4.5 Article

Factors associated with human small aggressive non-small cell lung cancer

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
卷 16, 期 10, 页码 2082-2089

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0251

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Some non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) progress to distant lymph nodes or metastasize while relatively small. Such small aggressive NSCLCs (SA-NSCLC) are no longer resectable with curative intent, carry a grave prognosis, and may involve unique biological pathways. This is a study of factors associated with SA-NSCLC. Methods: A nested case-case study was embedded in the National Cancer Institute's Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. SA-NSCLC cases had stage T-1, N-3, and/or M-1 NSCLC (n = 48) and non-SA-NSCLC cases had T-2 to T-3, No to N-2, and M-0 NSCLC (n = 329). Associations were assessed by multiple logistic regression. Results: SA-NSCLCs were associated with younger age at diagnosis [odds ratio (OR)(>= 65) versus (<65), 0.44; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.22-0.881, female gender, family history of lung cancer, and the interaction gender*family history of lung cancer and were inversely associated with ibuprofen use (ORyes versus no, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11-0.76). The ORs for associating gender (women versus men) with SA-NSCLC in those with and without a family history of lung cancer were 11.76 (95% CI, 2.00-69.22) and 1.86 (95% CI, 0.88-3.96), respectively. These associations held adjusted for histology and time from screening to diagnosis and when alternative controls were assessed. Conclusion: SA-NSCLC was associated with female gender, especially in those with a family history of lung cancer. If these exploratory findings, which are subject to bias, are validated as causal, elucidation of the genetic and female factors involved may improve understanding of cancer progression and lead to preventions and therapies. Ibuprofen may inhibit lung cancer progression.

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

4.5
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