4.6 Article

White Blood Cell Count and Risk of Gastric Cancer Incidence in a General Japanese Population

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 175, 期 6, 页码 504-510

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwr345

关键词

Helicobacter pylori; inflammation; leukocytes; proportional hazards models; prospective studies; risk factors; stomach neoplasms

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan [20591063, 21590698, 22590892]
  2. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan (Comprehensive Research on Aging and Health) [H20-Chouju-004]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23590797, 22700297, 24590797, 22116001, 22116010, 21590698, 22590892] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The authors examined the association between white blood cell (WBC) count and the development of gastric cancer in a 19-year follow-up study of 2,558 Japanese subjects aged >= 40 years (1988-2007). The subjects were stratified into 4 groups according to baseline WBC quartile (< 4.4, 4.5-5.2, 5.3-6.3, or >= 6.4 x 10(3) cells/mu L). During follow-up, 128 subjects developed gastric cancer. The age- and sex-adjusted incidence of gastric cancer increased linearly with higher WBC level: 1.7, 2.6, 3.9, and 5.4 per 1,000 person-years, respectively, for the 4 quartile groups (P for trend < 0.01). The risk of gastric cancer was 2.22-fold (95% confidence interval: 1.19, 4.14) higher in the highest WBC quartile group than in the lowest group after adjustment for confounding factors. With respect to Helicobacter pylori infection status, H. pylori-seropositive subjects in the highest WBC quartile group showed a significantly greater risk of gastric cancer than those in the lower 3 quartile groups, whereas such an association was not observed in H. pylori-seronegative subjects. There was no evidence of heterogeneity in the association (P for heterogeneity = 0.65). The study findings suggest that higher WBC levels are a risk factor for gastric cancer, especially in subjects with H. pylori infection.

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