Abstract
Liuping You1,*, Li Ning2,*, Weimin Xie2,*, Jinghe Lang2 and Yuenan Huang1
1Department of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China
2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
*These authors contributed equally to this work
Correspondence to:
Yuenan Huang, email: [email protected]
Keywords: pancreatic cancer; metabolic syndrome; risk; meta-analysis
Received: May 09, 2017 Accepted: December 06, 2017 Published: January 12, 2018
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between metabolic syndrome and pancreatic cancer risk by conducting a meta-analysis. We searched the databases of Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to March 2017. We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing trials. Studies investigating the association between metabolic syndrome and pancreatic cancer risk were included. Pooled relative risk (RR) was calculated using either a random-effects or a fixed-effects model. A total of 4 studies involving 622,694 participants were identified. The pooled data showed that metabolic syndrome was associated with a statistically significant 40% increase in pancreatic cancer risk (RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.86) with significant heterogeneity (I2 =78.1%). A somewhat stronger association was observed in women (RR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.36 to 1.84; I2 = 0.0%) than in men (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.77 to 2.04; I2 =71.7%). Our findings support that patients with metabolic syndrome carry an increased risk for developing pancreatic cancer.
INTRODUCTION
Pancreatic cancer is the ninth most common form of cancer and seventh leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide [1]. Patients suffered from pancreatic cancer carry a dismal prognosis, with a 5-year survival rate roughly 2%–8%, and most deaths occur only 6 months after diagnosis [2]. Even for surgically resectable cases, the 5-year survival rate is merely 10–20% [3]. Currently, there are still no established screening methods for early detection. Therefore, the most effective way to reduce pancreatic cancer burden may be primary prevention by altering modifiable risk factors. Indeed, several unfavourable risk factors have been identified, including tobacco smoking, alcohol consumption, obesity, and chronic pancreatitis [4–7]. However, these established risk factors can explain only a small fraction of cases. Thus, it is imperative to identify other potential risk factors and high-risk populations, so that effective actions could be taken to prevent the development of pancreatic cancer.
Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a cluster of interrelated risk factors that result in increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality [8]. Essential components of MetS include central obesity, raised blood pressure, impaired glucose, high triglyceride and low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) [9]. To date, various definitions of MetS have been proposed, including the National Cholesterol Education Program-Adult Treatment Panel-III (NCEP-ATP-III), the International Diabetes Federation (IDF), the American Heart Association/National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (AHA/NHLBI) and the new Joint Interim Societies (JIS) [10]. Of these, the most widely accepted one was put forward by the NCEP-ATP III. According to its definition, MetS is defined having three or more of the following: 1) visceral obesity defined by waist circumference (population and country specific definitions); 2) blood pressure ≥ 130 and/or 85 mmHg; 3) fasting glucose ≥ 100 mg/dL; 4) triglycerides ≥ 150 mg/dL; and 5) low highdensity lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels (men ≤ 40 mg/dL; women ≤ 50 mg/dL) [11]. It has been estimated that MetS is prevalent in at least a quarter of adults in India, America and Europe [12]. Interestingly, evidence from epidemiologic investigations has suggested that MetS is a risk factor for developing several malignancies, including breast, colorectal and prostate cancer [13–15].
Some individual components of MetS are associated with increased pancreatic cancer risk, particularly obesity and diabetes [6, 16]. It seems self-explanatory that clustering of MetS components will carry a greater risk for developing pancreatic cancer than individuals. This is probably due to alterations in cancer-related signaling pathways and cytokines caused by MetS [17]. A body of epidemiologic studies identifying the association between MetS and pancreatic cancer risk has obtained controversial results. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association between MetS and pancreatic cancer risk based on available evidences.
