Search

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary tumor of the liver and its mortality is third among all solid tumors, behind carcinomas of the lung and the colon. Despite continuous advancements in the management of this disease, the prognosis for HCC remains inferior compared to other tumor entities. While orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) and surgical resection are the only two curative treatment options, OLT remains the best treatment strategy as it not only removes the tumor but cures the underlying liver disease. As the applicability of OLT is nowadays limited by organ shortage, major liver resectionseven in patients with underlying chronic liver diseaseare adopted increasingly into clinical practice. Against the background of the oftentimes present chronical liver disease, locoregional therapies have also gained increasing significance. These strategies range from radiofrequency ablation and trans-arterial chemoembolization to selective internal radiation therapy and are employed in both curative and palliative intent, individually, as a bridging to transplant or in combination with liver resection. The choice of the appropriate treatment, or combination of treatments, should consider the tumor stage, the function of the remaining liver parenchyma, the future liver remnant volume and the patient's general condition. This review aims to address the topic of multimodal treatment strategies in HCC, highlighting a multidisciplinary treatment approach to further improve outcome in these patients.

International audience; Purpose: Prevention is a priority in the fight against cancers, especially nutritional prevention. To update the levels of evidence of relationships between 10 nutritional factors and cancer risk, the scientific literature published from 2006 to 2014 was reviewed by an expert group.Methods: Data from 133 meta-analyses, pooled analyses or intervention trials were examined. Nearly 150 relationships between nutritional factors and cancer at various sites were evaluated.Results: According to the evidence graded as convincing or probable, these factors were divided in two groups. Factors which increase the risk of cancer are alcoholic beverages, overweight and obesity, red meat and processed meat, salt and salted foods and beta-carotene supplements. Factors which decrease the risk of cancer are physical activity, fruits and vegetables, dietary fiber, dairy products and breastfeeding.Conclusion: Three main nutritional objectives should be attained to improve cancer prevention: to reduce alcoholic beverages consumption, to have a balanced and diversified diet and to be physically active. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

Background In the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 (GBD 2013), knowledge about health and its determinants has been integrated into a comparable framework to inform health policy. Outputs of this analysis are relevant to current policy questions in England and elsewhere, particularly on health inequalities. We use GBD 2013 data on mortality and causes of death, and disease and injury incidence and prevalence to analyse the burden of disease and injury in England as a whole, in English regions, and within each English region by deprivation quintile. We also assess disease and injury burden in England attributable to potentially preventable risk factors. England and the English regions are compared with the remaining constituent countries of the UK and with comparable countries in the European Union (EU) and beyond. Methods We extracted data from the GBD 2013 to compare mortality, causes of death, years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with a disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in England, the UK, and 18 other countries (the first 15 EU members [apart from the UK] and Australia, Canada, Norway, and the USA [EU15+]). We extended elements of the analysis to English regions, and subregional areas defined by deprivation quintile (deprivation areas). We used data split by the nine English regions (corresponding to the European boundaries of the Nomenclature for Territorial Statistics level 1 [NUTS 1] regions), and by quintile groups within each English region according to deprivation, thereby making 45 regional deprivation areas. Deprivation quintiles were defined by area of residence ranked at national level by Index of Multiple Deprivation score, 2010. Burden due to various risk factors is described for England using new GBD methodology to estimate independent and overlapping attributable risk for five tiers of behavioural, metabolic, and environmental risk factors. We present results for 306 causes and 2337 sequelae, and 79 risks or risk clusters. Findings Between 1990 and 2013, life expectancy from birth in England increased by 5·4 years (95% uncertainty interval 5·0-5·8) from 75·9 years (75·9-76·0) to 81·3 years (80·9-81·7); gains were greater for men than for women. Rates of age-standardised YLLs reduced by 41·1% (38·3-43·6), whereas DALYs were reduced by 23·8% (20·9-27·1), and YLDs by 1·4% (0·1-2·8). For these measures, England ranked better than the UK and the EU15+ means. Between 1990 and 2013, the range in life expectancy among 45 regional deprivation areas remained 8·2 years for men and decreased from 7·2 years in 1990 to 6·9 years in 2013 for women. In 2013, the leading cause of YLLs was ischaemic heart disease, and the leading cause of DALYs was low back and neck pain. Known risk factors accounted for 39·6% (37·7-41·7) of DALYs; leading behavioural risk factors were suboptimal diet (10·8% [9·1-12·7]) and tobacco (10·7% [9·4-12·0]). Interpretation Health in England is improving although substantial opportunities exist for further reductions in the burden of preventable disease. The gap in mortality rates between men and women has reduced, but marked health inequalities between the least deprived and most deprived areas remain. Declines in mortality have not been matched by similar declines in morbidity, resulting in people living longer with diseases. Health policies must therefore address the causes of ill health as well as those of premature mortality. Systematic action locally and nationally is needed to reduce risk exposures, support healthy behaviours, alleviate the severity of chronic disabling disorders, and mitigate the effects of socioeconomic deprivation. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Public Health England. © 2015 Newton et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY. Export Date: 21 December 2015 CODEN: LANCA Correspondence Address: Newton, J.N.; Public Health England, Wellington HouseUnited Kingdom; email: john.newton@phe.gov.uk References: Murray C.J.L., Richards M.A., Newton J.N., UK health performance: Findings of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (2013) Lancet, 381, pp. 997-1020; Greer S.L., Devolution and divergence in UK health policies (2008) BMJ, 337, p. a2616; England N.H.S., (2014) Five Year Forward View, , http://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/futurenhs/, (accessed Aug 24, 2015); Naghavi M., Wang H., Lozano R., Global, regional and national levels of age-specific mortality and 240 causes of death, 1990-2013: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 (2015) Lancet, 385, pp. 117-171; Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disabilities for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries for 188 countries, 1990-2013: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 (2015) Lancet, 386, pp. 743-800; Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 76 behavioural, environmental, occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks in 188 countries 1990-2013: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease study 2013 (2015) Lancet, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00128-2, published online Sept 11; Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 306 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 188 countries, 1990-2013: Quantifying the epidemiological transition (2015) Lancet, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61340-X, published online Aug 27; Vos T., Flaxman A.D., Naghavi M., Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990-2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (2012) Lancet, 380, pp. 2163-2196; Murray C.J.L., Ezzati M., Flaxman A.D., GBD 2010: Design, definitions, and metrics (2012) Lancet, 380, pp. 2063-2066; Statistical Bulletin. Super Output Area Population Estimates, mid-2011 (Census Based), , http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_302853.pdf, (accessed Aug 24, 2015); McLennan D., Barnes H., Noble M., Davies J., Garratt E., (2011) The English Indices of Deprivation 2010. Technical Report, , https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6320/1870718.pdf, Department for Communities and Local Government London (accessed Aug 24, 2015); Adams J., White M., Removing the health domain from the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 - Effect on measured inequalities in census measure of health (2006) J Public Health (Oxf), 28, pp. 379-383; Wang H., Dwyer-Lindgren L., Lofgren K.T., Age-specific and sex-specific mortality in 187 countries, 1970-2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (2012) Lancet, 380, pp. 2071-2094; Murray C.J.L., Rajaratnam J.K., Marcus J., Laakso T., Lopez A.D., What can we conclude from death registration? Improved methods for evaluating completeness (2010) PLoS Med, 7, p. e1000262; Naghavi M., Makela S., Foreman K., O'Brien J., Pourmalek F., Lozano R., Algorithms for enhancing public health utility of national causes-of-death data (2010) Popul Health Metr, 8, p. 9; Lozano R., Naghavi M., Foreman K., Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (2012) Lancet, 380, pp. 2095-2128; Ahern R.M., Lozano R., Naghavi M., Foreman K., Gakidou E., Murray C.J., Improving the public health utility of global cardiovascular mortality data: The rise of ischemic heart disease (2011) Popul Health Metr, 9, p. 8; Foreman K.J., Lozano R., Lopez A.D., Murray C.J., Modeling causes of death: An integrated approach using CODEm (2012) Popul Health Metr, 10, p. 1; (2014) Statistical Bulletin. Suicides in the United Kingdom, 2012 Registrations, , http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_351100.pdf, (accessed