Abstract
Currently, there is no consensus on whether maintenance dialysis increases cancer risk in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Therefore, this study was to systematically evaluate the risk of cancer among ESRD patients undergoing maintenance dialysis. Related studies on the impact of maintenance dialysis on cancer risk were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and other databases from their respective inceptions to 19 February 2021. ESRD patients receiving maintenance dialysis were classified into cancer including non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) and cancer excluding NMSC. Standardized incidence ratio (SIR) with its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was calculated to assess cancer risk. Fourteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. The risk of cancer in patients undergoing maintenance dialysis (with or without NMSC) was significantly higher than controls both in cancer including NMSC (SIR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.27–1.49, P < 0.001) and cancer excluding NMSC (SIR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.23–1.47, P < 0.001). Subgroup results identified the higher risk of cancer incidence in both men and women receiving maintenance dialysis. Meanwhile, elevated excess risks were observed among patients with younger age and shorter follow-up time (P < 0.001). Meanwhile, the combined SIR of bladder, cervix, colorectum, kidney, liver, thyroid, tongue, and other cancers were all increased (P < 0.05). ESRD patients undergoing dialysis has higher risk of cancer.
Keywords: maintenance dialysis, cancer incidence, meta-analysis
1. Introduction
For patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD), chronic hemodialysis and renal replacement therapies are conventional treatment strategies. Following cardiovascular disease and infection, cancer became one of the most common reasons for death among ESRD patients. Although the underlying mechanism for the occurrence of cancers has not yet been fully clarified, several hypotheses related with dialysis factors has been put forward, such as altered DNA repair and methylation [1], uremia-induced immune dysfunction [2], and elevated specific carcinogen levels [3].
The investigation of cancer risk among patients undergoing dialysis has been widely designed; however, the conclusion remains inconsistent. A previous study involving 52,105 dialysis patients confirmed the higher cancer incidence rate as compared with non-dialysis patients, and the risk of cancers was dominated in younger and female patients [4]. Among Asian populations, 2,352 newly diagnosed cancers out of 40,833 ESRD patients who underwent maintenance dialysis have been reported [5], and elevated cancer occurrence was among older, male, and chronic liver disease. Furthermore, previous evidence showed controversial conclusion on the risk of specific cancer. For example, Butler et al. demonstrated that significantly elevated risk of cancers of the kidney/renal pelvis and bladder [6]. However, studies have reported that maintenance dialysis would significantly increase the risks of kidney cancer, skin non-melanoma cancer, and oral cavity cancer [7,8].
Of the various studies researching on the analyzed cancer in ESRD patients, skin cancer was rarely investigated. Moreover, in many countries, non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) has not been included in cancer registries [9,10]. Thus, in our study, the maintenance dialysis patients were classified into cancer including NMSC and cancer excluding NMSC. Furthermore, subgroup analysis stratified by gender, first dialysis age, follow-up time, and region was designed to systematically evaluate the risk of cancer among patients undergoing maintenance dialysis. Additionally, according to the type of cancer, the standardized incidence ratio (SIR) with its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) corresponding to each cancer was also summarized. Finally, our data showed ESRD patients undergoing dialysis had higher risk of cancer, especially among younger patients and those undergoing shorter time of dialysis.
2. Methods
2.1. Selection strategy
A literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases without language restriction. The following key words were used in the study selection: dialysis, hemodialysis, renal dialysis, neoplasms, cancer, carcinoma, “cohort study” OR “cross sectional studies” OR “case control studies” till 19 February 2021. The search strategy in the three databases is shown in Tables A1–A3. Moreover, in order to enroll more research studies, print-out literatures were also searched. Additionally, we further retrieved the references of included articles and reviews.
2.2. Study selection
The studies including prospective, retrospective cohort studies, case–control studies, cross-sectional studies, and other research types without language limitations in accordance with the following inclusion criteria would be included: [1] the subjects of the study are adult (≥18 years old) patients undergoing maintenance dialysis lasting for 3 months or more, [2] the outcomes of patients are cancers, and [3] the literature reports one or more of the following outcomes: SIR (the ratio of observed to expected cancers) of all cancers, SIR of each subgroup (such as gender, age of first dialysis, follow-up time, region, etc.), and the specific SIR of each type of cancer.
Exclusion criteria included: [1] patients who have had cancer or kidney transplantation before dialysis treatment, [2] the non-research articles, such as reviews, comments, and conference summaries, [3] the studies that lack sufficient data for meta-analysis due to incomplete data, and [4] duplicated studies or same data used in multiple articles (only included the study with the most complete information).
