4.7 Article

Risk factors for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: A hospital-based case-control study

期刊

LIVER INTERNATIONAL
卷 35, 期 3, 页码 1048-1053

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/liv.12618

关键词

choledocholithiasis; diabetes mellitus; hepatolithiasis; perihilar cholangiocarcinoma; risk factor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & AimsPerihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) is the most common form of bile duct cancer, arising from cholangiocytes at the confluence of hepatic ducts. Given the diversity of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) aetiology according to the location, and the scarcity of studies on the aetiology of pCCA, we aimed to identify the risk factors for pCCA. MethodsA total of 81 patients diagnosed with pCCA between July 2007 and December 2013, and 162 controls matched 2:1 for age, sex and date of diagnosis were included in this hospital-based case-control study. Potential risk factors were retrospectively investigated through clinical records, and the associations with pCCA were studied by calculating the odds ratios (ORs) using conditional logistic regression analysis. ResultsIn the univariate model, the prevalence of choledocholithiasis (OR: 14.00, P=0.014), hepatolithiasis (OR: 12.00, P=0.021) and diabetes mellitus (DM) (OR: 2.74, P=0.005) was higher in pCCA patients than in controls. Heavy smoking and cirrhosis were marginally significant risk factors for pCCA (P<0.1). Multivariate analysis revealed an association between pCCA and hepatolithiasis, choledocholithiasis, DM, and heavy smoking, each, with adjusted ORs of 16.47, 9.39, 3.36 and 2.52 respectively. DM, heavy smoking, hepatolithiasis and choledocholithiasis accounted for about 22.5%, 17.1%, 8.5% and 4.8% of pCCA risk respectively (population attributable risk percentage). ConclusionOur data showed that DM, heavy smoking, choledocholithiasis and hepatolithiasis were risk factors for pCCA development, implying that pCCA may share some aetiological factors with intrahepatic CCA although it has been classified as extrahepatic CCA.

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