Vinceti Marco, Filippini Tommaso, Del Giovane Cinzia, Dennert Gabriele, Zwahlen Marcel, Brinkman Maree, Zeegers Maurice Pa, Horneber Markus, D'Amico Roberto, Crespi Catherine M
Research Center in Environmental, Nutritional and Genetic Epidemiology (CREAGEN), Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Via Campi 287, Modena, Italy, 41125.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 29;1(1):CD005195. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005195.pub4.
This review is the third update of the Cochrane review "Selenium for preventing cancer". Selenium is a naturally occurring element with both nutritional and toxicological properties. Higher selenium exposure and selenium supplements have been suggested to protect against several types of cancer.
To gather and present evidence needed to address two research questions:1. What is the aetiological relationship between selenium exposure and cancer risk in humans?2. Describe the efficacy of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in humans.
We updated electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE (Ovid, 2013 to January 2017, week 4), and Embase (2013 to 2017, week 6), as well as searches of clinical trial registries.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal observational studies that enrolled adult participants.
We performed random-effects (RE) meta-analyses when two or more RCTs were available for a specific outcome. We conducted RE meta-analyses when five or more observational studies were available for a specific outcome. We assessed risk of bias in RCTs and in observational studies using Cochrane's risk assessment tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, respectively. We considered in the primary analysis data pooled from RCTs with low risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach.
We included 83 studies in this updated review: two additional RCTs (10 in total) and a few additional trial reports for previously included studies. RCTs involved 27,232 participants allocated to either selenium supplements or placebo. For analyses of RCTs with low risk of bias, the summary risk ratio (RR) for any cancer incidence was 1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.10; 3 studies, 19,475 participants; high-certainty evidence). The RR for estimated cancer mortality was 1.02 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.30; 1 study, 17,444 participants). For the most frequently investigated site-specific cancers, investigators provided little evidence of any effect of selenium supplementation. Two RCTs with 19,009 participants indicated that colorectal cancer was unaffected by selenium administration (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.43), as were non-melanoma skin cancer (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.30 to 4.42; 2 studies, 2027 participants), lung cancer (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.50; 2 studies, 19,009 participants), breast cancer (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 9.55; 1 study, 802 participants), bladder cancer (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.52; 2 studies, 19,009 participants), and prostate cancer (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 4 studies, 18,942 participants). Certainty of the evidence was high for all of these cancer sites, except for breast cancer, which was of moderate certainty owing to imprecision, and non-melanoma skin cancer, which we judged as moderate certainty owing to high heterogeneity. RCTs with low risk of bias suggested increased melanoma risk.Results for most outcomes were similar when we included all RCTs in the meta-analysis, regardless of risk of bias. Selenium supplementation did not reduce overall cancer incidence (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.14; 5 studies, 21,860 participants) nor mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32; 2 studies, 18,698 participants). Summary RRs for site-specific cancers showed limited changes compared with estimates from high-quality studies alone, except for liver cancer, for which results were reversed.In the largest trial, the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Trial, selenium supplementation increased risks of alopecia and dermatitis, and for participants with highest background selenium status, supplementation also increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer. RCTs showed a slightly increased risk of type 2 diabetes associated with supplementation. A hypothesis generated by the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial - that individuals with low blood selenium levels could reduce their risk of cancer (particularly prostate cancer) by increasing selenium intake - has not been confirmed. As RCT participants have been overwhelmingly male (88%), we could not assess the potential influence of sex or gender.We included 15 additional observational cohort studies (70 in total; over 2,360,000 participants). We found that lower cancer incidence (summary odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93; 7 studies, 76,239 participants) and lower cancer mortality (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.97; 7 studies, 183,863 participants) were associated with the highest category of selenium exposure compared with the lowest. Cancer incidence was lower in men (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.14, 4 studies, 29,365 men) than in women (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.77, 2 studies, 18,244 women). Data show a decrease in risk of site-specific cancers for stomach, colorectal, lung, breast, bladder, and prostate cancers. However, these studies have major weaknesses due to study design, exposure misclassification, and potential unmeasured confounding due to lifestyle or nutritional factors covarying with selenium exposure beyond those taken into account in multi-variable analyses. In addition, no evidence of a dose-response relation between selenium status and cancer risk emerged. Certainty of evidence was very low for each outcome. Some studies suggested that genetic factors might modify the relation between selenium and cancer risk - an issue that merits further investigation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Well-designed and well-conducted RCTs have shown no beneficial effect of selenium supplements in reducing cancer risk (high certainty of evidence). Some RCTs have raised concerns by reporting a higher incidence of high-grade prostate cancer and type 2 diabetes in participants with selenium supplementation. No clear evidence of an influence of baseline participant selenium status on outcomes has emerged in these studies.Observational longitudinal studies have shown an inverse association between selenium exposure and risk of some cancer types, but null and direct relations have also been reported, and no systematic pattern suggesting dose-response relations has emerged. These studies suffer from limitations inherent to the observational design, including exposure misclassification and unmeasured confounding.Overall, there is no evidence to suggest that increasing selenium intake through diet or supplementation prevents cancer in humans. However, more research is needed to assess whether selenium may modify the risk of cancer in individuals with a specific genetic background or nutritional status, and to investigate possible differential effects of various forms of selenium.
