Table 4.
Results for all B-cell non-Hodgkin lyphoma (NHL) by prediagnosis time interval: comparing early versus late biomarker sample collection
| Pre-diagnosis time interval |
||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meta-regression | ||||||||||
| Early (6–≥10 y)* | Late (0–5 y)* | comparison of | ||||||||
| Analyte | No. | OR (95% CI) | P | I2 (95% CI) | N | OR (95% CI) | P | I2 (95% CI) | early vs late ROR (95% CI) | P |
| IL-6† | 2 | 1.04 (0.89 to 1.21) | .645 | 0 (– to –) | 6 | 1.44 (1.00 to 2.08) | .052 | 87 (74 to 93) | 0.74 (0.39 to 1.40) | .352 |
| IL-10 | 3 | 1.10 (1.03 to 1.17) | .003 | 0 (0 to 34) | 6 | 1.12 (0.98 to 1.28) | .087 | 44 (0 to 78) | 0.98 (0.84 to 1.15) | .817 |
| TNF-α | 2 | 1.19 (1.05 to 1.34) | .005 | 0 (– to –) | 6 | 1.25 (1.01 to 1.54) | .038 | 85 (70 to 93) | 0.96 (0.67 to 1.36) | .813 |
| CXCL13 | 2 | 1.33 (0.67 to 2.62) | .411 | 96 (88 to 99) | 2 | 2.69 (2.20 to 3.28) | <.001 | 0 (– to –) | 0.50 (0.24 to 1.06) | .070 |
| sCD23 | 2 | 1.41 (0.98 to 2.01) | .061 | 92 (74 to 98) | 4 | 1.62 (1.21 to 2.15) | .001 | 89 (75 to 95) | 0.87 (0.54 to 1.39) | .559 |
| sCD27 | 4 | 1.50 (0.96 to 2.35) | .077 | 88 (71 to 95) | 6 | 2.64 (1.34 to 5.21) | .005 | 96 (93 to 97) | 0.58 (0.24 to 1.45) | .247 |
| sCD30 | 4 | 1.34 (1.00 to 1.80) | .047 | 87 (69 to 95) | 7 | 1.89 (1.28 to 2.79) | .001 | 94 (90 to 96) | 0.73 (0.42 to 1.27) | .262 |
The early category included studies that had categories with upper bounds of the time intervals that were greater than 10 years (e.g. intervals such as >7, 5–13, 9–13, 8–15, 15–23 years prior to diagnosis), whereas the late (0–5 year) category included studies with intervals that exceeded the upper bound of 5 years (e.g. 2–6, <7 years prior to diagnosis). For these analyses, estimates of associations covering both intervals completely, or nearly completely, were excluded. CI to confidence interval; OR to odds ratio.
The IL-6 analyses included Vendrame, 2014 (21) and Breen, 2011 (17) which contain completely overlapping study subjects, but different assay technologies. We include them here but not in the manuscript because the results are not substantially different with or without exclusion, and given the small sample size, the additional information dominates the small bias because of the lack of independence for our assessment of associations by prediagnosis time periods and their differences.