2.3. Data extraction
Based on the designed criteria, studies were screened by two investigators (X.X. and F.L.) independently. According to the standardized form, the following information were extracted: the basic information of the included study, including the first author, study area, year of publication, basic characteristics of the study object (including sample size, age, gender, etc.), follow-up time, and outcome indicators.
After both of them have completed the above data extraction work, they would exchange the review and extraction forms. If there were any inconsistencies, they would discuss with the third person (R.F.H.).
2.4. Statistical analysis
The cancers were divided into two categories: cancer including NMSC and cancer excluding NMSC. SIR with its 95% CI extracted from the original text were combined to investigate the risk of cancers. Heterogeneity among individual studies was assessed using Cochran’s Q test and I 2 test [11]. P < 0.05 and/or I 2 > 50% suggested obvious heterogeneity existed among the studies, and the random effects model would be selected to calculate the pooled data; otherwise, the fixed effect model was selected (P ≥ 0.05 and I 2 ≤ 50%).
Subgroup analysis stratified by gender, first dialysis age, follow-up time, and region was designed both in the group of cancer including NMSC and cancer excluding NMSC to explore the influence of these factors on heterogeneity and combined results. In addition, the SIR (95% CI) corresponding to each cancer was summarized according to the type of cancer.
Sensitivity analysis was performed through omitting one study each time to investigate the stability of the results. Finally, the Egger test was used to evaluate whether there was significant publication bias among the included studies. All statistical analysis was performed using Stata12.0 software.
3. Results
3.1. Studies selection
The detailed information associated with search process is shown in Figure 1. In this study, a total of 9,730 studies were first searched, including 2,747 articles in PubMed, 6,506 articles in Embase, and 477 articles in the Cochrane library. After removing 1,797 duplicated documents, there were 7,933 articles remaining. We excluded 7,881 articles after browsing the titles and reading the abstract. Then, total 52 articles were fully reviewed and 38 articles were excluded (23 studies did not provide SIR, nine studies did not provide interested outcomes, five studies did not involve dialysis patients, and one study was duplicated article). No study was screened out from print-out literatures. Finally, 14 articles were included in this meta-analysis [6,12–24].
Figure 1.
The detailed flow chart of study selection.
3.2. Characteristics of included studies
As shown in Table 1, a total of 14 cohort studies were included in this meta-analysis [6,12–24]. The included studies were published from 1989 to 2017 and researched in various countries, including China, America, Japan, as well as Italy. In total, 1,596,525 subjects including 867,964 males and 728,561 females with median age 48.7–70 were included in the study, and the size of subjects in each study ranged from 912 to 521,404. These subjects were followed up 2.3–4.9 years. Among them, the study by Lee et al. [17] did not report the SIR of cancer, but reported the risk of cancer at different follow-up times. The study by Wang et al. [23] only reported the SIR of skin cancer (NMSC, melanoma). The data of three cohorts (Australia and New Zealand, Europe, United States) were reported in the study by Maisonneuve et al. [20], and three studies also reported SIR (95% CI) for both cancers including NMSC and cancer excluding NMSC [12,14,16].
Table 1.
Characteristics of 14 included studies in this meta-analysis
| Study | Country | Study period | n, M/F | Age, years | Mean follow-up time, years | Person- years | Cancer including NMSC | No. of cancer | SIR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Birkeland et al., 2000 | Denmark | NR-1995 | 3,592, 2,154/1,438 | 50.2 ± 17.2 | 2.3 ± 2.5 | 8,043 | Yes | 110 | 1.40 (1.15, 1.68) |
