International Agency for Research on Cancer

About: International Agency for Research on Cancer is a government organization based out in Lyon, France. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Cancer & Population. The organization has 2989 authors who have published 9010 publications receiving 929752 citations. The organization is also known as: IARC.

Oral contraceptives and colorectal cancer risk: a meta-analysis.

Abstract: Several studies have suggested an inverse association between use of combined oral contraceptives (OC) and the risk of colorectal cancer and here we present a meta-analysis of published studies. Articles considered were epidemiological studies published as full papers in English up to June 2000 that included quantitative information on OC use. The pooled relative risks (RR) of colorectal cancer for ever OC use from the 8 case-control studies was 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.69-0.94), and the pooled estimate from the 4 cohort studies was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.72-0.97). The pooled estimate from all studies combined was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.74-0.92), without apparent heterogeneity. Duration of use was not associated with a decrease in risk, but there was some indication that the apparent protection was stronger for women who had used OCs more recently (RR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.30-0.71). A better understanding of this potential relation may help informed choice of contraception.

Antibody tests in detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection: A meta-analysis

Abstract: The emergence of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 made imperative the need for diagnostic tests that can identify the infection. Although Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) is considered to be the gold standard, serological tests based on antibodies could be very helpful. However, individual studies are usually inconclusive, thus, a comparison of different tests is needed. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv. We used the bivariate method for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests pooling sensitivities and specificities. We evaluated IgM and IgG tests based on Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), Chemiluminescence Enzyme Immunoassays (CLIA), Fluorescence Immunoassays (FIA), and the Lateral Flow Immunoassays (LFIA). We identified 38 studies containing data from 7848 individuals. Tests using the S antigen are more sensitive than N antigen-based tests. IgG tests perform better compared to IgM ones and show better sensitivity when the samples were taken longer after the onset of symptoms. Moreover, a combined IgG/IgM test seems to be a better choice in terms of sensitivity than measuring either antibody alone. All methods yield high specificity with some of them (ELISA and LFIA) reaching levels around 99%. ELISA- and CLIA-based methods perform better in terms of sensitivity (90%-94%) followed by LFIA and FIA with sensitivities ranging from 80% to 89%. ELISA tests could be a safer choice at this stage of the pandemic. LFIA tests are more attractive for large seroprevalence studies but show lower sensitivity, and this should be taken into account when designing and performing seroprevalence studies.

The breast cancer information core: database design, structure, and scope.

Abstract: The Breast Cancer Information Core (BIC) is an open access, on-line mutation database for breast cancer susceptibility genes In addition to creating a catalogue of all mutations and polymorphisms in breast cancer susceptibility genes, a principle aim of the BIC is to facilitate the detection and characterization of these genes by providing technical support in the form of mutation detection protocols, primer sequences, and reagent access Additional information at the site includes a literature review compiled from published studies, links to other internet-based, breast cancer information and research resources, and an interactive discussion forum which enables investigators to post or respond to questions and/or comments on a bulletin board Hum Mutat 16:123-131, 2000 Published 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc