4.7 Article

Circulating insulin-like growth factor axis and the risk of pancreatic cancer in four prospective cohorts

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 97, 期 1, 页码 98-104

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603826

关键词

pancreatic cancer; insulin-like growth factor; insulin; like growth factor binding protein; insulin

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA95589, R01 CA086102, T32 CA009172, R01 CA124908, CA55075, CA87969, P01 CA055075, R01 CA095589, CA86102, P01 CA087969] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [P30 DK040561, P30 DK040561-12] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I induces growth in pancreatic cancer cells and blockade of the IGF-I receptor has antitumour activity. The association of plasma IGF-I and IGF binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3) with pancreatic cancer risk has been investigated in two small studies, with conflicting results. We conducted a nested case-control study within four large, prospective cohorts to investigate whether prediagnostic plasma levels of IGF-I, IGF-II, and IGFBP-3 were associated with pancreatic cancer risk. Plasma levels in 212 cases and 635 matched controls were compared by conditional logistic regression, with adjustment for other known pancreatic cancer risk factors. No association was observed between plasma levels of IGF-I, IGF-II, or IGFBP-3 and incident diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Relative risks for the highest vs the lowest quartile of IGF-I, IGF-II, and IGFBP-3 were 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.60 - 1.48), 0.96 (95% CI, 0.61 - 1.52), and 1.21 (95% CI, 0.75 - 1.92), respectively. The relative risk for the molar ratio of IGF-I and IGFBP-3, a surrogate measure for free IGF-I, was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.54 - 1.31). Additionally, no association was noted in stratified analyses or when requiring longer follow-up. In four prospective cohorts, we found no association between the risk of pancreatic cancer and prediagnostic plasma levels of IGF-I, IGF-II, or IGFBP-3.

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