4.7 Article

Cancer Incidence in Patients With Acromegaly: A Cohort Study and Meta-Analysis of the Literature

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Volume 103, Issue 6, Pages 2182-2188

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2017-02457

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Pfizer
  2. Ipsen
  3. Novartis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Context: Acromegaly has been associated with increased risk of cancer morbidity and mortality, but research findings remain conflicting and population-based data are scarce. We therefore examined whether patients with acromegaly are at higher risk of cancer. Design: A nationwide cohort study (1978 to 2010) including 529 acromegaly cases was performed. Incident cancer diagnoses and mortality were compared with national rates estimating standardized incidence ratios (SIRs). A meta-analysis of cancer SIRs from 23 studies (including the present one) was performed. Results: The cohort study identified 81 cases of cancer after exclusion of cases diagnosed within the first year [SIR 1.1; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.9 to 1.4]. SIRs were 1.4 (95% CI, 0.7 to 2.6) for colorectal cancer, 1.1 (95% CI, 0.5 to 2.1) for breast cancer, and 1.4 (95% CI, 0.6 to 2.6) for prostate cancer. Whereas overall mortality was elevated in acromegaly (SIR 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.6), cancer-specific mortality was not. The meta-analysis yielded an SIR of overall cancer of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.2 to 1.8). SIRs were elevated for colorectal cancer, 2.6 (95% CI, 1.7 to 4.0); thyroid cancer, 9.2 (95% CI, 4.2 to 19.9); breast cancer, 1.6 (1.1 to 2.3); gastric cancer, 2.0 (95% CI, 1.4 to 2.9); and urinary tract cancer, 1.5 (95% CI, 1.0 to 2.3). In general, cancer SIR was higher in single-center studies and in studies with,10 cancer cases. Conclusions: Cancer incidence rates were slightly elevated in patients with acromegaly in our study, and this finding was supported by the meta-analysis of 23 studies, although it also suggested the presence of selection bias in some earlier studies.

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