4.4 Article

Diabetes and Racial/Ethnic Differences in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Risk: The Multiethnic Cohort

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dju326

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [CA164973, CA186203]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Diabetes is an emerging risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but prospective data from different ethnic populations are scarce. We examined the association between diabetes and HCC in 168 679 African Americans, Native Hawaiians, Japanese Americans, Latinos and whites in the Multiethnic Cohort. Methods During a 15.7-year follow up period, 470 incident HCC cases were identified. Risk factor data were obtained from the baseline questionnaire. Cox regressions were used to calculate hazard rate ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for HCC associated with self-reported diabetes. The population attributable risk percent associated with diabetes was also calculated. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results The RRs for developing HCC (vs whites) were 2.73 (95% CI = 2.00 to 3.72) for Latinos, 2.48 (95% CI = 1.59 to 3.87) for Hawaiians, 2.16 (95% CI = 1.52 to 3.07) for African Americans, and 2.05 (95% CI = 1.50 to 2.81) for Japanese. Diabetes was associated with HCC across ethnic groups (RRLatinos = 3.36 [95% CI = 2.41 to 4.70], RRHawaiians = 2.50 [95% CI = 1.11 to 5.64], RRJapanese = 2.34 [95% CI = 1.60 to 3.41], RRwhites = 2.15 [95% CI = 0.95 to 4.90], and RRAfrican (Americans) = 2.02 [95% CI = 1.17 to 3.48]). We estimated that 27% of HCC cases in Latinos, 18% in Hawaiians, 13% in African Americans, 12% in Japanese, and 6% in whites were attributed to diabetes. Conclusions Latinos were at the highest risk of developing HCC, followed by Native Hawaiians, African Americans, Japanese and whites. Diabetes is a risk factor for HCC in all ethnic groups, and eliminating diabetes could potentially reduce HCC incidence in all ethnic groups, with the largest potential for reduction in Latinos.

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

4.4
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