| No | 77 | 1.16 (0.92, 1.45) | |||||||
| Butler et al., 2015 | United States | 1996–2009 | 482,510, 259,206/223,304 | Median 67 | Median 2.5 | 988,395 | No | 35,767 | 1.42 (1.41, 1.43) |
| Cheung et al., 2016 | China | 1994–2014 | 6,254, 3,403/2,851 | 64.0 ± 13.0 | 2.4 (0.16, 20.1) | 14,887 | Yes | 220 | 1.44 (1.26, 1.65) |
| Hortlund, M 2017 | Denmark | 1977–2011 | 24,698, 15,346/9,352 | Mean 61 | 3.2 | 79,881 | Yes | 1,713 | 1.55 (1.48, 1.62) |
| No | 1,463 | 1.40 (1.33, 1.47) | |||||||
| Lee et al., 2009 | Korea | 1996–2005 | 4,562, 2,760/1,802 | 50.7 ± 14.6 | 3.6 ± 3.9 | NR | No | 106 | NR |
| Lin et al., 2012 | China | 1997–2008 | 92,348, 44,825/47,523 | 60.4 ± 14.8 | 4.4 | 409,909 | Yes | 4,328 | 1.4 (1.3, 1.4) |
| Loy et al., 2013 | Singapore | 1998–2007 | 5,505, 2,875/2,630 | 58.1 ± 13.0 | Median 3.9 | NR | No | 267 | 1.66 (1.42, 1.95) |
| Maisonneuve et al., 1999 | Australia and New Zealand | 1980–1994 | 13,497, 7,513/5,984 | Mean 48.7 | 2.5 | 34,456 | No | 500 | 1.8 (1.7, 2.0) |
| Europe | 296,903,173,375/123,528 | Mean 51.8 | 2.2 | 858,532 | No | 6,849 | 1.10 (1.07, 1.13) | ||
| United States | 521,404, 278,348/243,056 | Mean 57.8 | 2.9 | 1,152,047 | No | 17,695 | 1.2 (1.18, 1.22) | ||
| Mazzucotelli et al., 2017 | Italy | 1997–2012 | 912, 597/315 | Median 55.5 | 2.5 (1.4, 3.5)$ | 2,400 | Yes | 24 | 1.4 (0.9, 2.1) |
| Port et al., 1989 | United States | 1973–1984 | 4,161, 2,363/1,798 | Mean 52 | NR | NR | No | 63 | 1.12 (0.86, 1.43) |
| Stewart et al., 2009 | Australia | 1982–2003 | 23,764, 12,833/10,931 | Mean 54.5 | 2.7 | 63,431 | No | 1,018 | 1.45 (1.36, 1.54) |
| Taborelli et al., 2019 | Italy | 1998–2013 | 3,407, 2,126/1,281 | 70 (6,177)$ | 2.3 (1.0, 4.5)$ | 10,798 | Yes | 330 | 1.29 (1.15, 1.43) |
| No | 249 | 1.17 (1.03, 1.32) | |||||||
| Wang et al., 2016 | China | 2000–2013 | 79,668, 39,698/39,970 | 64.0 ± 13.2 | 4.95 ± 3.48 | 394,109 | NMSC | 248 | 1.58 (1.39, 1.79) |
| Melanoma | 22 | 1.44 (0.91, 2.19) | |||||||
| Yoo et al., 2017 | Korea | 2008–2014 | 5,235, 3,070/2,165 | 56.3 ± 13.2 | NR | 7,835.07 | Yes | 66 | 0.94 (0.73, 1.20) |
F, female; M, male; NMSC, non-melanoma skin cancer; NR, not reported; SIR, standardized incidence ratio; $median (interquartile range).
3.3. Higher overall cancer risk in patients receiving maintenance dialysis
As shown in Figure 2, seven studies reported the risk of cancer including NMSC, and ten studies reported the risk of cancer excluding NMSC. Significant heterogeneity was observed both in the two groups (cancer including NMSC: I 2 = 78.4%, P < 0.001; cancer excluding NMSC: I 2 = 98.6%, P < 0.001), thus the random effects model was chosen for meta-analysis. Results showed that the risk of cancer in maintenance dialysis patients (regardless of whether NMSC was included) was significantly higher than the predicted value both in cancer including NMSC (SIR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.27–1.49, P < 0.001) and cancer excluding NMSC (SIR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.23–1.47, P < 0.001).
Figure 2.
Forest plot for meta-analyzing the risk of cancer among maintenance hemodialysis patients.
3.4. Cancer risk assessment in subgroup analysis
As shown in Table 2, significant higher risk of cancer in both men (SIR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.17–1.48, P < 0.001) and women (SIR = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.47–1.67, P < 0.001) in the group of cancer including NMSC, and the difference between the two groups was significant (P = 0.010). Although significant higher risk of cancer in both males (SIR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.08–1.49, P = 0.05) and females (SIR = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.28–1.76; P < 0.001), the difference on the risk of cancer incidence between the two groups was not significant (P = 0.140).
Table 2.
