4.3 Article

Diabetes and urothelial cancer risk: The Multiethnic Cohort Study

Journal

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 35, Issue 6, Pages 551-554

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2011.02.014

Keywords

Diabetes; Urothelial cancer; Bladder cancer; Prospective cohort; Epidemiology

Funding

  1. US Public Health Service (National Cancer Institute) [R37 CA 54281]
  2. [R25 CA 90956]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: It is important to understand the adverse health sequelae that may result from the rising incidence of diabetes. Diabetics may have an increased risk for urothelial cancer but the evidence from prospective studies and ethnically diverse populations is sparse. Method: We examined this association in the Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) that was conducted in Hawaii and Los Angeles with nearly 186,000 participants in five ethnic groups. Over a median 10.7 years of follow-up, 918 incident cases of urothelial cancer (89% bladder and 11% other urinary tract sites) were identified through tumor registry linkages. Results: A self-reported diagnosis of diabetes was associated with an increased risk of urothelial cancer (relative risk = 1.25; 95% confidence interval: 1.04-1.50). The association was not explained by body mass index, physical activity, or smoking. There was some suggestion that the risk was higher in women, Whites and African Americans, and past smokers. The risk associated with diabetes for in situ and localized cancer was similar to that for regional and distant cancer. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that the increased urothelial cancer risk with diabetes in this multiethnic population is very similar to that observed in mostly White or Asian populations. Whether or not the elevated risk is moderated by the degree of control of the hyperglycemia associated with diabetes will need to be determined in future studies. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available