Aug 24, 2015); (2014) Health Survey for England - 2013, , http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB16076, (accessed Feb 26, 2015); Matthews F.E., Arthur A., Barnes L.E., A two-decade comparison of prevalence of dementia in individuals aged 65 years and older from three geographical areas of England: Results of the Cognitive Function and Ageing Study i and II (2013) Lancet, 382, pp. 1405-1412; Salomon J.A., Haagsma J.A., Acj D., Disability weights for the Global Burden of Disease 2013 Study Lancet Glob Health, , (in press); Haagsma J.A., De Noordhout C.M., Polinder S., Assessing disability weights based on the responses of 30 660 people from four European countries (2015) Popul Health Metr, 13, p. 10; Preston S., Heuveline P., Guillot M., (2000) Demography: Measuring and Modeling Population Processes, , 1st edn. Wiley-Blackwell Malden, MA; Beltrán-Sánchez H., Preston S.H., Canudas-Romo V., An integrated approach to cause-of-death analysis: Cause-deleted life tables and decompositions of life expectancy (2008) Demogr Res, 19, pp. 1323-1350; Salomon J.A., Wang H., Freeman M.K., Healthy life expectancy for 187 countries, 1990-2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden Disease Study 2010 (2012) Lancet, 380, pp. 2144-2162; Murray C.J.L., Vos T., Lozano R., Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990-2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (2012) Lancet, 380, pp. 2197-2223; Gelman A., Analysis of variance - Why it is more important than ever (2005) Ann Stat, 33, pp. 1-53; (2010) Deaths from Alzheimer's Disease, Dementia and Senility in England, , http://www.endoflifecare-intelligence.org.uk/resources/publications/deaths_from_alzheimers, (accessed Aug 24, 2015); (2012) Mortality in the United Kingdom, 2010, , http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171780_251270.pdf, (accessed Aug 24, 2015); (2014) Statistical Bulletin. National Life Tables, United Kingdom, 2011-2013, , http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lifetables/national-life-tables/2011-2013/stb-uk-2011-2013.html, (accessed Aug 24, 2015); Green M., (2013) Death in England and Wales: Using A Classificatory Approach for Researching Mortality. PhD Thesis, , University of Sheffield; Green M.A., Vickers D., Dorling D., A neighbourhood level mortality classification of England and Wales, 2006-2009 (2014) Health Place, 30, pp. 196-204; Rasulo D., Bajekal M., Yar M., Inequalities in health expectancies in England and Wales - Small area analysis from the 2001 census (2007) Health Stat Q, 34, pp. 35-45; Statistical Bulletin. Experimental Statistics. Inequality in Disability-free Life Expectancy by Area Deprivation: England, 2003-06 and 2007-10, , http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_319481.pdf, (accessed Aug 24, 2015); Bennett J.E., Li G., Foreman K., The future of life expectancy and life expectancy inequalities in England and Wales: Bayesian spatiotemporal forecasting (2015) Lancet, 386, pp. 163-170; Rienzo C., (2012) Migrants in the UK Labour Market: An Overview, , http://storage0.dms.mpinteractiv.ro/media/1/186/3927/10538667/2/briefing-migrants-the-uk-labour-market-0.pdf, (accessed Aug 24, 2015); Bongaart J., Trends in causes of death in low-mortality countries: Implications for mortality projections (2014) Popul Dev Rev, 40, pp. 189-212; Williams R., Aspinall R., Bellis M., Addressing liver disease in the UK: A blueprint for attaining excellence in health care and reducing premature mortality from lifestyle issues of excess consumption of alcohol, obesity, and viral hepatitis (2014) Lancet, 384, pp. 1953-1997; Prince M., Bryce R., Albanese E., Wimo A., Ribeiro W., Ferri C.P., The global prevalence of dementia: A systematic review and metaanalysis (2013) Alzheimers Dement, 9, pp. 63-75; Holland D., Desikan R.S., Dale A.M., McEvoy L.K., Rates of decline in Alzheimer disease decrease with age (2012) PLoS One, 7, p. e42325; Rocca W.A., Petersen R.C., Knopman D.S., Trends in the incidence and prevalence of Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and cognitive impairment in the United States (2011) Alzheimers Dement, 7, pp. 80-93; Hoy D.G., Smith E., Cross M., Reflecting on the global burden of musculoskeletal conditions: Lessons learnt from the Global Burden of Disease 2010 Study and the next steps forward (2014) Ann Rheum Dis, 74, pp. 4-7; Kessler D., Bennewith O., Lewis G., Sharp D., Detection of depression and anxiety in primary care: Follow up study (2002) BMJ, 325, pp. 1016-1017; Davidson J.R., Feltner D.E., Dugar A., Management of generalized anxiety disorder in primary care: Identifying the challenges and unmet needs (2010) Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry, 12. , pii PCC.09r00772; Buszewicz M.J., Chew-Graham C., Improving the detection and management of anxiety disorders in primary care (2011) Br J Gen Pract, 61, pp. 489-490; Van Zoonen K., Buntrock C., Ebert D.D., Preventing the onset of major depressive disorder: A meta-analytic review of psychological interventions (2014) Int J Epidemiol, 43, pp. 318-329; (2014) Report 1. Care Processes and Treatment