4.6 Article

Chronic inflammatory diseases, anti-inflammatory medications and risk of prostate cancer: a population-based case-control study

期刊

BMC CANCER
卷 19, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-5846-3

关键词

Prostate cancer; Chronic inflammatory disease; Autoimmune disease; Anti-inflammatory medication

类别

资金

  1. Swedish Cancer Society [2013/472]
  2. NHMRC Early Career Research Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundWhether chronic inflammation increases prostate cancer risk remains unclear. This study investigated whether chronic inflammatory diseases (CID) or anti-inflammatory medication use (AIM) were associated with prostate cancer risk.MethodsFifty-five thousand nine hundred thirty-seven cases (all prostate cancer, 2007-2012) and 279,618 age-matched controls were selected from the Prostate Cancer Database Sweden. CIDs and AIMs was determined from national patient and drug registers. Associations were investigated using conditional logistic regression, including for disease/drug subtypes and exposure length/dose.ResultsMen with a history of any CID had slightly increased risk of any prostate cancer diagnosis (OR: 1.08; 95%CI: 1.04-1.12) but not unfavourable' (high-risk or advanced) prostate cancer. Generally, risk of prostate cancer was highest for shorter exposure times. However, a positive association was observed for asthma >5years before prostate cancer diagnosis (OR: 1.21; 95%CI: 1.05-1.40). Risk of prostate cancer was increased with prior use of any AIMs (OR: 1.26; 95%CI: 1.24-1.29). A positive trend with increasing cumulative dose was only observed for inhaled glucocorticoids (p<0.011).ConclusionDetection bias most likely explains the elevated risk of prostate cancer with prior history of CIDs or use of AIMs, given the higher risk immediately after first CID event and lack of dose response. However, findings for length of time with asthma and dose of inhaled glucocorticoids suggest that asthma may increase risk of prostate cancer through other pathways.

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