Subgroup analyses of overall cancer risk in dialysis patients
| Subgroup | Cancer including NMSC | Cancer excluding NMSC | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. studies | Pooled SIR (95% CI) | P-valueA | Heterogeneity | No. studies | Pooled SIR (95% CI) | P-valueA | Heterogeneity | |||
| I 2 (%) | P-valueH | I 2 (%) | P-valueH | |||||||
| Gender | 0.010 | 0.140# | ||||||||
| Male | 5 | 1.32 (1.17, 1.48) | <0.001 | 81.4 | <0.001 | 5 | 1.26 (1.08, 1.49) | 0.005 | 95.8 | <0.001 |
| Female | 5 | 1.57 (1.47, 1.67) | <0.001 | 25.4 | 0.252 | 5 | 1.50 (1.28, 1.76) | <0.001 | 95.0 | <0.001 |
| Age at first dialysis, years | <0.001# | <0.001# | ||||||||
| 18–34 | 1 | 9.20 (5.30, 16.00) | <0.001 | NA | NA | 4 | 4.09 (2.59, 6.47) | <0.001 | 93.0 | <0.001 |
| 35–64 | 2 | 2.71 (1.58, 4.65) | <0.001 | 98.2 | <0.001 | 4 | 1.88 (1.41, 2.50) | <0.001 | 96.9 | <0.001 |
| ≥65 | 2 | 0.80 (0.75, 0.85) | <0.001 | 0.0 | 0.910 | 4 | 1.21 (1.11, 1.32) | <0.001 | 78.2 | <0.001 |
| Follow-up time, years | <0.001# | 0.005# | ||||||||
| <1 | 3 | 8.31 (7.71, 8.96) | <0.001 | 0.0 | 0.954 | 5 | 1.95 (1.45, 2.62) | <0.001 | 98.6 | <0.001 |
| 1–2 | 3 | 2.64 (1.64, 4.29) | <0.001 | 92.7 | <0.001 | 5 | 1.36 (1.17, 1.58) | <0.001 | 94.3 | <0.001 |
| 2–5 | 3 | 1.52 (1.12, 2.06) | 0.001 | 97.6 | <0.001 | 5 | 1.29 (1.09, 1.52) | 0.002 | 95.8 | <0.001 |
| >5 | 3 | 0.76 (0.45, 1.29) | 0.309 | 96.7 | <0.001 | 5 | 1.11 (0.97, 1.26) | 0.129 | 92.4 | <0.001 |
| Area | 0.360# | 0.014# | ||||||||
| Asian | 3 | 1.29 (1.10, 1.53) | 0.002 | 79.8 | 0.007 | 1 | 1.66 (1.42, 1.95) | <0.001 | NA | NA |
| Non-Asian | 4 | 1.42 (1.26, 1.61) | <0.001 | 70.0 | 0.019 | 9 | 1.32 (1.20, 1.44) | <0.001 | 98.8 | <0.001 |
A P-value for test of the association; H P-value for the heterogeneity within each subgroup; NA, not available; NMSC, non-melanoma skin cancer; SIR, standardized incidence ratio.
# P-value for test of difference of subgroups.
According to the age of first dialysis, the study subjects were divided into three groups (18–34, 35–64, ≥65 year), and the difference of cancer risk between cancer including NMSC and cancer excluding NMSC were statistically significant (P < 0.001). The risk of cancer showed age-dependent trend (P < 0.001). Similarly, the combined results of follow-up time showed a similar trend (P < 0.001). Notably, after a follow-up time of more than 5 years, the pooling SIR (95% CI) of cancer including NMSC and cancer excluding NMSC was not statistically significant (P > 0.05), suggesting that the follow-up time might be one of sources for the significant heterogeneity among cancer including NMSC and cancer excluding NMSC.
Significant higher cancer risk was observed both in Asian subgroup and non-Asian subgroup (P < 0.001). However, the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant in cancer including NMSC (P = 0.360), and significant difference was calculated for cancer excluding NMSC (P = 0.014).
The specific cancers risk assessment is shown in Table 3, and the results showed that the risk of breast cancer, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, leukemia, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, gastric cancer, and uterine cancer were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Notably, significant higher risk of bladder, cervix, colorectal, kidney, liver, thyroid, tongue and other cancers, melanoma, myeloma, and NMSC was observed as compared with healthy control (P < 0.05). Except for liver cancer and melanoma (I 2 > 50.0%, P < 0.05), there was no significant heterogeneity across the included studies (I 2 < 50.0%, P > 0.05).
Table 3.
