4.6 Article

Diabetes and Thyroid Cancer Risk in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study

期刊

THYROID
卷 21, 期 9, 页码 957-963

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/thy.2010.0396

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute (NCI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: We hypothesized that diabetes may play a role in thyroid cancer risk due to the parallel secular rise in diabetes prevalence and morbidity in the United States, the higher prevalence of thyroid disorders among diabetics compared with the general population, and the potential roles of metabolic syndrome, obesity, and diabetes as precipitating factors in cancer development. Methods: We assessed the association between self-reported diabetes and the risk of differentiated thyroid cancer in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study, a prospective cohort of 200,556 women and 295,992 men, 50-71 years of age, in 1995-1996. Diabetes status and information on potential confounders was ascertained using a self-administered questionnaire. During an average of 10 years of follow-up, 585 thyroid cancer cases were identified. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for thyroid cancer and thyroid cancer subtypes in men and women according to diabetes status. Results: Nine percent of the total baseline cohort reported a history of diabetes (7% of women, 10% of men). A nonsignificant 25% increase in thyroid cancer risk (HR-1.25; 95% CI: 0.95-1.64) was associated with diabetes. Among women, the risk was significantly increased (HR-1.46, 95% CI: 1.01-2.10). The risk was not elevated among men (HR-1.04, 95% CI: 0.69-1.58). In this cohort, diabetic women with differentiated thyroid cancer were at somewhat higher risk of follicular thyroid cancer (HR-1.92; 95% CI: 0.86-4.27) than papillary thyroid cancer (HR-1.25; 95% CI: 0.80-1.97). Conclusion: This study lends support to the hypothesis that diabetes increases the risk of differentiated thyroid 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