Vinceti Marco, Dennert Gabriele, Crespi Catherine M, Zwahlen Marcel, Brinkman Maree, Zeegers Maurice P A, Horneber Markus, D'Amico Roberto, Del Giovane Cinzia
Department of Diagnostic, Clinical and Public Health Medicine, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Via Campi 287, Modena, Italy, 41125.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Mar 30;2014(3):CD005195. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005195.pub3.
This review is an update of the first Cochrane publication on selenium for preventing cancer (Dennert 2011).Selenium is a metalloid with both nutritional and toxicological properties. Higher selenium exposure and selenium supplements have been suggested to protect against several types of cancers.
Two research questions were addressed in this review: What is the evidence for:1. an aetiological relation between selenium exposure and cancer risk in humans? and2. the efficacy of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in humans?
We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1966 to February 2013 week 1), EMBASE (1980 to 2013 week 6), CancerLit (February 2004) and CCMed (February 2011). As MEDLINE now includes the journals indexed in CancerLit, no further searches were conducted in this database after 2004.
We included prospective observational studies (cohort studies including sub-cohort controlled studies and nested case-control studies) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with healthy adult participants (18 years of age and older).
For observational studies, we conducted random effects meta-analyses when five or more studies were retrieved for a specific outcome. For RCTs, we performed random effects meta-analyses when two or more studies were available. The risk of bias in observational studies was assessed using forms adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for cohort and case-control studies; the criteria specified in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were used to evaluate the risk of bias in RCTs.
We included 55 prospective observational studies (including more than 1,100,000 participants) and eight RCTs (with a total of 44,743 participants). For the observational studies, we found lower cancer incidence (summary odds ratio (OR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.91, N = 8) and cancer mortality (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.93, N = 6) associated with higher selenium exposure. Gender-specific subgroup analysis provided no clear evidence of different effects in men and women (P value 0.47), although cancer incidence was lower in men (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.05, N = 6) than in women (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.77, N = 2). The most pronounced decreases in risk of site-specific cancers were seen for stomach, bladder and prostate cancers. However, these findings have limitations due to study design, quality and heterogeneity that complicate interpretation of the summary statistics. Some studies suggested that genetic factors may modify the relation between selenium and cancer risk-a hypothesis that deserves further investigation.In RCTs, we found no clear evidence that selenium supplementation reduced the risk of any cancer (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.17, two studies, N = 4765) or cancer-related mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32, two studies, N = 18,698), and this finding was confirmed when the analysis was restricted to studies with low risk of bias. The effect on prostate cancer was imprecise (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.14, four studies, N = 19,110), and when the analysis was limited to trials with low risk of bias, the interventions showed no effect (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14, three studies, N = 18,183). The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer was increased (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17, three studies, N = 1900). Results of two trials-the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial (NPCT) and the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Trial (SELECT)-also raised concerns about possible increased risk of type 2 diabetes, alopecia and dermatitis due to selenium supplements. An early hypothesis generated by NPCT that individuals with the lowest blood selenium levels at baseline could reduce their risk of cancer, particularly of prostate cancer, by increasing selenium intake has not been confirmed by subsequent trials. As the RCT participants were overwhelmingly male (94%), gender differences could not be systematically assessed.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although an inverse association between selenium exposure and the risk of some types of cancer was found in some observational studies, this cannot be taken as evidence of a causal relation, and these results should be interpreted with caution. These studies have many limitations, including issues with assessment of exposure to selenium and to its various chemical forms, heterogeneity, confounding and other biases. Conflicting results including inverse, null and direct associations have been reported for some cancer types.RCTs assessing the effects of selenium supplementation on cancer risk have yielded inconsistent results, although the most recent studies, characterised by a low risk of bias, found no beneficial effect on cancer risk, more specifically on risk of prostate cancer, as well as little evidence of any influence of baseline selenium status. Rather, some trials suggest harmful effects of selenium exposure. To date, no convincing evidence suggests that selenium supplements can prevent cancer in humans.