RESULTS
Study selection
A total of 1021 records were identified from thorough database searching, no additional records were found from ongoing trials. After removing duplicates and screening the titles and abstracts, a total of 10 potentially relevant records were retrieved for detailed review. Of these, 6 studies were excluded for following reasons: 2 investigated the association between MetS and survival outcomes in pancreatic cancer [18, 19], 2 did not report pancreatic cancer risk [20, 21], and 2 did not have usable data [22, 23]. We did not identify any records from reference lists. Finally, 4 eligible studies were included in this meta-analysis. The flow diagram summarizing the selection process is given in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Study flow diagram.
Study characteristics
A total of 4 non-randomized studies involving 622,694 participants were included in this meta-analysis, with 3 cohort studies [24–26] and 1 case-control study [27]. The studies were published between 2008 and 2011. Among them, 2 studies were performed in the Italy [24, 27], 1 in Austria, Norway and Sweden [26], and 1 in Japan [25]. The NOS values ranged from 5 to 9 stars: 1 study was awarded 5 stars, 1 study was award 6 stars, and 2 studies were award 9 stars. The characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Characteristics of the included studies
Study | Study location | Study design | No. of paticipants | No. of PaC patients | Definition of MetS | Adusting factors | NOS value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Russo et al. 2008 | Italy | Cohort | 16,677 | 43 | Comebined therapy for antihypertensive, hypolipid, and hypoglycemic drugs | NA | 6 |
Inoue et al. 2009 | Japan | Prospective cohort | 27,724 | 65 | Three or more than three factors (high blood pressure, high glucose, low HDL-cholesterol, high triglycerides, and being overweight) | Age, study area, smoking status, weekly ethanol intake, daily total physical activity level, total cholesterol | 9 |
Johansen et al. 2010 | Austria, Norway, and Sweden | Prospective cohort | 577,315 | 862 | Metabolic factors (Z score of the following components: (a) glucose, (b) mid-blood pressure,(c) cholesterol, (d) triglycerides, and (e) oerweight) | Age, smoking status; | 9 |
Rosato et al. 2011 | Italy | Case-control | 978 | 326 | At least 3 conditions among diabetes, drug-treated hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and overweight at age 30 years. | Age, study area, smoking status, year of interview, education. | 5 |
Abbreviations: PaC, pancreatic cancer; MetS, metabolic syndrome; NOS, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
Meta-analysis
Four observational studies involving 622,694 participants investigated the association between MetS and pancreatic cancer risk [24–27]. The pooled data showed that MetS was associated with a statistically significant 40% increase in pancreatic cancer risk (RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.86). The Chi-square test resulted in a p value of 0.000, and the corresponding I2 was 78.1%, both indicating that there was significant heterogeneity between studies (Figure 2). In sensitivity analysis, each study was excluded and its influence was evaluated by repeating the primary analysis. The analysis confirmed the stability of our result because none of the individual studies markedly affected the pooled effect.
Figure 2: Forest plot of association between metabolic syndrome and pancreatic cancer risk.
Then, we performed a subanalysis based on sex. The pooled data in men showed a modest increase in pancreatic cancer risk but the data supporting this association was not as robust (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.77 to 2.04). There was significant heterogeneity among the studies (I2, 71.7%; p = 0.014) (Figure 3). In sensitivity analysis, the result did not change significantly after omitting any of the included studies. A stronger association was observed in women, with a significant 58% increase in pancreatic cancer risk (RR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.36 to 1.84) (Figure 4). No statistically significant heterogeneity was detected (I2 = 0.0%; p = 0.937).
Figure 3: Forest plot of association between metabolic syndrome and pancreatic cancer risk in men.
Figure 4: Forest plot of association between metabolic syndrome and pancreatic cancer risk in women.
DISCUSSION
There is a long-standing debate regarding the association between MetS and pancreatic cancer risk. By permitting synthesis of data and providing an objective evaluation of the evidence, meta-analysis may be resolution of controversy and uncertainty [28]. This meta-analysis was conducted to examine the association between MetS and pancreatic cancer risk. Overall, our results provide supportive evidence for a positive association between MetS and pancreatic cancer risk. Our results are consistence with recent meta-analyses regarding the association between MetS and risk of other types of cancers. Similarly, they concluded that MetS was associated with increased risk of breast, colorectal, prostate, liver and endometrial cancer [29–33].
