TABLE 2.
Summary of evidence on the association between HCV and cancer
| Type of cancer | Type(s) of studiesa | Number of studies analyzed | No. of patients with HCV infection/total no. of patientsa | Quality of evidenceb |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary liver cancer | ||||
| Hepatocellular carcinoma | Retrospective and prospective cohort, case-control, and case series | 10 | 19,185/128,049 | High |
| Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma | Retrospective and prospective cohort, case-control, and case series | 11 | 5415/426,561 | High |
| Hematologic malignancy | ||||
| NHL | Retrospective and prospective cohort, case-control, and case series | 30 | 115,999/1,379,245 | High |
| Myelodysplastic syndrome | Case Control | 1 | 17,320/217,320 | Very Low |
| Waldenström macroglobulinemia | Retrospective cohort | 1 | 165/719,687 | Very low |
| Digestive cancers | ||||
| Pancreas | Retrospective and prospective cohort and case-control | 6 | 52,045/1,065,206 | Low |
| Esophagus | Retrospective cohort | 3 | 36/155,023 | Very low |
| Rectum | Retrospective cohort | 1 | 12/12,126 | Very low |
| Anus | Case-control | 1 | 4015/204,015 | Very low |
| Head and neck | Retrospective and prospective cohort and case-control | 5 | 637/185,522 | Low |
| Thyroid | Retrospective and prospective cohort and case-control | 7 | 11,613/1,091,516 | Very low |
| Kidney | Retrospective and prospective cohort and case-control | 7 | 36,633/398,051 | Very low |
| Prostate | Retrospective cohort and case-control | 3 | 283,428/562,556 | Very low |
| Lung | Retrospective cohort | 1 | 67/12,126 | Very low |
| Nonepithelial skin | Retrospective cohort and case-control | 1 | 6650/206,650 | Very low |
a
All studies are detailed in Supplementary Table 1.
b
The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.16 Using this approach, the quality of evidence is rated as high, moderate, low, or very low depending on the presence of 5 factors: type of evidence; quality of evidence; consistency of evidence; directness of evidence; and effect size based on the reported odds ratio, relative risk, or hazard ratio for comparison and the amplitude of the ratio. Meta-analyses were not taken into account when the quality of evidence was rated.