4.7 Article

Alcohol consumption and risk of urothelial cell bladder cancer in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition cohort

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 141, 期 10, 页码 1963-1970

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.30894

关键词

bladder cancer; alcohol; cohort study; cancer stage; alcoholic beverages

类别

资金

  1. European Commission (DG-SANCO)
  2. International Agency for Research on Cancer
  3. Danish Cancer Society (Denmark)
  4. Ligue Contre le Cancer, Institut Gustave Roussy, Mutuelle Generale de l'Education Nationale, Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale (INSERM) (France)
  5. Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro-AIRC-Italy and National Research Council (Italy)
  6. German Cancer Aid (Germany)
  7. German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) (Germany)
  8. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (Germany)
  9. Deutsche Krebshilfe (Germany)
  10. Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (Germany)
  11. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Germany)
  12. Hellenic Health Foundation (Greece)
  13. Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro-AIRC-Italy (Italy)
  14. National Research Council (Italy)
  15. Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS) (The Netherlands)
  16. etherlands Cancer Registry (NKR) (The Netherlands)
  17. LK Research Funds (The Netherlands)
  18. Dutch Prevention Funds (The Netherlands)
  19. Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland) (The Netherlands)
  20. World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) (The Netherlands)
  21. Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands)
  22. Nordforsk (Norway)
  23. Nordic Centre of Excellence programme on Food, Nutrition and Health (Norway)
  24. Health Research Fund (FIS) [PI13/00061, PI13/01162]
  25. Regional Government of Andalucia (Spain)
  26. Regional Government of Asturias (Spain)
  27. Regional Government of Basque Country (Spain)
  28. Regional Government of Murcia (Spain) [6236]
  29. Regional Government of Navarra (Spain)
  30. ISCIII RETIC [RD06/0020]
  31. Swedish Cancer Society (Sweden)
  32. Swedish Research Council (Sweden)
  33. County Council of Skane (Sweden)
  34. County Council of Vasterbotten (Sweden)
  35. Cancer Research UK (United Kingdom) [14136, C570/A16491, C8221/A19170]
  36. Medical Research Council (United Kingdom) [1000143, MR/M012190/1]
  37. [ERC-2009-AdG 232997]
  38. Cancer Research UK [14136, 16491] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Findings on the association between alcohol consumption and bladder cancer are inconsistent. We investigated that association in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohort. We included 476,160 individuals mostly aged 35-70 years, enrolled in ten countries and followed for 13.9 years on average. Hazard ratios (HR) for developing urothelial cell carcinoma (UCC; 1,802 incident cases) were calculated using Cox proportional hazards models. Alcohol consumption at baseline and over the life course was analyzed, as well as different types of beverages (beer, wine, spirits). Baseline alcohol intake was associated with a statistically nonsignificant increased risk of UCC (HR 1.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00-1.06 for each additional 12 g/day). HR in smokers was 1.04 (95% CI 1.01-1.07). Men reporting high baseline intakes of alcohol (>96 g/day) had an increased risk of UCC (HR 1.57; 95% CI 1.03-2.40) compared to those reporting moderate intakes (<6 g/day), but no dose-response relationship emerged. In men, an increased risk of aggressive forms of UCC was observed even at lower doses (>6 to 24 g/day). Average lifelong alcohol intake was not associated with the risk of UCC, however intakes of spirits>24 g/day were associated with an increased risk of UCC in men (1.38; 95% CI 1.01-1.91) and smokers (1.39; 95% CI 1.01-1.92), compared to moderate intakes. We found no association between alcohol and UCC in women and never smokers. In conclusion, we observed some associations between alcohol and UCC in men and in smokers, possibly because of residual confounding by tobacco smoking.

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

4.7
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