In subanalysis based on sex, MetS was, on average, associated with increased pancreatic cancer risk in men and women. However, a somewhat stronger association was observed in women than in men, which was in line with previous observational studies [25–27]. It is not clear why MetS is a more important risk factor in women. One possible explanation may be that, women produce higher levels of estrogens than men, which in turn increase circulating estradiol by reducing plasma level of sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) [34]. Low plasma concentration of SHBG is linked to insulin resistance and subsequent hyperinsulinemia [35]. Preclinical studies demonstrated that insulin can stimulate proliferation, invasion and migration of pancreatic cancer cells in vitro [36]. It can also act synergistically with hypoxia-inducible factor-1 in pancreatic cancer cells to increase cell viability [37]. Another explanation may be that women have more adipose tissue than men. Adipose tissue produces leptin, which can affect pancreatic cancer biology [38]. Laboratory studies showed that leptin signaling can enhance growth, invasion, migration and survival of pancreatic cancer cells [39]. Whether or not estrogen affects the development of pancreatic cancer or if it could modify other relevant risk factors and thus explain different risk factor profiles in women and men need to be clarified in future studies.
Generally, meta-analysis based on randomized studies is more likely to provide unbiased results and thus allows for a more objective appraisal of evidence than that of non-randomized studies. However, for those specific questions which cannot be answered by reviews of randomized studies, such as limited number of studies, non-randomized studies should be retrieved for meta-analysis. To date, no randomized studies has investigated the associated between MetS and pancreatic cancer risk. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis by pooling the results from 4 non-randomized studies.
Although the exact roles of MetS in pancreatic cancer remains elusive, several possible biological mechanisms linking MetS with increased pancreatic cancer risk have been proposed. First, hyperinsulinemia, which is a common phenomenon in MetS patients, may stimulate cell proliferation and promote pancreatic cancer development through increasing the production of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) [40]. Second, MetS is frequently associated with inflammation and the malignant transformation of pancreas may due to increased oxidative stress and a subsequent reduced intracellular antioxidant capacity [41]. Reactive oxygen species generated by oxidants can lead to accumulation of mutations by causing deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) damage, disturbing DNA repair and altering intracellular homeostasis [42]. Third, hypoadiponectinemia is a common characteristic of MetS [43]. Adiponectin level is negatively associated with insulin concentration and plasma glucose, whether this is a consequence or a cause of insulin resistance is not clear [44]. Previous studies found that adiponectin could inhibit proliferation of endothelial cells and stimulate apoptosis of cancer cells [45, 46] and might play crucial roles in the etiology of several types of cancers, including gastric, colorectal, liver and pancreatic cancer [47–49].
Given the striking rise in the number of MetS patients and its association with pancreatic cancer, it is imperative to establish public health strategies for better management of MetS. The increasing prevalence of MetS and large global burden of pancreatic cancer indicate that even a moderate association between MetS and pancreatic cancer could have a substantial effect on public health. In order to better identify high-risk populations for primary prevention, risk assessment tools incorporating MetS as a risk factor for pancreatic cancer should be established.
This meta-analysis has some limitations. First, all studies included in this meta-analysis were non-randomized studies due to a lacking of RCTs in the literature to date. Second, the limited number of included studies made it impractical to evaluate potential publication bias or explore the sources of heterogeneity by conducting subgroup analysis and meta-regression. Third, adjustment method for potential confounding factors was not consistent in all studies, which might introduce excessive heterogeneity among studies. Even though the multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was employed in most studies, for those studies without such data, univariate analysis was applied.
