4.6 Article

Medical Risk Factors Associated with Cholangiocarcinoma in Taiwan: A Population-Based Case-Control Study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069981

关键词

-

资金

  1. Establishment of Cancer Research System Excellence Program
  2. Department of Health, Taiwan, R.O.C. [DOH101-TD-C-111-004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Cholangiocarcinoma, including intra- and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, is a rare but highly lethal cancer. Despite effort in finding the risk factors of cholangiocarcinoma, the causes of most cholangiocarcinoma remain unknown. This study utilized a population-based case-control design using data from the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) of Taiwan to assess the medical conditions associated with cholangiocarcinoma. Methods: 5,157 incident cases of cholangiocarcinoma diagnosed during 2004 to 2008 and 20,628 controls matched to the cases on sex, age, and time of diagnosis (reference date for the controls) were identified from the NHIRD. Medical risk factors were ascertained from the NHIRD for each individual. Conditional logistic regression was performed to evaluate the association between cholangiocarcinoma and each medical risk factor. Results: The results showed that factors associated with an increased risk of cholangiocarcinoma included cholangitis, cholelithiasis, cholecystitis, cirrhosis of liver, alcoholic liver disease, chronic non-alcoholic liver disease, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, inflammatory bowel disease, and peptic ulcer. In addition, sex and age differences were observed. Conclusions: This study confirms the association between cholangiocarcinoma and several less established risk factors, including diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and peptic ulcer (proxy for the presence of Helicobacter Pylori). Future studies should focus on finding additional environmental and genetic causes of cholangiocarcinoma.

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