4.7 Article

Cigarette smoking and subtypes of bladder cancer

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 130, 期 4, 页码 896-901

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.26068

关键词

cigarette smoking; bladder cancer; tumor subtypes; nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; Los Angeles

类别

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health [P01 CA17054, R35 CA53890, R01 CA65726, R01 CA114665]
  2. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health [P01 ES05622, P30 ES07048]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is little information regarding associations between suspected bladder cancer risk factors and tumor subtypes at diagnosis. Some, but not all, studies have found that bladder cancer among smokers is often more invasive than it is among nonsmokers. This population-based case-control study was conducted in Los Angeles, California, involving 1,586 bladder cancer patients and their individually matched controls. Logistic regression was used to conduct separate analyses according to tumor subtypes defined by stage and grade. Cigarette smoking increased risk of both superficial and invasive bladder cancer, but the more advanced the stage, the stronger the effect. The odds ratios associated with regular smokers were 2.2 (95% confidence intervals, 1.82.8), 2.7 (2.13.6) and 3.7 (2.55.5) for low-grade superficial, high-grade superficial and invasive tumors respectively. This pattern was consistently observed regardless of the smoking exposure index under examination. Women had higher risk of invasive bladder cancer than men even they smoked comparable amount of cigarettes as men. There was no gender difference in the association between smoking and risk of low-grade superficial bladder cancer. The heterogeneous effect of cigarette smoking was attenuated among heavy users of NSAIDs. Our results indicate that cigarette smoking was more strongly associated with increased risk of invasive bladder cancer than with low-grade superficial bladder cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据