In summary, findings of this meta-analysis demonstrate that MetS patients carry an increased pancreatic cancer risk. The association between MetS and pancreatic cancer risk is stronger in women than men. Future studies should be conducted to clarify exact mechanisms and identify high-risk populations in order to better prevent the development of pancreatic cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [50].
Search strategy
A systematic search was performed using the databases of Embase, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to identify all relevant articles from inception to March 2017. We used both subject headings and free text words in the search. The following search terms were used: “metabolic syndrome OR metabolic abnormalities OR insulin-resistance syndrome OR syndrome X” AND “pancreatic neoplasms OR pancreatic carcinoma OR pancreatic malignancy OR pancreatic cancer OR pancreatic tumor OR pancreatic tumour OR pancreatic adenocarcinoma”. The following trial registers were also searched electronically to find potentially relevant ongoing trials: ISRCTN registry (http://www.isrctn.com/mrct/), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/), and ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/). Additionally, we screened the reference lists from all retrieved articles for eligible studies. No language restriction was used in our search strategy.
Eligibility criteria
After conducting the search, two reviewers removed duplicates and screened the titles and abstracts independently. All potentially relevant references were evaluated detailedly to determine their eligibility. Studies meeting the following inclusion criteria were included in this meta-analysis: (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomized studies; (2) evaluated the association between MetS and pancreatic cancer risk; (3) reported relative risk (RR) and a 95% confidence interval (CI) or provided data for their calculation. Articles were excluded if they were: (1) reviews, letters, editorials and case reports; (2) studies without appropriate data that could be extracted or calculated. For multiple publications from the same population, only the most comprehensive ones were included. Any disagreements in study selection were settled by discussion between the two reviewers and, if needed, in consultation with a third reviewer.
Data extraction and quality assessment
Data was extracted by two reviewers independently. The following data were collected from each study: publication data (ie, first author’s name, publication year, and study location), study design, sample size, definition of MetS, follow-up, RR and 95% CI, and adjusting factors. When multiple estimates of effect (RR) were presented, the most adjusted one was extracted; when adjusted estimate was not available, crude estimate was extracted. Studies reporting different measures of RR, including odds ratio, hazard ratio, and standardized incidence ratio, were included in this meta-analysis. Actually, these effect measures yield similar estimates of RR because of the low prevalence of pancreatic cancer.
The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated by three reviewers independently. Since all included studies were non-randomized studies, their methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS) [51], which uses a star system ranging from 0 to 9 stars. Studies that awarded 7 or more stars were considered high quality.
Statistical analysis
The RRs from individual eligible studies were combined to give a pooled RR. The Chi-square (χ2, or Chi2) and I2 test were used to measure heterogeneity. When significant heterogeneity (p value < 0.10 or I2 > 50 %) was found, a random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled effect; otherwise, a fixed-effects model was applied. To assess the stability of the results, we performed the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis. Publication bias was not evaluated in this meta-analysis given the limited number of studies [52, 53]. All analyses were performed using Stata version 12.0 software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX). For all tests, a two-sided p value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
FUNDING
This study was funded by Harbin Medical University Research and Development Project of scientific achievement transformation, the mechanism of CircRNA in the pathogenesis of colorectal cancer (No. 3002310000132).
REFERENCES
1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015; 136:E359–86.
2. Karim-Kos HE, de Vries E, Soerjomataram I, Lemmens V, Siesling S, Coebergh JW. Recent trends of cancer in Europe: a combined approach of incidence, survival and mortality for 17 cancer sites since the 1990s. Eur J Cancer. 2008; 44:1345–89.
3. Benassai G, Quarto G, Perrotta S, Furino E, Benassai GL, Amato B, Bianco T, De Palma G, Forestieri P. Long-term survival after curative resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma--Surgical treatment. Int J Surg. 2015; 21:S1–3.
4. Iodice S, Gandini S, Maisonneuve P, Lowenfels AB. Tobacco and the risk of pancreatic cancer: a review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2008; 393:535–45.
