Cohort studyindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key study I-BAR-118 in-depth review

US study: cancer after weight-loss surgery

Association of Bariatric Surgery With Cancer Risk and Mortality in Adults With Obesity.

Overview

Aminian et al.. JAMA 2022 · PMID 35657620 · DOI 10.1001/jama.2022.9009

Over 10 years, obesity-related cancer occurred in 2.9% after surgery vs 4.9% without; cancer deaths 0.8% vs 1.4%.

Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate

Original publication

Plain-language summary

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?

Cancer risk after surgery

How was the study done?

Matched cohort

How many people, animals or samples were studied?

30,318

What was actually found?

Fewer cancers and cancer deaths

How large was the observed effect?

aHR 0.68 and 0.52

What do the results mean in everyday life?

Surgery was linked to less cancer, not more

What are the study's limitations?

Observational, single system

What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

Contradicts the claim

Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

Plausible

What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

Sleeve-only long-term effect

Scientific in-depth review

1. Full reference

Authors
Aminian et al.
Journal
JAMA
Year
2022
Identifier
PMID 35657620 DOI 10.1001/jama.2022.9009
Verification
verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26 + Crossref API
Retracted
no
Corrections
none
Extent checked
full text
Conflicts of interest and funding

Several authors report industry fees/grants (e.g. Medtronic, Ethicon, Novo Nordisk) per full text; no separate funding statement located.

2. Research question

Is bariatric surgery associated with lower cancer incidence and cancer mortality in adults with obesity?

3. Study design and population

Study design
Cohort study – Matched cohort (SPLENDID) with doubly robust estimation, 1:5 matching
Population

Adults BMI >=35 at a US health system (Cleveland Clinic), 2004-2017

Country

USA

Period

2004-Feb 2021

Sample size

30,318 (5,053 surgery: RYGB 66%, SG 34%; 25,265 controls)

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Excluded prior cancer, alcohol use disorder, transplant, HIV and others

4. Methods and endpoints

Exposure / intervention

RYGB or SG

Comparator

Matched nonsurgical patients

Endpoints

13 obesity-associated cancers (incl. oesophageal adenocarcinoma); all cancer; cancer mortality

Statistical methods

Propensity matching plus multivariable Cox (doubly robust); E-values

5. Actual results

Results

Obesity-associated cancer 3.0 vs 4.6/1000 person-years; 10-y cumulative 2.9% vs 4.9% (ARD 2.0%); aHR 0.68 (0.53-0.87). Cancer mortality 0.6 vs 1.2/1000 PY; 10-y 0.8% vs 1.4% (ARD 0.6%); aHR 0.52 (0.31-0.88). Weight difference at 10 y 19.2%.

Absolute risks

10-y obesity-associated cancer 2.9% vs 4.9%; cancer death 0.8% vs 1.4%.

Authors' conclusion

Bariatric surgery was associated with significantly lower incidence of obesity-associated cancer and cancer-related mortality.

6. Strengths

  • Doubly robust analysis, E-values
  • One third sleeve
  • Absolute risks reported

7. Weaknesses

  • Single health system
  • Healthy-user and screening differences
  • Observational

8. Risk of bias

Orienting tool
ROBINS-E
Type of assessment
simplified assessment (abstract only)
Full formal assessment
no
Overall risk of bias
some concerns
Rationale

Authors acknowledge possible healthy-user and selection bias.

9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation

NNT ~50 over 10 y for obesity-associated cancer, ~167 for cancer death (stats/I-BAR-118_splendid_2022.py); CI log-symmetric.

10. Relevance to the specific claim

Directly contradicts "sleeve brings cancer forward": cancer incidence and cancer deaths were lower, in a cohort with one third sleeve.

11. Independent contrary findings

Sleeve-only results not in abstract.

12. Transferability to Germany and Europe

US data.

13. Overall methodological judgement

Moderate-quality evidence of lower cancer risk after surgery.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the sourceverified
Methodological qualitymoderate
Risk of biassome concerns
Precision of resultsmoderate
Directnessdirect
Reproducibilityreplicated
Consistency with the overall evidenceconsistent
Regional transferabilitymoderate
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)not applicable

14. Open questions

Sleeve-specific very long-term cancer risk.

15. Linked fact checks