4.3 Article

Increased Risks of Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma in Male and Female Chinese Herbalists

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE FORMOSAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
卷 110, 期 3, 页码 161-168

出版社

ELSEVIER TAIWAN
DOI: 10.1016/S0929-6646(11)60026-0

关键词

aristolochic acid; Chinese herbal drugs; Chinese herbalist; urological cancer; urothelial carcinoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Purpose: It has been shown that herbs that contain aristolochic acid induce urological cancer. Chinese herbalists have easy access to such herbs. Our previous mortality study has shown a significantly increased risk of urological cancer in female but not male herbalists. To re-examine this risk in male herbalists, the incidence of urological cancer was analyzed. Methods: We enrolled all 6550 Chinese herbalists in Taiwan registered during 1985-2000, and we retrospectively followed the development of cancer until 2001 by analysis of data collected from the Taiwan Cancer Registry. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated for urological cancers in herbalists and compared with those for the general population in Taiwan. Results: There were 30 newly diagnosed cases of urological cancer and most of them were transitional cell carcinoma (93.1%). The mean age at diagnosis for urothelial carcinoma was 51.6 years, and 51.9% were in the upper urinary tract. After adjustment for age and sex, the SIR for all urological cancers was 3.51 [(95% confidence interval (Cl): 2.37-5.01]. When stratified by location, the SIRs for kidney and upper urinary tract cancers and bladder cancer were 4.24 (95% Cl: 2.47-6.80) and 2.86 (95% Cl: 1.52-4.89), respectively. When analyzed by sex, the SIRs for all urological cancers, kidney and upper urinary tract cancers, and bladder cancer were also significantly increased in male herbalists. Conclusion: The significant risk of urothelial carcinoma noted in male herbalists increases our suspicion that this is an occupational disease that renders regular health assessment of herbalists an urgent necessity.

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

4.3
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