5. Tramacere I, Scotti L, Jenab M, Bagnardi V, Bellocco R, Rota M, Corrao G, Bravi F, Boffetta P, La Vecchia C. Alcohol drinking and pancreatic cancer risk: a meta-analysis of the dose-risk relation. Int J Cancer. 2010; 126:1474–86.
6. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Sweetland S, Spencer E. A meta-analysis of obesity and the risk of pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer. 2003; 89:519–23.
7. Hassan MM, Bondy ML, Wolff RA, Abbruzzese JL, Vauthey JN, Pisters PW, Evans DB, Khan R, Chou TH, Lenzi R, Jiao L, Li D. Risk factors for pancreatic cancer: case-control study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007; 102:2696–707.
8. Malik S, Wong ND, Franklin SS, Kamath TV, L’Italien GJ, Pio JR, Williams GR. Impact of the metabolic syndrome on mortality from coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease, and all causes in United States adults. Circulation. 2004; 110:1245–50.
9. O’Neill S, O’Driscoll L. Metabolic syndrome: a closer look at the growing epidemic and its associated pathologies. Obes Rev. 2015; 16:1–12.
10. Athyros VG, Ganotakis ES, Tziomalos K, Papageorgiou AA, Anagnostis P, Griva T, Kargiotis K, Mitsiou EK, Karagiannis A, Mikhailidis DP. Comparison of four definitions of the metabolic syndrome in a Greek (Mediterranean) population. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010; 26:713–9.
11. Alberti KG, Eckel RH, Grundy SM, Zimmet PZ, Cleeman JI, Donato KA, Fruchart JC, James WP, Loria CM, Smith SC Jr; International Diabetes Federation Task Force on Epidemiology and Prevention; Hational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; American Heart Association; World Heart Federation; International Atherosclerosis Society; International Association for the Study of Obesity. Harmonizing the metabolic syndrome: a joint interim statement of the International Diabetes Federation Task Force on Epidemiology and Prevention; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; American Heart Association; World Heart Federation; International Atherosclerosis Society; and International Association for the Study of Obesity. Circulation. 2009; 120:1640–5.
12. Grundy SM. Metabolic syndrome pandemic. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2008; 28:629–36.
13. Wang M, Cheng N, Zheng S, Wang D, Hu X, Ren X, Pei H, Ma H, Mu H, Bai Y. Metabolic syndrome and the risk of breast cancer among postmenopausal women in North-West China. Climacteric. 2015; 18:852–8.
14. Stocks T, Lukanova A, Bjørge T, Ulmer H, Manjer J, Almquist M, Concin H, Engeland A, Hallmans G, Nagel G, Tretli S, Veierød MB, Jonsson H, Stattin P; Metabolic Syndrome Cancer Project Me-Can Group. Metabolic factors and the risk of colorectal cancer in 580,000 men and women in the metabolic syndrome and cancer project (Me-Can). Cancer. 2011; 117:2398–407.
15. Zhang GM, Zhu Y, Dong DH, Han CT, Gu CY, Gu WJ, Qin XJ, Sun LJ, Ye DW. The association between metabolic syndrome and advanced prostate cancer in Chinese patients receiving radical prostatectomy. Asian J Androl. 2015; 17:839–44.
16. Song S, Wang B, Zhang X, Hao L, Hu X, Li Z, Sun S. Long-Term Diabetes Mellitus Is Associated with an Increased Risk of Pancreatic Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0134321.
17. Cowey S, Hardy RW. The metabolic syndrome: A high-risk state for cancer? Am J Pathol. 2006; 169:1505–22.
18. Matthews CE, Sui X, LaMonte MJ, Adams SA, Hébert JR, Blair SN. Metabolic syndrome and risk of death from cancers of the digestive system. Metabolism. 2010; 59:1231–9.
