4.7 Article

5-Aminosalicylate Is Not Chemoprophylactic for Colorectal Cancer in IBD: A Population Based Study

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 106, 期 4, 页码 731-736

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2011.50

关键词

-

资金

  1. Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada
  2. Bingham Chair in Gastroenterology
  3. Abbott Canada
  4. Astra Zeneca Canada
  5. Axcan Pharma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine if use of 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASA) was associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) in people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: We used the population-based University of Manitoba IBD Epidemiology Database that tracks all health-care visits from 1984 to 2008 of all Manitobans with IBD and all prescription medication use since 1995. In 2008, there were 8,744 subjects with IBD (ulcerative colitis 4,325, Crohn's disease 4,419, females 4,851, males 3,893). In study I, we assessed the incidence of CRC among 5-ASA users (>= 1 year, >= 5 years of cumulative use) compared with nonusers. In study II, we assessed a cohort of those with CRC (n = 101) diagnosed in 1995-2008, matched to a control cohort by age, sex, disease duration, and disease diagnosis without CRC (n = 303), and logistic analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: For study I, the hazard ratio for CRC among 5-ASA users was 1.04 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-1.62, P = 0.87) at >= 1 year of use and 2.01 (95 % CI 1.04-3.9, P = 0.038) at >= 5 years of use with no difference when assessing by diagnosis. Males, but not females, using 5-ASA for >= 5 years had an increased risk of CRC. In study II, CRC cases had similar use of any 5-ASA compared with controls for >= 1 year of use (1.02, 95 % CI 0.60-1.74) or >= 5 years (1.96, 95 % CI 0.84-4.55), and a similar mean number of 5-ASA prescriptions at 10 vs. 11 (P = 0.8) and a similar mean number of dose days at 330 vs. 410 (P = 0.69). CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the majority of studies to date that 5-ASA is not chemoprophylactic in IBD for CRC.

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