Pooled risks of specific cancer types in dialysis patients
| Type/site of cancer | No. studies | Pooled SIR (95% CI) | P-valueA | Heterogeneity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I 2 (%) | P-valueH | ||||
| Bladder | 14 | 2.30 (1.78, 2.96) | <0.001 | 96.6 | <0.001 |
| Breast (F) | 12 | 1.18 (0.96, 1.44) | 0.124 | 96.8 | <0.001 |
| Cervix of uterus (F) | 8 | 1.86 (1.26, 2.75) | 0.002 | 91.4 | <0.001 |
| Colorectal | 6 | 1.18 (1.02, 1.36) | 0.028 | 80.9 | <0.001 |
| HL | 5 | 1.53 (0.98, 2.39) | 0.065 | 60.7 | 0.037 |
| Kidney | 14 | 4.84 (4.14, 5.65) | <0.001 | 92.5 | <0.001 |
| Leukemia | 7 | 1.04 (0.64, 1.71) | 0.865 | 94.1 | <0.001 |
| Liver | 8 | 1.41 (1.29, 1.54) | <0.001 | 11.9 | 0.337 |
| Lung | 11 | 1.06 (0.87, 1.29) | 0.552 | 97.9 | <0.001 |
| Melanoma | 5 | 1.51 (1.22, 1.87) | <0.001 | 0.0 | 0.543 |
| Myeloma | 8 | 3.38 (2.54, 4.50) | <0.001 | 86.9 | <0.001 |
| NMSC | 6 | 2.45 (1.36, 4.43) | 0.003 | 97.7 | <0.001 |
| NHL | 12 | 1.23 (0.99, 1.54) | 0.066 | 85.3 | <0.001 |
| Pancreas | 4 | 1.27 (0.88, 1.84) | 0.209 | 74.8 | 0.008 |
| Prostate (M) | 12 | 0.91 (0.76, 1.09) | 0.294 | 92.6 | <0.001 |
| Stomach | 9 | 1.10 (0.82, 1.50) | 0.522 | 94.7 | <0.001 |
| Thyroid | 10 | 3.16 (2.16, 4.63) | <0.001 | 86.9 | <0.001 |
| Tongue | 6 | 1.86 (1.46, 2.37) | <0.001 | 49.8 | 0.076 |
| Uterus (F) | 8 | 1.05 (0.82, 1.35) | 0.691 | 59.8 | 0.015 |
A P value for test of the association; H P-value for the heterogeneity within each subgroup.
F, female; M, male; HL, Hodgkin lymphoma; NHL, non-Hodgkin lymphoma; SIR, standardized incidence ratio.
3.5. Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis of overall risk of cancer assessment was carried out. When we omitted each study among the studies researching on cancer including NMSC, the pooled SIR ranged from 1.33 to 1.43 (Figure 3a). When we omitted one study out of studies researching on cancer excluding NMSC, the pooled SIR ranged from 1.30 to 1.38 (Figure 3b), suggesting that the combined results of cancer including NMSC and cancer excluding NMSC are stable.
Figure 3.
Sensitivity analysis of meta-analyzing the cancer risk among patients with cancer including NMSC and patients with cancer excluding NMSC. (a) Cancer including NMSC and (b) cancer excluding NMSC.
4. Discussion
In the present meta-analysis, 14 cohort studies were included. The risk of cancer in patients undergoing maintenance dialysis was significantly higher than the predicted value. Moreover, the subgroup results indicated that the risk of cancer in both men and women receiving maintenance dialysis was higher than general population. Among cancer including NMSC patients, the risk of cancer was significantly higher in female than that in male. Notably, elevated cancer risks were observed among patients with younger age and shorter follow-up time, and significantly increased risk of bladder, cervix, colorectum, kidney, liver, thyroid, and tongue were calculated among patients undergoing dialysis.
The increased cancer risks among patients undergoing dialysis had been reported previously in other industrialized countries [18–20], such as Asia [17,18], Australia/New Zealand [22], United States [6], and northern Europe [16]. Although previous evidence confirmed the higher risk of cancer development in patients undergoing dialysis, the mechanism involved in the association has not been completely clarified. The following hypothesis might be reasons for the increased cancer incidence. Uremic toxins was involved in chronic inflammation, oxidative stress damage, and immune damage, and loss of renal excretion function might lead to accumulation of carcinogenic compounds [25,26]. In addition, pro-oxidative damage in uremia might be related with the increased cancer development introduced by the activation of chronic inflammation-related complement, cytokine production, and neutrophil aggregation [27]. Furthermore, maintenance dialysis might lead to damaged DNA repair mechanism [28] and immune dysfunction [29,30]. Therefore, it is necessary for chronic dialysis patients to assess the tumor occurrence regularly in the daily clinical management.