19. Wang DS, Wang ZQ, Zhang L, Qiu MZ, Luo HY, Ren C, Zhang DS, Wang FH, Li YH, Xu RH. Are risk factors associated with outcomes in pancreatic cancer? PLoS One. 2012; 7:e41984.
20. Bitzur R, Brenner R, Maor E, Antebi M, Ziv-Baran T, Segev S, Sidi Y, Kivity S. Metabolic syndrome, obesity, and the risk of cancer development. Eur J Intern Med. 2016; 34:89–93.
21. Harding J, Sooriyakumaran M, Anstey KJ, Adams R, Balkau B, Briffa T, Davis TM, Davis WA, Dobson A, Giles GG, Grant J, Knuiman M, Luszcz M, et al. The metabolic syndrome and cancer: Is the metabolic syndrome useful for predicting cancer risk above and beyond its individual components? Diabetes Metab. 2015; 41:463–9.
22. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Yun JE, Lee SY, Klein AP, Jee SH. Pancreatic cancer and factors associated with the insulin resistance syndrome in the Korean cancer prevention study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008; 17:359–64.
23. Wu Q, Chen G, Wu WM, Zhou L, You L, Zhang TP, Zhao YP. Metabolic syndrome components and risk factors for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a case-control study in China. Digestion. 2012; 86:294–301.
24. Russo A, Autelitano M, Bisanti L. Metabolic syndrome and cancer risk. Eur J Cancer. 2008; 44:293–7.
25. Inoue M, Noda M, Kurahashi N, Iwasaki M, Sasazuki S, Iso H, Tsugane S; Japan Public Health Center-based Prospective Study Group. Impact of metabolic factors on subsequent cancer risk: results from a large-scale population-based cohort study in Japan. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2009; 18:240–7.
26. Johansen D, Stocks T, Jonsson H, Lindkvist B, Björge T, Concin H, Almquist M, Häggström C, Engeland A, Ulmer H, Hallmans G, Selmer R, Nagel G, et al. Metabolic factors and the risk of pancreatic cancer: a prospective analysis of almost 580,000 men and women in the Metabolic Syndrome and Cancer Project. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010; 19:2307–17.
27. Rosato V, Tavani A, Bosetti C, Pelucchi C, Talamini R, Polesel J, Serraino D, Negri E, La Vecchia C. Metabolic syndrome and pancreatic cancer risk: a case-control study in Italy and meta-analysis. Metabolism. 2011; 60:1372–8.
28. Demierre MF, Higgins PD, Gruber SB, Hawk E, Lippman SM. Statins and cancer prevention. Nat Rev Cancer. 2005; 5:930–42.
29. Esposito K, Chiodini P, Capuano A, Bellastella G, Maiorino MI, Rafaniello C, Giugliano D. Metabolic syndrome and postmenopausal breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Menopause. 2013; 20:1301–9.
30. Esposito K, Chiodini P, Capuano A, Bellastella G, Maiorino MI, Rafaniello C, Panagiotakos DB, Giugliano D. Colorectal cancer association with metabolic syndrome and its components: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Endocrine. 2013; 44:634–47.
31. Esposito K, Chiodini P, Capuano A, Bellastella G, Maiorino MI, Parretta E, Lenzi A, Giugliano D. Effect of metabolic syndrome and its components on prostate cancer risk: meta-analysis. J Endocrinol Invest. 2013; 36:132–9.
32. Jinjuvadia R, Patel S, Liangpunsakul S. The association between metabolic syndrome and hepatocellular carcinoma: systemic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2014; 48:172–7.
33. Esposito K, Chiodini P, Capuano A, Bellastella G, Maiorino MI, Giugliano D. Metabolic syndrome and endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. Endocrine. 2014; 45:28–36.