本综述是Cochrane综述“硒预防癌症”的第三次更新。硒是一种天然存在的元素,具有营养和毒理学特性。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。
收集并呈现解决两个研究问题所需的证据:1. 人类硒暴露与癌症风险之间的病因学关系是什么?2. 描述硒补充剂对人类癌症预防的疗效。
我们更新了对Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL;2017年第2期)、MEDLINE(Ovid,2013年至2017年1月第4周)和Embase(2013年至2017年第6周)的电子检索,以及对临床试验注册库的检索。
我们纳入了招募成年参与者的随机对照试验(RCT)和纵向观察性研究。
当有两项或更多RCT可用于特定结局时,我们进行随机效应(RE)荟萃分析。当有五项或更多观察性研究可用于特定结局时,我们进行RE荟萃分析。我们分别使用Cochrane风险评估工具和纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评估RCT和观察性研究中的偏倚风险。在主要分析中,我们考虑了来自偏倚风险较低的RCT汇总的数据。我们使用GRADE方法评估证据的确定性。
在本次更新的综述中,我们纳入了83项研究:两项额外的RCT(共10项)以及一些之前纳入研究的额外试验报告。RCT涉及27232名参与者,他们被分配接受硒补充剂或安慰剂。对于偏倚风险较低的RCT分析,任何癌症发病率的汇总风险比(RR)为1.01(95%置信区间(CI)0.93至1.10;3项研究,19475名参与者;高确定性证据)。估计癌症死亡率的RR为1.02(95%CI 0.80至1.30;1项研究,17444名参与者)。对于最常研究的特定部位癌症,研究人员几乎没有提供硒补充剂有任何效果的证据。两项涉及19009名参与者的RCT表明,结直肠癌不受硒给药的影响(RR 0.99,95%CI 0.69至1.43),非黑色素瘤皮肤癌也是如此(RR 1.16,95%CI 0.30至4.42;2项研究,2027名参与者),肺癌(RR 1.16,95%CI 0.89至1.50;2项研究,19009名参与者),乳腺癌(RR 2.04,95%CI 0.44至9.55;1项研究,802名参与者),膀胱癌(RR 1.07,95%CI 0.76至1.52;两项研究,19009名参与者)和前列腺癌(RR 1.01,95%CI 0.90至1.14;4项研究,18942名参与者)。除乳腺癌外,所有这些癌症部位的证据确定性都很高,乳腺癌由于不精确性而具有中等确定性,非黑色素瘤皮肤癌由于高度异质性我们判断为中等确定性。偏倚风险较低的RCT表明黑色素瘤风险增加。当我们在荟萃分析中纳入所有RCT时,无论偏倚风险如何,大多数结局的结果相似。硒补充剂并未降低总体癌症发病率(RR 0.99,95%CI 0.86至1.14;5项研究,21860名参与者)或死亡率(RR 0.81,95%CI 0.49至1.32;2项研究,18698名参与者)。与仅来自高质量研究的估计相比,特定部位癌症的汇总RR变化有限,除了肝癌,其结果相反。在最大的试验“硒与维生素E癌症试验”中,硒补充剂增加了脱发和皮炎的风险,对于背景硒水平最高的参与者,补充剂还增加了高级别前列腺癌的风险。RCT显示补充剂与2型糖尿病风险略有增加有关。癌症营养预防试验提出的一个假设——血液硒水平低的个体可以通过增加硒摄入量来降低患癌风险(特别是前列腺癌)——尚未得到证实。由于RCT参与者绝大多数是男性(88%),我们无法评估性别或性别的潜在影响。
我们纳入了15项额外的观察性队列研究(共70项;超过2360000名参与者)。我们发现,与最低硒暴露类别相比,最高硒暴露类别与较低的癌症发病率(汇总优势比(OR)0.72,95%CI 0.55至0.93;7项研究,76239名参与者)和较低的癌症死亡率(OR 0.76,95%CI 0.59至0.97;7项研究,183863名参与者)相关。男性的癌症发病率(OR 0.72,95%CI 0.46至1.14,4项研究,29365名男性)低于女性(OR 0.90,95%CI 0.45至1.77,2项研究,18244名女性)。数据显示,胃癌、结直肠癌、肺癌、乳腺癌、膀胱癌和前列腺癌等特定部位癌症的风险有所降低。然而,这些研究由于研究设计、暴露错误分类以及由于生活方式或营养因素与硒暴露共同变化而导致的潜在未测量混杂因素(超出多变量分析中考虑的因素)而存在重大缺陷。此外,未发现硒状态与癌症风险之间存在剂量反应关系的证据。每个结局的证据确定性都非常低。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——这一问题值得进一步研究。
设计良好且实施得当的RCT表明,硒补充剂在降低癌症风险方面没有有益效果(证据确定性高)。一些RCT报告了补充硒的参与者中高级别前列腺癌和2型糖尿病发病率较高,这引发了人们的担忧。在这些研究中,没有出现关于基线参与者硒状态对结局有影响的明确证据。观察性纵向研究表明,硒暴露与某些癌症类型的风险之间存在负相关,但也有报告称两者无关联或呈正相关,并且没有出现表明剂量反应关系的系统模式。这些研究存在观察性设计固有的局限性,包括暴露错误分类和未测量的混杂因素。总体而言,没有证据表明通过饮食或补充剂增加硒摄入量可以预防人类癌症。然而,需要更多的研究来评估硒是否可以改变具有特定遗传背景或营养状况的个体患癌风险,并研究各种形式的硒可能存在的差异效应。