4.6 Article

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Risk of Lung Cancer The Importance of Smoking and Timing of Diagnosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 6-11

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e318274a7dc

关键词

Lung neoplasms; Pulmonary disease; Chronic obstructive; Risk factors; Cigarette smoking

资金

  1. British Lung Foundation [C05/01] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The majority of cases of both lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are attributable to cigarette smoking, but whether COPD is an independent risk factor for lung cancer remains unclear. Methods: We used The Health Improvement Network, a U.K. general practice database, to identify incident cases of lung cancer and controls matched on age, sex, and practice. Using conditional logistic regression, we assessed the effects of timing of first diagnoses of COPD, pneumonia, and asthma on the odds of lung cancer, adjusting for smoking habit. Results: Of 11,888 incident cases of lung cancer, 23% had a prior diagnosis of COPD compared with only 6% of the 37,605 controls. The odds of lung cancer in patients who had COPD diagnosed within 6 months of their cancer diagnosis were 11-fold those of patients without COPD (odds ratio 11.47, 95% confidence interval 9.38-14.02). However, when restricted to earlier COPD diagnoses, with adjustment for smoking, the effect markedly diminished (for COPD diagnoses > 10 years before lung cancer diagnosis, odds ratio: 2.18, 95% confidence interval: 1.87-2.54). The pattern was similar for pneumonia. The effect of COPD on lung cancer remained after excluding patients who had a codiagnosis of asthma. Conclusion: A diagnosis of COPD is strongly associated with a diagnosis of lung cancer, however, this association is largely explained by smoking habit, strongly dependent on the timing of COPD diagnosis, and not specific to COPD. It seems unlikely, therefore, that COPD is an independent risk factor for lung 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

4.6
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