Further, subgroup analysis demonstrated that the occurrence of cancer risk decreased significantly with the increase of dialysis age and follow-up time. The following reasons might be responsible for the age-related association. As compared with older patients, younger patients had significantly higher chance for developing cancer, and their immune defenses were more easily affected by virus-related malignancies [3,18]. Meanwhile, for elderly dialysis patients, some chronic illnesses, such as comorbidities and frailty would cause their death before cancer development. Our data showed that, until the follow-up time of more than 5 years, no significant difference on cancer risk between ESRD patients and general population was observed. Meanwhile, with the duration of dialysis, the cancer risk decreased significantly. It may be that the cancer has not caused clinical signs prior to dialysis treatment. Therefore, these data reminded us that the cancer detection should be paid more attention among younger patients and patients in the early years of dialysis.
Obvious heterogeneity was calculated in the present meta-analysis. Although subgroup analysis was designed to explore the potential source of heterogeneity, other related factors associated with cancer development could not be performed. Especially, with the development of clinical technology, various types of hemodiafiltration have been used in clinic, including routine on-line hemodiafiltration, high-flux hemodialysis, and hemofiltration. Previous data showed differential clinical efficiency among patients [31,32]. However, according to limited information, subgroup analysis stratified by hemodiafiltration types could not be performed. Thus, further study should be recommended to explore the type of hemodiafiltration on the cancer risk. However, the sensitive analysis confirmed the stability of the conclusion.
Some other limitations should also be noted in the present meta-analysis. First, it is widely known that the development of cancers are related with various independent factors, such as smoking, dietary habit, alcohol consumption, and life style [33,34]. However, most of these information have not been collected. Thus, the confounding effect of these factors could not be thoroughly evaluated. Second, the subgroup analysis was stratified by first dialysis age and follow-up time, while these could not be analyzed in the general population.
5. Conclusions
In summary, our data supported the need of monitoring the development of cancer among ESRD patients undergoing dialysis, especially among younger patients and patients undergoing shorter time of dialysis. However, the current evidence was retrieved from retrospective studies, and it is recommended to conduct high-quality studies with larger sample size for verification.
Appendix
Table A1.
Selection strategy and results in PubMed (the retrieval time: 2021/02/19)
| Search | Query | Items found |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | “dialysis”[MeSH Terms] OR “dialysis”[tiab] OR “renal dialysis”[MeSH Terms] OR “renal dialysis”[tiab] OR “hemodialysis”[tiab] | 195,998 |
| #2 | “neoplasms”[MeSH Terms] OR “neoplasms”[tiab] OR “cancer”[tiab] OR “cancers”[tiab] OR “carcinoma”[MeSH Terms] OR “carcinoma”[tiab] OR “carcinomas”[tiab] | 4,038,934 |
| #3 | #1 AND #2 | 8,098 |
| #4 | “cross sectional studies”[MeSH Terms] OR “cross sectional studies”[tiab] OR “cohort studies”[MeSH Terms] OR “cohort study”[tiab] OR “longitudinal studies”[MeSH Terms] OR “longitudinal study”[tiab] OR “prospective”[tiab] OR “prospectively”[tiab] OR “retrospective studies”[MeSH Terms] OR “retrospective study”[tiab] OR “case-controlled”[tiab] OR “case control studies”[MeSH Terms] OR “case control study”[tiab] OR “risk”[tiab] OR “incidence”[tiab] | 4,817,105 |
| #5 | #3 AND #4 | 2,747 |
Table A2.
Selection strategy and results in Embase (the retrieval time: 2021/02/19)
| Search | Query | Items found |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | (‘dialysis’/exp OR dialysis:ti,ab OR ‘renal dialysis’/exp OR ‘renal dialysis’:ti,ab OR ‘hemodialysis’/exp OR ‘hemodialysis’:ti,ab) | 228,807 |
| #2 | (‘neoplasms’/exp OR ‘neoplasms’:ti,ab OR ‘cancer’/exp OR ‘cancer’:ti,ab OR ‘cancers’:ti,ab OR ‘carcinoma’/exp OR ‘carcinoma’:ti,ab OR ‘carcinomas’:ti,ab) | 4,542,487 |
| #3 | #1 AND #2 | 17,060 |
| #4 | (‘cross-sectional study’/exp OR ‘cross-sectional study’:ti,ab OR cohort:ti,ab OR prospective:ti,ab OR retrospective:ti,ab OR ‘case-controlled’:ti,ab OR risk:ti,ab OR ‘incidence’/exp OR incidence:ti,ab) | 5,022,690 |
| #5 | #3 AND #4 | 6,506 |
Table A3.
