BackgroundSeveral case-control studies have shown associations between the risk of different cancers and self-reported opium use. Inquiring into relatively sensitive issues, such as the history of drug use, is usually prone to information bias. However, in order to justify the findings of these types of studies, we have to quantify the level of such a negative bias. In current study, we aimed to evaluate sensitivity of self-reported opioid use and suggest suitable types of control groups for case-control studies on opioid use and the risk of cancer.MethodsIn order to compare the validity of the self-reported opioid use, we cross-validated the response of two groups of subjects 1) 178 hospitalized patients and 2) 186 healthy individuals with the results of their tests using urine rapid drug screen (URDS) and thin layer chromatography (TLC). The questioners were asked by trained interviewers to maximize the validity of responses; healthy individuals were selected from the companions of patients in hospitals.ResultsSelf-reported regular opioid use was 36.5% in hospitalized patients 19.3% in healthy individuals (p-value> 0.001).The reported frequencies of opioid use in the past 72 hours were 21.4% and 11.8% in hospitalized patients and healthy individuals respectively. Comparing their responses with the results of urine tests showed a sensitivity of 77% and 69% among hospitalized patients and healthy individuals for self-reports (p-value = 0.4). Having corrected based on the mentioned sensitivities; the frequency of opioid regular use was 47% and 28% in hospitalized patients and healthy individuals, respectively. Regular opioid use among hospitalized patients was significantly higher than in healthy individuals (p-value> 0.001).ConclusionOur findings showed that the level of opioid use under-reporting in hospitalized patients and healthy individuals was considerable but comparable. In addition, the frequency of regular opioid use among hospitalized patients was significantly higher than that in the general population. Altogether, it seems that, without corrections for these differences and biases, the results of many studies including case-control studies on opioid use might distort findings substantially.

Based on the ability of the probiotics in the gut microflora modification, they can have the beneficial effects on diseases in the short and/or the long term. In previous study, we revealed that unlike Bifidobacterium bifidum, the amount of Lactobacillus acidophilus remained almost unchanged in mice gut microflora in the long term, indicating more stability of L. acidophilus than B. bifidum which can be used to prevent some incurable diseases such as cancer. Thirty-eight male BALB/c mice were divided into four groups, control, azoxymethane (AOM), L. acidophilus, and B. bifidum probiotics, to evaluate the protective effects of the probiotics on AOM-induced mouse colon cancer. Except for the control group, the rest of the animals were weekly given AOM (15 mg/kg, s.c) in three consecutive weeks. Colon lesion incidence was 74% in the AOM group in comparison with the control (0%) (P < 0.05). The lesions were varied from mild to severe dysplasia and colonic adenocarcinoma. Administration of the probiotics inhibited the incidence of colonic lesions by about 57% in L. acidophilus (P < 0.05) and 27% in B. bifidum (P > 0.05) compared to the AOM group. The serum levels of CEA and CA19-9 tumor markers were significantly decreased in L. acidophilus in comparison with the AOM group (P < 0.05). Moreover, the serum levels of IFN-γ and IL-10 and the number of CD4 and CD8 cells were significantly increased in L. acidophilus compared to AOM (P < 0.05). Our study highlighted the more potential effects of L. acidophilus probiotic than B. bifidum on mouse colon cancer.

Background/aim: Thirty male BALB/c mice were equally divided into three groups: control, L. acidophilus, and B. bifidum for the assessment of the probiotics' stability in the gut microflora.Materials and methods: First, the gut microflora of the mice was checked every 3 days (days 3, 6, 9, and 12) without probiotic consumption, and then the mice were daily given orally 1.5 g of probiotics in 30 cc of drinking water. The consumption of probiotics was then stopped for recovery and then the consumption continued for 5 months.Results: On day 9 after the consumption of the probiotics, L. acidophilus and B. bifidum were significantly increased from 4% to 83% and from 1% to 61%, respectively. L. acidophilus count showed no significant decrease at the end of 5 months compared to day 9 of probiotic consumption (74%), but B. bifidum count was dramatically decreased to 45% and 36% at the end of 1 and 5 months, respectively. Conclusion:Our results revealed that, unlike B. bifidum, the amount of L. acidophilus remained almost unchanged in the long term, indicating more stability of L. acidophilus than B. bifidum in the gut microflora.

No abstract