4.7 Article

The risk of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis after cancer in US elderly adults: A population-based prospective study

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 135, 期 7, 页码 1745-1750

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.28795

关键词

cancer; amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; Medicare; SEER Program

类别

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute
  2. U.S. Public Health Service

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although epidemiologic studies have examined the risk of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) in relation to cancer, none have been large population-based studies using incident ALS and adjusting for medical surveillance. Addressing those limitations, all first primary cancer cases from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program (1992-2005), linked to Medicare claims data were used. Cases were followed from cancer diagnosis until the earliest date of ALS diagnosis, a break in Medicare claims data, death, age 85 or December 31, 2005. A comparison group from a 5% random Medicare sample in the SEER areas who were cancer-free and censored as above, or until a cancer diagnosis were selected. ALS outcomes were derived from medical claims. The proportional hazards models to estimate ALS hazard ratios (HRs), using age as the time scale, adjusting for sex, race and physician visits, and stratifying the baseline hazard on birth year and SEER registry were used. A total of 303 ALS cases were ascertained in cancer patients (2,154,062 person-years) compared with 246 ALS cases (2,467,634 person-years) in the reference population. There was no overall relationship between cancer and ALS (HR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.81-1.22), nor by gender or race. Except for an elevated ALS risk in the first year after a leukemia diagnosis, the relationship between site-specific cancers and ALS was null after correcting for multiple comparisons. Having a cancer diagnosis was not associated with an overall risk of incident ALS. The short-term ALS risk after leukemia may reflect screening or reporting errors.

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