4.5 Article

Analysis of potential risk factors for cancer incidence in patients with aristolochic acid nephropathy from Wenzhou, China

期刊

RENAL FAILURE
卷 37, 期 2, 页码 209-213

出版社

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.3109/0886022X.2014.990347

关键词

Aristolochic acid; cancer in urinary system; renal replacement therapy

资金

  1. Health Department of Zhejiang Province

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate the cancer incidence in patients with end-stage aristolochic acid nephropathy (AAN). Methods: A total of 102 patients with end-stage AAN treated in our hospital between 2004 and 2013 were included in this study. The correlation of cancer incidence with age, gender, dosage of aristolochic acid (AA), the type of renal replacement therapies, and the polymorphisms of quinone oxidoreductase 1 (NQO1) C609T and cytochrome P450 1A1 (CYP1A1) A4889G was examined. Results: The cancer incidence rate in our patients was 41.2% (42 in 102) including 39 cases of urinary cancer. The mortality rate in the patients with cancer was significantly higher than that in the patients without cancer (31%, 13/42 vs. 11.7%, 7/60, p<0.05). Thirteen patients developed cancer before entering end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Cancer incidence was significantly associated with the dosage of AA consumption (p = 0.091). Hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis and renal transplant did not affect the cancer incidence in our patients differently, but appeared to be associated with cancer at particular locations of urinary system. The patients undergoing hemodialysis seemed to more likely have bladder cancer (72.72%), while the patients receiving peritoneal dialysis appeared to develop cancer predominantly in the upper urinary tract (66.67%). Conclusions: The cancer initiation in our patients seems significantly correlate with the dosage of AA consumption. Different renal replacement therapies appear to be associated with cancer at particular locations of urinary system in our patients.

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

4.5
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