4.3 Article

Diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome and obesity are not significant risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma in an HBV- and HCV-endemic area of Southern Taiwan

期刊

KAOHSIUNG JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
卷 29, 期 8, 页码 451-459

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1016/j.kjms.2012.12.006

关键词

Diabetes mellitus; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Metabolic syndrome; Obesity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A prominent factor in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is chronic infection with hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV). Diabetes mellitus (DM), metabolic syndrome (MetS), and obesity have also been implicated in HCC development, but these associations are not observed in all HBV- and HCV-endemic areas. We attempted to clarify the role of these factors in HCC development in an HBV- and HCV-endemic area in southern Taiwan. A community-based health examination was conducted in 2004 in Tainan County. After individuals with incomplete data and those with known HCC were excluded, there were 56,231 participants who were over 40 years of age. A further 262 HCC cases were identified from the National Cancer Registration Database records from 2005 to 2007. The hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) seropositivity, anti-HCV seropositivity, platelet count, serum biochemical data, blood pressure, sociodemographic information, and anthropometric measurements were analyzed. Survival analyses were used to identify the associations between these factors and HCC. For the 262 HCC cases, male gender and age greater than 65 years were risk factors. Furthermore, a high alanine aminotransferase level, chronic HBV and/or HCV infection, and liver cirrhosis were also risk factors for HCC. However, DM, MetS and obesity were not associated with HCC development in the non-HBV-/non-HCV-infected, HBV, HCV, or dual B/C groups. In this HBV- and HCV- endemic area, DM, MetS and obesity were not risk factors for developing HCC. Copyright (c) 2013, Kaohsiung Medical University. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. All rights reserved.

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