Targets, , http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB14970, (accessed Aug 28, 2015); Bajekal M., Scholes S., Love H., Analysing recent socioeconomic trends in coronary heart disease mortality in England, 2000-2007: A population modelling study (2012) PLoS Med, 9, p. e1001237; He F.J., Brinsden H.C., MacGregor G.A., Salt reduction in the United Kingdom: A successful experiment in public health (2014) J Hum Hypertens, 28, pp. 345-352; Fleming K.M., Aithal G.P., Solaymani-Dodaran M., Card T.R., West J., Incidence and prevalence of cirrhosis in the United Kingdom, 1992-2001: A general population-based study (2008) J Hepatol, 49, pp. 732-738; Ratib S., West J., Crooks C.J., Fleming K.M., Diagnosis of liver cirrhosis in England, a cohort study, 1998-2009: A comparison with cancer (2014) Am J Gastroenterol, 109, pp. 190-198; Taylor-Robinson S.D., Foster G.R., Arora S., Hargreaves S., Thomas H.C., Increase in primary liver cancer in the UK, 1979-94 (1997) Lancet, 350, pp. 1142-1143; Bosch F.X., Ribes J., Díaz M., Cléries R., Primary liver cancer: Worldwide incidence and trends (2004) Gastroenterology, 127, pp. S5-16; Leon D.A., McCambridge J., Liver cirrhosis mortality rates in Britain from 1950 to 2002: An analysis of routine data (2006) Lancet, 367, pp. 52-56; Link B.G., Phelan J., Social conditions as fundamental causes of disease (1995) J Heal Soc Behav, pp. 80-94; Ritchie K., Carrière I., Ritchie C.W., Berr C., Artero S., Ancelin M.-L., Designing prevention programmes to reduce incidence of dementia: Prospective cohort study of modifiable risk factors (2010) BMJ, 341, p. c3885; Lee Y., Back J.H., Kim J., Systematic review of health behavioral risks and cognitive health in older adults (2010) Int Psychogeriatr, 22, pp. 174-187; Engelhart M.J., Geerlings M.I., Ruitenberg A., Dietary intake of antioxidants and risk of Alzheimer disease (2002) JAMA, 287, pp. 3223-3229; Haan M.N., Wallace R., Can dementia be prevented? Brain aging in a population-based context (2004) Annu Rev Public Health, 25, pp. 1-24; Dai Q., Borenstein A.R., Wu Y., Jackson J.C., Larson E.B., Fruit and vegetable juices and Alzheimer's disease: The Kame Project (2006) Am J Med, 119, pp. 751-759; Smith A.D., Yaffe K., Dementia (including Alzheimer's disease) can be prevented: Statement supported by international experts (2014) J Alzheimers Dis, 38, pp. 699-703; (2015) Suicides in the United Kingdom, 2013 Registrations, , http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_395145.pdf, (accessed Aug 24, 2015); Butterfield R., Henderson J., Scott R., (2009) Public Health and Prevention, Expenditure in England. Health England Report No. 4, , Department of Health London

Objective: Although meta-analyses support associations between obesity and several cancers, some of the claimed associations may be flawed due to inherent biases. We evaluated strength and validity of the evidence for adiposity and risk of cancer development and mortality using an umbrella review methodology. Methods: Design: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Data sources: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane database of systematic reviews and manual screening. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Systematic reviews or meta-analyses of observational studies that evaluated the association between indices of adiposity and risk of developing or dying from cancer. Main Outcomes: Primary analysis focused on cohort studies exploring associations for continuous contrasts of adiposity. Data synthesis: The evidence was graded into strong, highly suggestive, suggestive or weak after applying criteria that included the statistical significance of the random effects summary estimate and of the largest study in a meta-analysis, the number of cancer cases, between-study heterogeneity, 95% prediction intervals, small study effects, excess significance bias and sensitivity analysis with credibility ceilings. Results: 204 meta-analyses investigated associations between seven indices of adiposity and the development or death from 36 primary cancers and their sub-types. Of the 95 meta-analyses that included cohort studies and used a continuous scale to measure adiposity, 12 (13%) associations for nine cancers demonstrated strong evidence. Elevated BMI was associated with a higher risk of developing oesophageal adenocarcinoma, colon and rectal cancer in men, biliary tract, pancreatic, endometrial cancer in pre-menopausal women, kidney cancer and multiple myeloma. Weight gain and waist to hip circumference ratio were associated with a higher risk of post-menopausal breast cancer in women who have never used hormone replacement therapy and endometrial cancer, respectively. Conclusions: Although the association of adiposity with cancer risk has been extensively studied, associations for only nine cancers were graded with strong evidence. Other associations could be genuine, but there is still substantial uncertainty about them. In an era where obesity is becoming one of the greatest public health problems, evidence on the strength of the associated risks may allow finer selection of individuals at higher risk of cancer, who could be targeted for personalized prevention strategies.

