Evidence Hub

Correlation between second and first primary cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of 9 million cancer patients

Xinyu Wang, M. Zeng, Xueming Ju, An-Qi Lin, Chaozheng Zhou, Junyi Shen, Zao-bin Liu, Bufu Tang et al.

British Journal of Surgery, 2023

677 participants · 34 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Many survivors of a first primary cancer (FPCs) are at risk of developing a second primary cancer (SPC), with effects on patient prognosis. Primary cancers have different frequencies of specific SPC development and the development of SPCs may be closely related to the FPC. The aim of this study was to explore possible correlations between SPCs and FPCs.

METHODS

Relevant literature on SPCs was retrospectively searched and screened from four databases, namely, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and PMC. Data on the number of patients with SPC in 28 different organ sites were also collected from The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 8 Registry and NHANES database.

RESULTS

A total of 9 617 643 patients with an FPC and 677 430 patients with an SPC were included in the meta-analysis. Patients with a first primary gynaecological cancer and thyroid cancer frequently developed a second primary breast cancer and colorectal cancer. Moreover, those with a first primary head and neck cancer, anal cancer and oesophageal cancer developed a second primary lung cancer more frequently. A second primary lung cancer and prostate cancer was also common among patients with first primary bladder cancer and penile cancer. Patients with second primary bladder cancer accounted for 56% of first primary ureteral cancer patients with SPCs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study recommends close clinical follow-up, monitoring and appropriate interventions in patients with relevant FPCs for…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 677 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free