4.7 Article

Impact of prediagnosis smoking, alcohol, obesity, and insulin resistance on survival in male cancer patients: National Health Insurance Corporation Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 24, 期 31, 页码 5017-5024

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.07.0243

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Although many studies have demonstrated that smoking, alcohol, obesity, and insulin resistance are risk factors for cancer, the role of those factors on cancer survival has been less studied. Patients and Methods The study participants were 14,578 men with a first cancer derived from a cohort of 901,979 male government employees and teachers who participated in a national health examination program in 1996. We obtained mortality data for those years from the Korean Statistical Office. We used a standard Poisson regression model to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for survival in relation to smoking, alcohol, obesity, and insulin resistance before diagnosis. Results Poor survival of all cancer combined ( HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.33), cancer of the lung ( HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.82), and cancer of the liver ( HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.21 to 1.53) were significantly associated with smoking. Compared with the nondrinker, heavy drinkers had worse outcomes for head and neck ( HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.23 to 2.79) and liver ( HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.41) cancer, with dose-dependent relationships. Patients with a fasting serum glucose level above 126 mg/dL had a higher mortality rate for stomach ( HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.25 to 1.84) and lung ( HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.87) cancer. Higher body mass index was significantly associated with longer survival in head and neck ( HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.74) and esophagus ( HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.68) cancer. Conclusion Prediagnosis risk factors for cancer development ( smoking, alcohol consumption, obesity, and insulin resistance) had a statistically significant effect on survival among male cancer patients.

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