The Effect of Diffuse Liver Diseases on the Occurrence of Liver Metastases in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to assess the effect of diffuse liver diseases (DLD) on the risk of synchronous (S-) or metachronous (M-) liver metastases (LMs) in patients with solid neoplasms. Relevant databases were searched for systematic reviews and cross-sectional or cohort stu...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Filippo Monelli, Giulia Besutti, Olivera Djuric, Laura Bonvicini, Roberto Farì, Stefano Bonfatti, Guido Ligabue, Maria Chiara Bassi, Angela Damato, Candida Bonelli, Carmine Pinto, Pierpaolo Pattacini, Paolo Giorgi Rossi
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2021-05-01
Series:Cancers
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/13/9/2246
Description
Summary:This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to assess the effect of diffuse liver diseases (DLD) on the risk of synchronous (S-) or metachronous (M-) liver metastases (LMs) in patients with solid neoplasms. Relevant databases were searched for systematic reviews and cross-sectional or cohort studies published since 1990 comparing the risk of LMs in patients with and without DLD (steatosis, viral hepatitis, cirrhosis, fibrosis) in non-liver solid cancer patients. Outcomes were prevalence of S-LMs, cumulative risk of M-LMs and LM-free survival. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We report the pooled relative risks (RR) for S-LMs and hazard ratios (HR) for M-LMs. Subgroup analyses included DLD, primary site and continent. Nineteen studies were included (<i>n</i> = 37,591 patients), the majority on colorectal cancer. ROB appraisal results were mixed. Patients with DLD had a lower risk of S-LMs (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34–0.76), with a higher effect for cirrhosis and a slightly higher risk of M-LMs (HR 1.11 95% CI, 1.03–1.19), despite a lower risk of M-LMs in patients with vs without viral hepatitis (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40–0.82). There may have been a publication bias in favor of studies reporting a lower risk for patients with DLD. DLD are protective against S-LMs and slightly protective against M-LMs for viral hepatitis only.
ISSN:2072-6694