analysis or presentation, in the summary estimates obtained from conventional meta-analyses. We compared results from individual participant data pooled-analyses, including the studies in the Stomach Cancer Pooling (StoP) Project, with conventional meta-analyses carried out using only data available in previously published reports from the same studies. From the 23 studies in the StoP Project, 20 had published reports with information on smoking and gastric cancer, but only six had specific data for gastric cardia cancer and seven had data on the daily number of cigarettes smoked. Compared to the results obtained with the StoP database, conventional meta-analyses overvalued the relation between ever smoking (summary odds ratios ranging from 7% higher for all studies to 22% higher for the risk of gastric cardia cancer) and yielded less precise summary estimates (SE ≤2.4 times higher). Additionally, funnel plot asymmetry and corresponding hypotheses tests were suggestive of publication bias. Conventional meta-analyses and individual participant data pooled-analyses reached similar conclusions on the direction of the association between smoking and gastric cancer. However, published data tended to overestimate the magnitude of the effects, possibly due to publication biases and limited the analyses by different levels of exposure or cancer subtypes.

An association between heavy alcohol drinking and gastric cancer risk has been recently reported, but the issue is still open to discussion and quantification. We investigated the role of alcohol drinking on gastric cancer risk in the “Stomach cancer Pooling (StoP) Project,” a consortium of epidemiological studies. A total of 9,669 cases and 25,336 controls from 20 studies from Europe, Asia and North America were included. We estimated summary odds-ratios (ORs) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) by pooling study-specific ORs using random-effects meta-regression models. Compared with abstainers, drinkers of up to 4 drinks/day of alcohol had no increase in gastric cancer risk, while the ORs were 1.26 (95% CI, 1.08–1.48) for heavy (>4 to 6 drinks/day) and 1.48 (95% CI 1.29–1.70) for very heavy (>6 drinks/day) drinkers. The risk for drinkers of >4 drinks/day was higher in never smokers (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.35–2.58) as compared with current smokers (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93–1.40). Somewhat stronger associations emerged with heavy drinking in cardia (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.11–2.34) than in non-cardia (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.13–1.45) gastric cancers, and in intestinal-type (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.20–1.97) than in diffuse-type (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.05–1.58) cancers. The association was similar in strata of H. pylori infected (OR = 1.52, 95% CI 1.16–2.00) and noninfected subjects (OR = 1.69, 95% CI 0.95–3.01). Our collaborative pooled-analysis provides definite, more precise quantitative evidence than previously available of an association between heavy alcohol drinking and gastric cancer risk.

Tobacco smoking is a known cause of gastric cancer, but several aspects of the association remain imprecisely quantified. We examined the relation between cigarette smoking and the risk of gastric cancer using a uniquely large dataset of 23 epidemiological studies within the ‘Stomach cancer Pooling (StoP) Project’, including 10 290 cases and 26 145 controls. We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) by pooling study-specific ORs using random-effects models. Compared with never smokers, the ORs were 1.20 (95% CI: 1.09–1.32) for ever, 1.12 (95% CI: 0.99–1.27) for former, and 1.25 (95% CI: 1.11–1.40) for current cigarette smokers. Among current smokers, the risk increased with number of cigarettes per day to reach an OR of 1.32 (95% CI: 1.10–1.58) for smokers of more than 20 cigarettes per day. The risk increased with duration of smoking, to reach an OR of 1.33 (95% CI: 1.14–1.54) for more than 40 years of smoking and decreased with increasing time since stopping cigarette smoking (P for trend<0.01) and became similar to that of never smokers 10 years after stopping. Risks were somewhat higher for cardia than noncardia gastric cancer. Risks were similar when considering only studies with information on Helicobacter pylori infection and comparing all cases to H. pylori+ controls only. This study provides the most precise estimate of the detrimental effect of cigarette smoking on the risk of gastric cancer on the basis of individual data, including the relationship with dose and duration, and the decrease in risk following stopping smoking.