34. Stephenson GD, Rose DP. Breast cancer and obesity: an update. Nutr Cancer. 2003; 45:1–16.
35. Goodman-Gruen D, Barrett-Connor E. Sex hormone-binding globulin and glucose tolerance in postmenopausal women. The Rancho Bernardo Study. Diabetes Care. 1997; 20:645–9.
36. Chan MT, Lim GE, Skovsø S, Yang YH, Albrecht T, Alejandro EU, Hoesli CA, Piret JM, Warnock GL, Johnson JD. Effects of insulin on human pancreatic cancer progression modeled in vitro. BMC Cancer. 2014; 14:814.
37. Zhang D, Cui L, Li SS, Wang F. Insulin and hypoxia-inducible factor-1 cooperate in pancreatic cancer cells to increase cell viability. Oncol Lett. 2015; 10:1545–50.
38. Mendonsa AM, Chalfant MC, Gorden LD, VanSaun MN. Modulation of the leptin receptor mediates tumor growth and migration of pancreatic cancer cells. PLoS One. 2015; 10:e0126686.
39. Fan Y, Gan Y, Shen Y, Cai X, Song Y, Zhao F, Yao M, Gu J, Tu H. Leptin signaling enhances cell invasion and promotes the metastasis of human pancreatic cancer via increasing MMP-13 production. Oncotarget. 2015; 6:16120–34. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.3878.
40. Hursting SD, Hursting MJ. Growth signals, inflammation, and vascular perturbations: mechanistic links between obesity, metabolic syndrome, and cancer. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Aug. 2012; 32:1766–70.
41. Micucci C, Valli D, Matacchione G, Catalano A. Current perspectives between metabolic syndrome and cancer. Oncotarget. 2016; 7:38959–72. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.8341.
42. Valko M, Izakovic M, Mazur M, Rhodes CJ, Telser J. Role of oxygen radicals in DNA damage and cancer incidence. Mol Cell Biochem. 2004; 266:37–56.
43. Di Chiara T, Argano C, Corrao S, Scaglione R, Licata G. Hypoadiponectinemia: A Link between Visceral Obesity and Metabolic Syndrome. J Nutr Metab. 2012; 2012:175245.
44. Caselli C. Role of adiponectin system in insulin resistance. Mol Genet Metab. 2014; 113:155–60.
45. Rojas E, Rodríguez-Molina D, Bolli P, Israili ZH, Faría J, Fidilio E, Bermúdez V, Velasco M. The role of adiponectin in endothelial dysfunction and hypertension. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2014; 16:463.
46. Shrestha A, Nepal S, Kim MJ, Chang JH, Kim SH, Jeong GS, Jeong CH, Park GH, Jung S, Lim J, Cho E, Lee S, Park PH. Critical Role of AMPK/FoxO3A Axis in Globular Adiponectin-Induced Cell Cycle Arrest and Apoptosis in Cancer Cells. J Cell Physiol. 2016; 231:357–69.
47. Otani K, Ishihara S, Yamaguchi H, Murono K, Yasuda K, Nishikawa T, Tanaka T, Kiyomatsu T, Hata K, Kawai K, Nozawa H, Watanabe T. Adiponectin and colorectal cancer. Surg Today. 2017; 47:151–8.
48. Hebbard L, Ranscht B. Multifaceted roles of adiponectin in cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. Oncotarget. 2014; 5:4732–45. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.1963.
49. Huang B, Cheng X, Wang D, Peng M, Xue Z, Da Y, Zhang N, Yao Z, Li M, Xu A, Zhang R. Adiponectin promotes pancreatic cancer progression by inhibiting apoptosis via the activation of AMPK/Sirt1/PGC-1α signaling. Oncotarget. 2014; 5:4732–45. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.1963.
50. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010; 8:336–41.
51. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 1 March 2017.
52. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Schmid CH, Olkin I. The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ. 2006; 333:597–600.
53. Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, Carpenter J, Rücker G, Harbord RM, Schmid CH, Tetzlaff J, Deeks JJ, Peters J, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011; 343:d4002.
