More than 600,000 people are diagnosed with esophageal cancer (EC) every year globally, and the five-year survival rate of EC is less than 20%. Two common histological subtypes of EC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), have great geographical variations in incidence rates. About half of the world’s EC was diagnosed in China and a majority of which belong to ESCC. Globally, the overall incidence rate of EC is decreasing. In some high-risk Asian regions, such as China, the incidence rate of ESCC has generally declined, potentially due to economic growth and improvement of diet habits. In some European high-income countries and the United States, the decline is mainly attributed to the decrease in smoking and drinking. The risk factors of EC are not well understood, and the importance of environmental and genetic factors in the pathogenesis is also unclear. The incidence and mortality of advanced EC can be reduced through early diagnosis and screening. White light endoscopy is still the gold standard in the current screening technology. This article reviews the epidemiology, risk factors, and screening strategies of EC in recent years to help researchers determine the most effective management strategies to reduce the risk of EC.

Objectives To systematically review and critically appraise published studies of risk prediction models for breast cancer in the general population without breast cancer, and provide evidence for future research in the field. Design Systematic review using the Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) framework. Data sources PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase were searched from inception to 16 December 2021. Eligibility criteria We included studies reporting multivariable models to estimate the individualised risk of developing female breast cancer among different ethnic groups. Search was limited to English language only. Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently screened, reviewed, extracted and assessed studies with discrepancies resolved through discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias was assessed according to the PROBAST framework. Results 63 894 studies were screened and 40 studies with 47 risk prediction models were included in the review. Most of the studies used logistic regression to develop breast cancer risk prediction models for Caucasian women by case–control data. The most widely used risk factor was reproductive factors and the highest area under the curve was 0.943 (95% CI 0.919 to 0.967). All the models included in the review had high risk of bias. Conclusions No risk prediction models for breast cancer were recommended for different ethnic groups and models incorporating mammographic density or single-nucleotide polymorphisms among Asian women are few and poorly needed. High-quality breast cancer risk prediction models assessed by PROBAST should be developed and validated, especially among Asian women. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020202570.

Background: Non-smokers account for a large proportion of lung cancer patients, especially in Asia, but the attention paid to them is limited compared with smokers. In non-smokers, males display a risk for lung cancer incidence distinct from the females—even after excluding the influence of smoking; but the knowledge regarding the factors causing the difference is sparse. Based on a large multicenter prospective cancer screening cohort in China, we aimed to elucidate the interpretable sex differences caused by known factors and provide clues for primary and secondary prevention. Methods: Risk factors including demographic characteristics, lifestyle factors, family history of cancer, and baseline comorbidity were obtained from 796,283 Chinese non-smoking participants by the baseline risk assessment completed in 2013 to 2018. Cox regression analysis was performed to assess the sex difference in the risk of lung cancer, and the hazard ratios (HRs) that were adjusted for different known factors were calculated and compared to determine the proportion of excess risk and to explain the existing risk factors. Results: With a median follow-up of 4.80 years, 3351 subjects who were diagnosed with lung cancer were selected in the analysis. The lung cancer risk of males was significantly higher than that of females; the HRs in all male non-smokers were 1.29 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20–1.38) after adjusting for the age and 1.38 (95% CI: 1.28–1.50) after adjusting for all factors, which suggested that known factors could not explain the sex difference in the risk of lung cancer in non-smokers. Known factors were 7% (|1.29–1.38|/1.29) more harmful in women than in men. For adenocarcinoma, women showed excess risk higher than men, contrary to squamous cell carcinoma; after adjusting for all factors, 47% ([1.30–1.16]/[1.30–1]) and 4% ([7.02–6.75]/[7.02–1])) of the excess risk was explainable in adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. The main causes of gender differences in lung cancer risk were lifestyle factors, baseline comorbidity, and family history. Conclusions: Significant gender differences in the risk of lung cancer were discovered in China non-smokers. Existing risk factors did not explain the excess lung cancer risk of all non-smoking men, and the internal causes for the excess risk still need to be explored; most known risk factors were more harmful to non-smoking women; further exploring the causes of the sex difference would help to improve the prevention and screening programs and protect the non-smoking males from lung cancers.

Multiple studies and meta-analyses have reported the diagnostic value of C-reactive protein (CRP) in several diseases. However, the precision, and influence of potential bias regarding the diagnostic values of existing evidence may have implications for clinical practice. We performed an umbrella review of diagnostic test accuracy studies of CRP for diseases by searching PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WanFang databases up to March 7, 2021. Five independent reviewers evaluated eligibility, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality. We descriptively analyzed the diagnostic accuracy of CRP for multiple diseases, heterogeneity between studies, and publication bias. Seventy-four meta-analyses were included, with 13 diseases classified according to the International Classification of Diseases-11 (ICD-11). The methodological quality of the included meta-analyses was mostly low, with only 16 meta-analyses rated as moderate or high, including seven diseases classified by ICD-11. CRP had a relatively greater diagnostic accuracy for two of these diseases. For postoperative infectious complications after bariatric surgery, sensitivity and specificity were 0.81 (0.34-1) and 0.91 (0.73-1), respectively. For anastomotic leakage after colorectal surgery, sensitivity and specificity were 0.95 (0.75-0.99) and 0.95 (0.75-0.99), respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of CRP for multiple diseases has been extensively studied; however, most studies have low methodological quality. Evidence indicates that CRP has a relatively greater diagnostic accuracy for inflammation and infection diseases, especially for postoperative infectious complications after bariatric surgery and anastomotic leakage after colorectal surgery.