Huamei Zhu, Yutao Chen, Hezhen Chen, Yang Ye, Yuan Chi
{"title":"有毒元素暴露与前列腺癌风险的系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Huamei Zhu, Yutao Chen, Hezhen Chen, Yang Ye, Yuan Chi","doi":"10.1186/s12302-025-01156-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The evidence on exposure to potentially toxic elements (PTEs) and the risk of prostate cancer has been inconsistent and somewhat unclear. Therefore, in this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated the existing literature comprehensively, to assess the relationship between exposure to PTEs and the risk of prostate cancer.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>The execution of this review followed the PRISMA guidelines. An extensive search was carried out in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed to locate relevant English-language articles published up until February 27, 2025. Random-effects linear mixed models (REML) meta-analysis was applied for all evaluated associations. Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses were conducted in the meta-analysis to evaluate the reliability of the findings. Publication bias was evaluated using Begg’s test, Egger’s test, funnel plots, and the trim-and-fill method.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 1118 articles were retrieved, resulting in a final set of 41 articles that were incorporated into our review. Most of the studies had a cross-sectional or case–control design and were conducted in the USA of Europe. The meta-analysis, encompassing 14 studies, revealed no significant link between PTEs exposure and prostate cancer risk. Minimal publication bias was detected, and adjustments did not impact results. Subgroup analyses based on publication year, exposure assessment method, and PTE type revealed no significant associations, except for arsenic (OR = 1.04, 95% CI 1.02–1.06) and lead (OR = 1.04, 95% CI 1.02–1.05), both of which were linked to a slight increase in prostate cancer risk. In contrast, selenium was inversely associated with prostate cancer risk (OR = 0.07, 95% CI 0.03–0.12). Study quality analysis yielded varying risk estimates, with studies classified as “excellent” providing the most consistent results. Meta-regression hinted at a slight, non-significant potential trend of higher standard incidence ratios (SIRs) in recent studies.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Overall, our study suggests that exposure to PTEs through various pathways may be associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":546,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Sciences Europe","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s12302-025-01156-z.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic review and meta-analysis of toxic elements exposure and risk of prostate cancer\",\"authors\":\"Huamei Zhu, Yutao Chen, Hezhen Chen, Yang Ye, Yuan Chi\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12302-025-01156-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The evidence on exposure to potentially toxic elements (PTEs) and the risk of prostate cancer has been inconsistent and somewhat unclear. Therefore, in this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated the existing literature comprehensively, to assess the relationship between exposure to PTEs and the risk of prostate cancer.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>The execution of this review followed the PRISMA guidelines. An extensive search was carried out in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed to locate relevant English-language articles published up until February 27, 2025. Random-effects linear mixed models (REML) meta-analysis was applied for all evaluated associations. Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses were conducted in the meta-analysis to evaluate the reliability of the findings. Publication bias was evaluated using Begg’s test, Egger’s test, funnel plots, and the trim-and-fill method.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 1118 articles were retrieved, resulting in a final set of 41 articles that were incorporated into our review. Most of the studies had a cross-sectional or case–control design and were conducted in the USA of Europe. The meta-analysis, encompassing 14 studies, revealed no significant link between PTEs exposure and prostate cancer risk. Minimal publication bias was detected, and adjustments did not impact results. Subgroup analyses based on publication year, exposure assessment method, and PTE type revealed no significant associations, except for arsenic (OR = 1.04, 95% CI 1.02–1.06) and lead (OR = 1.04, 95% CI 1.02–1.05), both of which were linked to a slight increase in prostate cancer risk. In contrast, selenium was inversely associated with prostate cancer risk (OR = 0.07, 95% CI 0.03–0.12). Study quality analysis yielded varying risk estimates, with studies classified as “excellent” providing the most consistent results. Meta-regression hinted at a slight, non-significant potential trend of higher standard incidence ratios (SIRs) in recent studies.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Overall, our study suggests that exposure to PTEs through various pathways may be associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":546,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Sciences Europe\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s12302-025-01156-z.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Sciences Europe\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12302-025-01156-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Sciences Europe","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12302-025-01156-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
关于暴露于潜在有毒元素（pte）和前列腺癌风险的证据一直不一致，有些不清楚。因此，在本系统综述和荟萃分析中，我们综合评估了现有文献，以评估pte暴露与前列腺癌风险之间的关系。方法本综述按照PRISMA指南进行。在Scopus、Web of Science和PubMed中进行了广泛的搜索，以找到截至2025年2月27日发表的相关英语文章。随机效应线性混合模型（REML）荟萃分析应用于所有评估的关联。在荟萃分析中进行了留一敏感性分析，以评估研究结果的可靠性。采用Begg检验、Egger检验、漏斗图和修剪填充法评估发表偏倚。结果共检索到1118篇文章，最终41篇文章被纳入我们的综述。大多数研究采用横断面或病例对照设计，并在美国和欧洲进行。这项包含14项研究的荟萃分析显示，接触pte与前列腺癌风险之间没有显著联系。最小的发表偏倚被发现，调整没有影响结果。基于发表年份、暴露评估方法和PTE类型的亚组分析显示，除砷（OR = 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06）和铅（OR = 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.05）与前列腺癌风险轻微增加有关外，无显著相关性。相反，硒与前列腺癌风险呈负相关（OR = 0.07, 95% CI 0.03-0.12）。研究质量分析产生了不同的风险估计，分类为“优秀”的研究提供了最一致的结果。meta回归表明，在最近的研究中，有轻微的、不显著的更高标准发病率（SIRs）的潜在趋势。总的来说，我们的研究表明，通过各种途径暴露于pte可能与前列腺癌风险增加有关。
A systematic review and meta-analysis of toxic elements exposure and risk of prostate cancer
Background
The evidence on exposure to potentially toxic elements (PTEs) and the risk of prostate cancer has been inconsistent and somewhat unclear. Therefore, in this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated the existing literature comprehensively, to assess the relationship between exposure to PTEs and the risk of prostate cancer.
Methods
The execution of this review followed the PRISMA guidelines. An extensive search was carried out in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed to locate relevant English-language articles published up until February 27, 2025. Random-effects linear mixed models (REML) meta-analysis was applied for all evaluated associations. Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses were conducted in the meta-analysis to evaluate the reliability of the findings. Publication bias was evaluated using Begg’s test, Egger’s test, funnel plots, and the trim-and-fill method.
Results
A total of 1118 articles were retrieved, resulting in a final set of 41 articles that were incorporated into our review. Most of the studies had a cross-sectional or case–control design and were conducted in the USA of Europe. The meta-analysis, encompassing 14 studies, revealed no significant link between PTEs exposure and prostate cancer risk. Minimal publication bias was detected, and adjustments did not impact results. Subgroup analyses based on publication year, exposure assessment method, and PTE type revealed no significant associations, except for arsenic (OR = 1.04, 95% CI 1.02–1.06) and lead (OR = 1.04, 95% CI 1.02–1.05), both of which were linked to a slight increase in prostate cancer risk. In contrast, selenium was inversely associated with prostate cancer risk (OR = 0.07, 95% CI 0.03–0.12). Study quality analysis yielded varying risk estimates, with studies classified as “excellent” providing the most consistent results. Meta-regression hinted at a slight, non-significant potential trend of higher standard incidence ratios (SIRs) in recent studies.
Conclusion
Overall, our study suggests that exposure to PTEs through various pathways may be associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer.
期刊介绍：
ESEU is an international journal, focusing primarily on Europe, with a broad scope covering all aspects of environmental sciences, including the main topic regulation.
ESEU will discuss the entanglement between environmental sciences and regulation because, in recent years, there have been misunderstandings and even disagreement between stakeholders in these two areas. ESEU will help to improve the comprehension of issues between environmental sciences and regulation.
ESEU will be an outlet from the German-speaking (DACH) countries to Europe and an inlet from Europe to the DACH countries regarding environmental sciences and regulation.
Moreover, ESEU will facilitate the exchange of ideas and interaction between Europe and the DACH countries regarding environmental regulatory issues.
Although Europe is at the center of ESEU, the journal will not exclude the rest of the world, because regulatory issues pertaining to environmental sciences can be fully seen only from a global perspective.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
