4.7 Article

Type 2 diabetes and hepatocellular carcinoma: A case-control study in patients with chronic hepatitis B

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 131, Issue 5, Pages 1197-1202

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.27337

Keywords

Type 2 diabetes; hepatocellular carcinoma; hepatitis B; gender

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Type 2 diabetes has been suggested as an independent risk factor for the development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the role of Type 2 diabetes on the development of HCC in the presence of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) remains inconclusive. We conducted this hospital-based casecontrol study to evaluate the roles of Type 2 diabetes in HCC development in patients with CHB. From January 2004 to December 2008, a total of 6,275 eligible consecutive patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection were recruited. A total of 1,105 of them were patients with HBV-related HCC and 5,170 patients were CHB but without HCC. We used multivariate logistic regression models to investigate the association between Type 2 diabetes and HCC risk. The prevalence of Type 2 diabetes is higher among HCC patients without cirrhosis than among those with cirrhosis (12.1% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.003). Type 2 diabetes was associated with a significantly high risk of HCC in female patients after adjusting for age, family history of HCC, city of residence, hepatitis B e antigen and cirrhosis with an odds ratio (95% confidence interval, CI) of 1.9 (1.13.4). Restricted analyses among female patients without cirrhosis indicated that Type 2 diabetes was strongly associated with HCC risk with adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) of 5.6 (2.214.1). In conclusion, Type 2 diabetes is independently associated with the increased risk of HCC in female CHB patients. Female CHB patients with Type 2 diabetes are of a high HCC risk population and should be considered for HCC close surveillance program.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available