4.6 Article

Serum insulin-like growth factor I and subsequent risk of colorectal cancer among Japanese-American men

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 158, Issue 5, Pages 424-431

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwg176

Keywords

colonic neoplasms; colorectal neoplasms; insulin-like growth factor I; insulin; like growth factor binding protein 3; rectal neoplasms

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA33644] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent reports suggest that colorectal cancer is positively related to insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) and inversely related to insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3 (IGFBP-3). To evaluate these associations further and separately for colon and rectal cancer, the authors conducted a nested case-control study in a cohort of 9,345 Japanese-American men examined in Hawaii in 1971-1977. A total of 177 incident colon cancer cases and 105 incident rectal cancer cases were identified from 1972 to 1996. These patients' stored sera and those of 282 age-matched controls were measured for IGF-I and IGFBP-3. The adjusted mean level of IGF-I was higher in colon cancer cases than in controls (154.7 ng/ml vs. 144.4 ng/ml; p=0.01). However, the multivariate odds ratio for the highest quartile compared with the lowest was just 1.8 (95% confidence interval: 0.8, 4.3). Adjusted mean IGF-I levels were similar between rectal cancer cases and their controls. For IGFBP-3, adjusted mean levels were lower for both colon and rectal cancer cases than for their matched controls, but the differences were not significant. The IGF-I results weakly support findings from other studies and suggest that there are differences in IGF-I findings between colon and rectal cancer cases. It is possible that IGF-related risk is confounded by other factors that may vary among different cohorts. Further research is needed to clarify these relations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available