本综述是Cochrane关于硒预防癌症的首篇出版物(Dennert 2011年)的更新版本。硒是一种具有营养和毒理学特性的类金属。较高的硒暴露量和硒补充剂被认为可以预防多种类型的癌症。
本综述探讨了两个研究问题:1. 硒暴露与人类癌症风险之间病因学关系的证据是什么?2. 硒补充剂对人类癌症预防的疗效如何?
我们对Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL,2013年第1期)、MEDLINE(Ovid,1966年至2013年2月第1周)、EMBASE(1980年至2013年第6周)、CancerLit(2004年2月)和CCMed(2011年2月)进行了电子检索。由于MEDLINE现在包括了CancerLit索引的期刊,2004年后未再对该数据库进行进一步检索。
我们纳入了有健康成年参与者(18岁及以上)的前瞻性观察性研究(队列研究,包括亚队列对照研究和巢式病例对照研究)和随机对照试验(RCT)。
对于观察性研究,当针对特定结局检索到五项或更多研究时,我们进行随机效应荟萃分析。对于RCT,当有两项或更多研究时,我们进行随机效应荟萃分析。使用改编自纽卡斯尔-渥太华队列和病例对照研究质量评估量表的表格评估观察性研究中的偏倚风险;使用Cochrane干预系统评价手册中规定的标准评估RCT中的偏倚风险。
我们纳入了55项前瞻性观察性研究(包括超过110万名参与者)和八项RCT(共44,743名参与者)。对于观察性研究,我们发现较高的硒暴露与较低的癌症发病率(汇总比值比(OR)0.69,95%置信区间(CI)0.53至0.91,N = 8)和癌症死亡率(OR 0.60,95% CI 0.39至0.93,N = 6)相关。性别特异性亚组分析未提供男性和女性存在不同效应的明确证据(P值0.47),尽管男性的癌症发病率(OR 0.66,95% CI 0.42至1.05,N = 6)低于女性(OR 0.90,95% CI 0.45至1.77,N = 2)。特定部位癌症风险降低最明显的是胃癌、膀胱癌和前列腺癌。然而,由于研究设计、质量和异质性等因素,这些结果的解释较为复杂,存在局限性。一些研究表明,遗传因素可能会改变硒与癌症风险之间的关系——这一假设值得进一步研究。在RCT中,我们没有发现明确的证据表明补充硒能降低任何癌症的风险(风险比(RR)0.90,95% CI 0.70至1.17,两项研究,N = 4765)或癌症相关死亡率(RR 0.81,95% CI 0.49至1.32,两项研究,N = 18,698),当分析仅限于偏倚风险较低的研究时,这一发现得到了证实。对前列腺癌的影响不明确(RR 0.90,95% CI 0.71至1.14,四项研究,N = 19,110),当分析仅限于偏倚风险较低的试验时,干预措施未显示出效果(RR 1.02,95% CI 0.90至1.14,三项研究,N = 18,183)。非黑色素瘤皮肤癌的风险增加(RR 1.44,95% CI 0.95至1.17,三项研究,N = 1900)。两项试验——营养预防癌症试验(NPCT)和硒与维生素E癌症试验(SELECT)——的结果也引发了人们对硒补充剂可能增加2型糖尿病、脱发和皮炎风险的担忧。NPCT早期提出的一个假设,即基线血硒水平最低的个体通过增加硒摄入量可以降低患癌风险,尤其是前列腺癌风险,并未得到后续试验的证实。由于RCT参与者绝大多数为男性(94%),无法系统评估性别差异。
尽管在一些观察性研究中发现硒暴露与某些类型癌症的风险之间存在负相关,但这不能作为因果关系的证据,这些结果应谨慎解释。这些研究存在许多局限性,包括硒及其各种化学形式暴露评估、异质性、混杂因素和其他偏倚等问题。对于某些癌症类型,已报道了相互矛盾的结果,包括负相关、无关联和正相关。评估硒补充剂对癌症风险影响的RCT结果不一致,尽管最近的研究偏倚风险较低,但未发现对癌症风险有有益影响,更具体地说对前列腺癌风险无影响,也几乎没有证据表明基线硒状态有任何影响。相反,一些试验表明硒暴露存在有害影响。迄今为止,没有令人信服的证据表明硒补充剂可以预防人类癌症。