4.6 Review

Autoimmune diseases and hematological malignancies: Exploring the underlying mechanisms from epidemiological evidence

期刊

SEMINARS IN CANCER BIOLOGY
卷 64, 期 -, 页码 114-121

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2019.06.005

关键词

Cohort study; Epidemiological study; Register-based study; Autoimmune diseases; Hematological malignancies

类别

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council [2016-02373]
  2. Cancerfonden [CAN2017/340]
  3. Crafoordska stiftelsen
  4. ALF funding from Region Skane award
  5. Swedish Research Council [2016-02373] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Autoimmune diseases are characterized by the irregular functioning of the immune system that leads to the loss of tolerance to self-antigens. The underlying nature of autoimmune diseases has led to speculation that the risk of malignancy might be higher or lower in patients with such diseases. However, the rarity and heterogeneity of both autoimmune diseases and malignancies is the main challenge for systematic exploration of associations between autoimmune diseases and cancer. The nationwide usages of electronic health records in Sweden and other countries has created longitudinal clinical datasets of large populations, which are ideal for quantifying the associations as well as possible guidance concerning the underlying mechanisms. In this report, we firstly summarize the population-based epidemiological association studies between autoimmune diseases and subsequent hematological malignancies using data derived mainly from Swedish nationwide data. These include over one million cancer cases and approximately 500,000 patients with medically diagnosed autoimmune disease. We further discuss the underlying mechanisms that contribute to the observed association between autoimmune diseases and hematological malignancies, including shared genetics, environmental factors, medical treatments of autoimmune diseases as well as dysregulated immune function.

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