Zare Sakhvidi Mohammad Javad, Yang Jun, Mehrparvar Amir Houshang, Dzhambov Angel M, Ebrahimi AliAsghar, Dadvand Payam, Jacquemin Bénédicte
Occupational Health Department, School of Public Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran; Univ Rennes, INSERM, EHESP, IRSET (Institut de Recherche en Santé, Environnement et Travail) - UMR_S 1085, F-35000 Rennes, France.
School of Public Health, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou 511436, China.
Sci Total Environ. 2022 Sep 10;838(Pt 2):156180. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156180. Epub 2022 May 23.
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature on the association between greenspace exposure and all-sites and site-specific cancer incidence, prevalence, and mortality in adults. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for original articles published, without language restriction until September 2021. We assessed the risk of bias in each study and the overall quality of evidence for exposure-outcome pairs that were reported in two or more studies. Out of the 18 included studies, cross-sectional studies were the most common study design (n = 8), and most of the studies were conducted in Europe (n = 8). In terms of risk of bias, the majority of cohorts (four out of six) and case-control studies (three out of four) were of good or very good quality, and cross-sectional studies were mostly (five out of eight) of poor quality. Outcomes (incidence, prevalence, mortality) on different cancer sites were reported: lung cancer (n = 9), prostate cancer (n = 4), breast cancer (n = 4), skin cancer (n = 3), colorectal cancer (n = 2), all-sites cancer (n = 2), brain cancer (n = 1), mouth and throat cancer (n = 1), and esophageal cancer (n = 1). The meta-analyses for the breast, lung, and prostate cancer incidence did not show statistically significant associations (for example for breast cancer: hazard ratio = 0.83; 95% confidence interval: 0.47-1.48). For skin cancer, the available evidence suggests that greenspace could be a potential risk factor. For the other cancers, the evidence was non-conclusive. The overall quality of evidence of all of the exposure-outcome pairs was very low. Given the wide confidence interval of the pooled estimates and very low quality of evidence, the findings should be interpreted with caution. Future large and longitudinal studies are needed to assess the potential association of greenspace exposure with cancers, considering types and quality of greenspace, evaluation of cancer sub-types, and adjustment for a sufficient set of covariates.
我们对关于绿地暴露与成年人所有部位及特定部位癌症发病率、患病率和死亡率之间关联的现有文献进行了系统综述和荟萃分析。我们在PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science上检索截至2021年9月发表的原始文章,无语言限制。我们评估了每项研究的偏倚风险以及两项或更多研究中报告的暴露-结局对的总体证据质量。在纳入的18项研究中,横断面研究是最常见的研究设计(n = 8),且大多数研究在欧洲进行(n = 8)。在偏倚风险方面,大多数队列研究(6项中的4项)和病例对照研究(4项中的3项)质量良好或非常好,而横断面研究大多(8项中的5项)质量较差。报告了不同癌症部位的结局(发病率、患病率、死亡率):肺癌(n = 9)、前列腺癌(n = 4)、乳腺癌(n = 4)、皮肤癌(n = 3)、结直肠癌(n = 2)、所有部位癌症(n = 2)、脑癌(n = 1)、口腔和咽喉癌(n = 1)以及食管癌(n = 1)。乳腺癌、肺癌和前列腺癌发病率的荟萃分析未显示出统计学上的显著关联(例如乳腺癌:风险比 = 0.83;95%置信区间:0.47 - 1.48)。对于皮肤癌,现有证据表明绿地可能是一个潜在风险因素。对于其他癌症,证据尚无定论。所有暴露-结局对的总体证据质量非常低。鉴于汇总估计值的置信区间较宽且证据质量极低,对这些发现应谨慎解读。未来需要进行大规模纵向研究,以评估绿地暴露与癌症之间的潜在关联,同时考虑绿地的类型和质量、癌症亚型的评估以及对足够一组协变量的调整。