BACKGROUND: Selenium is a trace element essential to humans. Higher selenium exposure and selenium supplements have been suggested to protect against several types of cancers. OBJECTIVES: Two research questions were addressed in this review: What is the evidence for1. an aetiological relationship between selenium exposure and cancer risk in women and men?2. the efficacy of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in women and men? SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched electronic databases and bibliographies of reviews and included publications. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included prospective observational studies to answer research question (a) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to answer research question (b). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted random effects meta-analyses of epidemiological data when five or more studies were retrieved for a specific outcome. We made a narrative summary of data from RCTs. MAIN RESULTS: We included 49 prospective observational studies and six RCTs. In epidemiologic data, we found a reduced cancer incidence (summary odds ratio (OR) 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.91) and mortality (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.83) with higher selenium exposure. Cancer risk was more pronouncedly reduced in men (incidence: OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.05) than in women (incidence: OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.77). These findings have potential limitations due to study design, quality and heterogeneity of the data, which complicated the interpretation of the summary statistics.The RCTs found no protective efficacy of selenium yeast supplementation against non-melanoma skin cancer or L-selenomethionine supplementation against prostate cancer. Study results for the prevention of liver cancer with selenium supplements were inconsistent and studies had an unclear risk of bias. The results of the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial (NPCT) and SELECT raised concerns about possible harmful effects of selenium supplements. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No reliable conclusions can be drawn regarding a causal relationship between low selenium exposure and an increased risk of cancer. Despite evidence for an inverse association between selenium exposure and the risk of some types of cancer, these results should be interpreted with care due to the potential limiting factors of heterogeneity and influences of unknown biases, confounding and effect modification.The effect of selenium supplementation from RCTs yielded inconsistent results. To date, there is no convincing evidence that selenium supplements can prevent cancer in men, women or children.

Cyanobacterial cyclopeptides, including microcystins and nodularins, are considered a health hazard to humans due to the possible toxic effects of high consumption. From a pharmacological standpoint, microcystins are stable hydrophilic cyclic heptapeptides with a potential to cause cellular damage following uptake via organic anion-transporting polypeptides (OATP). Their intracellular biological effects involve inhibition of catalytic subunits of protein phosphatase 1 (PP1) and PP2, glutathione depletion and generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Interestingly, certain OATPs are prominently expressed in cancers as compared to normal tissues, qualifying MC as potential candidates for cancer drug development. In the era of targeted cancer therapy, cyanotoxins comprise a rich source of natural cytotoxic compounds with a potential to target cancers expressing specific uptake transporters. Moreover, their structure offers opportunities for combinatorial engineering to enhance the therapeutic index and resolve organ-specific toxicity issues. In this article, we revisit cyanobacterial cyclopeptides as potential novel targets for anticancer drugs by summarizing existing biomedical evidence, presenting structure-activity data and discussing developmental perspectives. Mar Drugs

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVES: 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. SEARCH METHODS: 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. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal observational studies that enrolled adult participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: 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. MAIN RESULTS: 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.

Despite the epidemiological evidence of a correlation between ethanol abuse and hepatocellular carcinoma, some of the results of experimental and clinical studies remain controversial. Apart from inducing cirrhosis, which may be viewed as a precancerous liver lesion, ethanol may act as a cocarcinogen. Most investigations on this topic have focused on two aspects: ethanol's capacity to induce the cytochrome P-450-dependent microsomal biotransformation system and its interference with at least one DNA repair mechanism. Ethanol exposure enhances the capacity of mixed function oxidases to activate many chemical carcinogens, such as dimethylnitrosamine (DMN). On the other hand, ethanol exposure fails to influence DMN-induced liver carcinogenesis. The capacity of alcohol to inhibit DMN-demethylase activity has not been clearly demonstrated in experiments carried out with human tissue. In conclusion, both the effects of ethanol and their underlying mechanisms as regards liver carcinogenesis are open to debate. The link between ethanol abuse and hepatocellular carcinoma appears to be mediated mainly by its capacity to induce cirrhosis.