Selection strategy and results in the Cochrane library (the retrieval time: 2021/02/19)
| Search | Query | Items found |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | MeSH descriptor: [Dialysis] explode all trees | 24 |
| #2 | MeSH descriptor: [Renal Dialysis] explode all trees | 5,178 |
| #3 | (“dialysis” OR “renal dialysis” OR “hemodialysis”):ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched) | 18,825 |
| #4 | #1 OR #2 OR #3 | 19,033 |
| #5 | MeSH descriptor: [Neoplasms] explode all trees | 80,788 |
| #6 | MeSH descriptor: [Carcinoma] explode all trees | 13,713 |
| #7 | (“neoplasm” OR “neoplasms” OR “cancer” OR “cancers” OR “carcinoma” OR “carcinomas”):ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched) | 193,852 |
| #8 | #4 AND #7 | 490 |
| #9 | #8 in Trials | 477 |
Footnotes
Funding information: This study was supported by the Intervention effect of elastic band resistance exercise on dialysis hypotension in elderly patients (No. 2017-ZRQN-132).
Author contributions: Conception and design of the research: R.F.H. and X.X.; acquisition of data: F.L., Y.X.Y., and L.S.X.; analysis and interpretation of data: R.F.H. and X.X.; statistical analysis: R.F.H. and X.X.; obtaining funding: X.X.; drafting the manuscript: R.F.H. and X.X.; revision of manuscript for important intellectual content: S.T.O. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest.
Data availability statement: The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Contributor Information
Santao Ou, Email: 422216756@qq.com.
Rongfang He, Email: a876683044@163.com.
References
- [1].Ingrosso D, Perna AF. DNA methylation dysfunction in chronic kidney disease. Genes. 2020;11(7):811. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- [2].Lisowska KA, Storoniak H, Dębska-Ślizień A. T cell subpopulations and cytokine levels in hemodialysis patients. Hum Immunol. 2022;83(2):134–43. [DOI] [PubMed]
- [3].Kitchlu A, McArthur E, Amir E, Booth CM, Sutradhar R, Majeed H, et al. Acute kidney injury in patients receiving systemic treatment for cancer: a population-based cohort study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;111(7):727–36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- [4].Lin MY, Kuo MC, Hung CC, Wu WJ, Chen LT, Yu ML, et al. Association of dialysis with the risks of cancers. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0122856. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- [5].Chien CC, Han MM, Chiu YH, Wang JJ, Chu CC, Hung CY, et al. Epidemiology of cancer in end-stage renal disease dialysis patients: a national cohort study in Taiwan. J Cancer. 2017;8(1):9–18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- [6].Butler AM, Olshan AF, Kshirsagar AV, Edwards JK, Nielsen ME, Wheeler SB, et al. Cancer incidence among US Medicare ESRD patients receiving hemodialysis, 1996–2009. Am J Kidney Dis. 2015;65(5):763–72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- [7].Taborelli M, Toffolutti F, Del Zotto S, Clagnan E, Furian L, Piselli P, et al. Increased cancer risk in patients undergoing dialysis: a population-based cohort study in North-Eastern Italy. BMC Nephrol. 2019;20(1):1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- [8].Collins L, Asfour L, Stephany M, Lear J, Stasko T. Management of non-melanoma skin cancer in transplant recipients. Clin Oncol. 2019;31(11):779–88. [DOI] [PubMed]
- [9].Ciążyńska M, Kamińska-Winciorek G, Lange D, Lewandowski B, Reich A, Sławińska M, et al. The incidence and clinical analysis of non-melanoma skin cancer. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- [10].Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, Mathers C, Parkin DM, Piñeros M, et al. Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. Int J Cancer. 2019;144(8):1941–53. [DOI] [PubMed]
- [11].Goldfarb I, Accenture A, Mitchell, Kotler P. Application of criterion I2 in clinical trials using SAS®; 2019.
