Table 1.
Summary of the Case-Control Studies on the Risk Factors Contributed to Nasopharyngeal Cancer
| Sources | Participant, Study location | Data collection method | Outcome measured | Adjusted OR estimates (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yong et al., (2017) | 290 cases and controls, Singapore | Questionnaire Interview |
Salted fish consumption | Monthly: OR = 1.41(0.88 –2.26) Weekly/daily: OR = 4.18 (1.69-10.38) |
| Ren et al., (2017) | 118 patients, 274 controls, China | Interviewed via telephone | salted fish consumption | Monthly: OR = 1.53 (0.85–2.73) Weekly: OR = 1.71 (0.93–3.17) |
| Ghosh et al., (2014) | 64 cases, 100 controls, India | Personal interview | Intake of salted fish | ORsaltedfish = 2.61 |
| Yong et al., (2017) | 290 cases and controls, Singapore | Questionnaire, Interview |
Salted meat | Monthly: OR = 2.04 (1.18 – 3.50) Weekly/daily: OR = 2.18 (0.97– 4.89) |
| Yong et al., (2017) | 290 cases and controls, Singapore | Questionnaire Interview |
Salted vegetable | Monthly: OR = 1.54 (0.99 – 2.39) Weekly/daily: OR = 3.70 (1.58 – 8.64) |
| Ghosh et al., (2014) | 64 cases, 100 controls, India |
Personal interview | Intake of smoked fish. | ORsmokedfish = 2.21 |
| Yong et al., (2017) | 290 cases and controls, Singapore | Questionnaire, Interview |
Intake of smoked fish | Monthly: OR = 0.84 (0.47 – 1.50) Weekly/daily: OR = 1.33 (0.30 – 5.96) |
| Ghosh et al., (2014) | 64 cases, 100 controls, India | Personal interview | Intake of smoked meat, | ORsmokemeat = 2.00 |
| Yong et al., (2017) | 290 cases and controls, Singapore | Questionnaire, Interview |
Intake of smoked meat | Monthly: OR = 0.75 (0.47–1.18) Weekly/daily: OR = 1.52 (0.55– 4.24) |
| Yong et al., (2017) | 290 cases and controls, Singapore | Questionnaire, Interview |
Smoking (currently vs ever-smoke) | Current smokers: OR = 4.50 (2.58–7.86) Former smokers: OR = 2.52 (1.54–4.12) |
| Ren et al., (2017) | 118 patients, 274 controls, China |
Interviewed via telephone | Smoking | 10-30 cigarettes: OR = 4.03 (1.11-14.68) < 30cigarettes: OR = 11.46 (1.26-103.91) |
| Xie et al., (2015) | 352 cases, 410 controls, Hong Kong | Questionnaire | Smoking (currently vs ex-smoker) | Currently smoking: ORadj = 1.67 (1.06-2.61) Ex-smoker: ORadj = 1.51 (0.94-2.41) |
| He et al., (2015) | 1,845 cases, 2,275 controls, Guangdong, China | Interview | Wood combustion, cigarette smoking, and family history, Incense burning | Frequent incense use: OR = 1.73 (1.43-2.09) Wood fuel use: OR = 1.95 (1.65-2.31) Incense burning and cigarette synergistic index (SI): OR = 1.67 (1.01-2.76) Wood fuel use and family history SI: OR = 1.77 (1.06-2.96) |
| Lourembam et al., (2015) | 105 cases, 115 controls, North-eastern India |
Interview | Smoked meat consumption, exposure to smoke, living in house with poor ventilation, and alcohol consumption | OR (95% CI) was not determined in the study. Only p-values were reported: Smoked meat consumption = p<0.00001 Exposure to smoke = p<0.0007 Living in house with poor ventilation = p<0.0032 Alcohol consumption = p<0.01 |
| Lakhanpal et al., (2014) | 120 patients, 100 controls, India | Questionnaire Interview |
Use of firewood, living in mud house, and consumption of alcohol | Use of fire wood: OR = 3.79 (1.97-7.30) Mud house: OR = 3.46 (1.19-10.08) Alcohol: OR = 2.11 (1.02-4.37) |
| Ekpanyaskul et al., (2015) | 327 cases, 327 controls, Thailand | Personal interview | Wood dust exposure | OR = 1.62 (1.03-2.74) |
| Ren et al., (2017). | 118 patients, 274 controls, China |
Interviewed via telephone | High school or higher Education level | OR = 0.58 (0.32–1.05) |
OR, Odds Ratio; CI, Confidence Interval.