Explore the vast range of titles available.

Since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, cancer patients affected by COVID-19 have been reported to experience poor prognosis; however, a detailed quantification of the effect of cancer on outcome of unvaccinated COVID-19 patients has not been performed. To carry out a systematic review of the studies comparing the outcome of unvaccinated COVID-19 patients with and without cancer, a search string was devised which was used to identify relevant publications in PubMed up to December 31, 2020. We selected three outcomes: mortality, access to ICU, and COVID-19 severity or hospitalization. We considered results for all cancers combined as well as for specific cancers. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses of the results, overall and after stratification by region. We also performed sensitivity analyses according to quality score and assessed publication bias. For all cancer combined, the pooled odds ratio (OR) for mortality was 2.32 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.82-2.94, I for heterogeneity 90.1%, 24 studies), that for ICU admission was 2.39 (95% CI 1.90-3.02, I 0.0%, 5 studies), that for disease severity or hospitalization was 2.08 (95% CI 1.60-2.72, I 92.1%, 15 studies). The pooled mortality OR for hematologic neoplasms was 2.14 (95% CI 1.87-2.44, I 20.8%, 8 studies). Data were insufficient to perform a meta-analysis for other cancers. In the mortality meta-analysis for all cancers, the pooled OR was higher for studies conducted in Asia than studies conducted in Europe or North America. There was no evidence of publication bias. Our meta-analysis indicates a twofold increased risk of adverse outcomes (mortality, ICU admission, and severity of COVID-19) in unvaccinated COVID-19 patients with cancer compared to COVID-19 patients without cancer. These results should be compared with studies conducted in vaccinated patients; nonetheless, they argue for special effort to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with cancer. No external funding was obtained.

Limited information is available on carcinogenicity of asbestos on non-respiratory organs. We aimed at conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies on occupational exposure to asbestos and risk of kidney cancer. We searched through three databases, PubMed, Embase and Scopus for article published after 2000, and after eliminating duplicates and non-relevant studies, we identified 13 studies. We combined their results with those of 31 non-overlapping studies included in a previous review up to 2000. We conducted a meta-analysis based on random-effects models. The pooled relative risk of kidney cancer for asbestos exposure was 0.94 (95% confidence interval, 0.84–1.04), with no differences according to type of asbestos fiber, geographic region, period of exposure, or estimated quality of the study. Our results showed a lack of association between occupational asbestos exposure and risk of kidney cancer.

Background Ionizing radiation and mesothelioma have been examined among personnel employed in nuclear power plant and patients treated by external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). The association is still controversial; the purpose of this review is to summarize the scientific evidence published in the literature regarding the relationship between ionizing radiation and incidence of mesothelioma and, if possible, estimating strongness of the association by meta‐analysis of extracted data. Methods Articles included in the systematic review were retrieved by searching among the three main scientific databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Embase. The literature search was conducted in June 2021. A meta‐analysis of random effects was conducted, stratified by exposure (EBRT, occupational exposure). The heterogeneity of the summary relative risks (RRs) was assessed using I2 statistics. Publication bias was evaluated graphically through the funnel plot. Findings The exposure to ionizing radiation could be a risk factor for mesothelioma: both for exposure to high doses for short periods (EBRT) (RR of 3.34 [95% confidence interval, CI 1.24–8.99]) and for exposure to low doses for a prolonged duration (exposure working) (RR of 3.57 [95% CI 2.16–5.89]). Conclusions Despite the low number of mesotheliomas in the general population, the steadily increased risk among individuals exposed to radiation is still worth considering. The exposure to ionizing radiation could be a risk factor for mesothelioma: both for exposure to high doses for short periods (external beam radiation therapy) (relative risk [RR] of 3.34 [95% confidence interval, CI 1.24–8.99]) and for exposure to low doses for a prolonged duration (exposure working) (RR of 3.57 [95% CI 2.16–5.89]).

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2, yet limited information is available on risk factors of infection. We pooled data on occupational surveillance of 10,654 HCW who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection in six Italian centers. Information was available on demographics, job title, department of employment, source of exposure, use of personal protective equipment (PPEs), and COVID-19-related symptoms. We fitted multivariable logistic regression models to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of infection. The prevalence of infection ranged from 3.0 to 22.0%, and was correlated with that of the respective areas. Women were at lower risk of infection compared to men. Fever, cough, dyspnea and malaise were the symptoms most strongly associated with infection, together with anosmia and ageusia. No differences in the risk of infection were detected according to job title, or working in a COVID-19 designated department. Reported contact with a patient inside or outside the workplace was a risk factor. Use of a mask was strongly protective against risk of infection as was use of gloves. The use of a mask by the source of exposure (patient or colleague) had an independent effect in reducing infection risk.

The plasmacytoma variant translocation 1 (PVT1) is a long non-coding RNA gene involved in human disease, mainly in cancer onset/progression. Although widely analysed, its biological roles need to be further clarified. Notably, functional studies on PVT1 are complicated by the occurrence of multiple transcript variants, linear and circular, which generate technical issues in the experimental procedures used to evaluate its impact on human disease. Among the many PVT1 transcripts, the linear PVT1 (lncPVT1) and the circular hsa_circ_0001821 (circPVT1) are frequently reported to perform similar pathologic and pro-tumorigenic functions when overexpressed. The stimulation of cell proliferation, invasion and drug resistance, cell metabolism regulation, and apoptosis inhibition is controlled through multiple targets, including MYC, p21, STAT3, vimentin, cadherins, the PI3K/AKT, HK2, BCL2, and CASP3. However, some of this evidence may originate from an incorrect evaluation of these transcripts as two separate molecules, as they share the lncPVT1 exon-2 sequence. We here summarise lncPVT1/circPVT1 functions by mainly focusing on shared pathways, pointing out the potential bias that may exist when the biological role of each transcript is analysed. These considerations may improve the knowledge about lncPVT1/circPVT1 and their specific targets, which deserve further studies due to their diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic potential.