- [12].Birkeland SA, Lokkegaard H, Storm HH. Cancer risk in patients on dialysis and after renal transplantation. Lancet. 2000;355(9218):1886–7. [DOI] [PubMed]
- [13].Mazzucotelli V, Piselli P, Verdirosi D, Cimaglia C, Cancarini G, Serraino D, et al. De novo cancer in patients on dialysis and after renal transplantation: North-western Italy, 1997–2012. J Nephrol. 2017;30(6):851–7. [DOI] [PubMed]
- [14].Taborelli M, Toffolutti F, Del Zotto S, Clagnan E, Furian L, Piselli P, et al. Increased cancer risk in patients undergoing dialysis: a population-based cohort study in North-Eastern Italy. BMC Nephrol. 2019;20(1):107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- [15].Cheung CY, Chan GC, Chan SK, Ng F, Lam MF, Wong SS, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality in chronic dialysis population: a multicenter cohort study. Am J Nephrol. 2016;43(3):153–9. [DOI] [PubMed]
- [16].Hortlund M, Arroyo Muhr LS, Storm H, Engholm G, Dillner J, Bzhalava D. Cancer risks after solid organ transplantation and after long-term dialysis. Int J Cancer. 2017;140(5):1091–101. [DOI] [PubMed]
- [17].Lee JE, Han SH, Cho BC, Park JT, Yoo TH, Kim BS, et al. Cancer in patients on chronic dialysis in Korea. J Korean Med Sci. 2009;24(Suppl):S95–S101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- [18].Lin HF, Li YH, Wang CH, Chou CL, Kuo DJ, Fang TC. Increased risk of cancer in chronic dialysis patients: a population-based cohort study in Taiwan. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27(4):1585–90. [DOI] [PubMed]
- [19].Loy EY, Choong HL, Chow KY. Cancer among end-stage renal disease patients on dialysis. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2013;42(12):640–5. [PubMed]
- [20].Maisonneuve P, Agodoa L, Gellert R, Stewart JH, Buccianti G, Lowenfels AB, et al. Cancer in patients on dialysis for end-stage renal disease: an international collaborative study. Lancet. 1999;354(9173):93–9. [DOI] [PubMed]
- [21].Port FK, Ragheb NE, Schwartz AG, Hawthorne VM. Neoplasms in dialysis patients: a population-based study. Am J Kidney Dis. 1989;14(2):119–23. [DOI] [PubMed]
- [22].Stewart JH, Vajdic CM, van Leeuwen MT, Amin J, Webster AC, Chapman JR, et al. The pattern of excess cancer in dialysis and transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2009;24(10):3225–31. [DOI] [PubMed]
- [23].Wang CC, Tang CH, Wang CY, Huang SY, Sue YM. Risk of skin cancer in patients on chronic haemodialysis: a nationwide, population-based study in Taiwan. Br J Dermatol. 2016;175(6):1175–82. [DOI] [PubMed]
- [24].Yoo KD, Lee JP, Lee SM, Park JY, Lee H, Kim DK, et al. Cancer in Korean patients with end-stage renal disease: a 7-year follow-up. PLoS One. 2017;12(7):e0178649. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- [25].Lu P-H, Yu M-C, Wei M-J, Kuo K-L. The therapeutic strategies for uremic toxins control in chronic kidney disease. Toxins. 2021;13(8):573. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- [26].Graboski AL, Redinbo MR. Gut-derived protein-bound uremic toxins. Toxins. 2020;12(9):590. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- [27].Liakopoulos V, Roumeliotis S, Gorny X, Dounousi E, Mertens PR. Oxidative stress in hemodialysis patients: a review of the literature. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2017;2017:3081856. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- [28].Sanchis P, Ho CY, Liu Y, Beltran LE, Ahmad S, Jacob AP, et al. Arterial “inflammaging” drives vascular calcification in children on dialysis. Kidney Int. 2019;95(4):958–72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- [29].Cobo G, Lindholm B, Stenvinkel P. Chronic inflammation in end-stage renal disease and dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2018;33(Suppl_3):iii35–40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- [30].Rincon-Arevalo H, Choi M, Stefanski A-L, Halleck F, Weber U, Szelinski F, et al. Impaired humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 vaccine in kidney transplant recipients and dialysis patients. Sci Immunol. 2021;6(61):eabj1031. [DOI] [PubMed]
- [31].Griva K, Nandakumar M, Jo-an HN, Lam KF, McBain H, Newman SP. Hemodialysis self-management intervention randomized trial (HED-SMART): a practical low-intensity intervention to improve adherence and clinical markers in patients receiving hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2018;71(3):371–81. [DOI] [PubMed]
- [32].Petrykiv S, Sjöström CD, Greasley PJ, Xu J, Persson F, Heerspink HJ. Differential effects of dapagliflozin on cardiovascular risk factors at varying degrees of renal function. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017;12(5):751–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- [33].Di Giuseppe G, Pelullo CP, Mitidieri M, Lioi G, Pavia M. Cancer prevention: knowledge, attitudes and lifestyle cancer-related behaviors among adolescents in Italy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(22):8294. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- [34].Okekpa SI, Mydin RB, Mangantig E, Azmi NSA, Zahari SNS, Kaur G, et al. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the association with lifestyle, diets, socioeconomic and sociodemographic in Asian region. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2019;20(11):3505–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]