4.7 Article

Role of medical history and medication use in the aetiology of upper aerodigestive tract cancers in Europe: the ARCAGE study

期刊

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 1053-1060

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdr335

关键词

aspirin use; epidemiology; gastroesophageal reflux; medical history; medication use; upper aerodigestive tract cancer

类别

资金

  1. European Community [QLK1-CT-2001-00182]
  2. University of Athens Medical School
  3. Padova University [CPDA057222]
  4. Compagnia San Paolo, Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The study aimed to investigate the role of medical history (skin warts, Candida albicans, herpetic lesions, heartburn, regurgitation) and medication use (for heartburn; for regurgitation; aspirin) in the aetiology of upper aerodigestive tract (UADT) cancer. Methods: A multicentre (10 European countries) case-control study [Alcohol-Related CAncers and GEnetic susceptibility (ARCAGE) project]. Results: There were 1779 cases of UADT cancer and 1993 controls. History of warts or C. albicans infection was associated with a reduced risk [odds ratio (OR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-0.94 and OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60-0.89, respectively] but there was no association with herpetic lesions, heartburn, regurgitation or medication for related symptoms. Regurgitation was associated with an increased risk for cancer of the oesophagus (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.98-2.21). Regular aspirin use was not associated with risk of UADT cancer overall but was associated with a reduced risk for cancer of oesophagus (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.28-0.96), hypopharynx (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28-1.02) and larynx (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.54-1.01). Conclusions: A history of some infections appears to be a marker for decreased risk of UADT cancer. The role of medical history and medication use varied by UADT subsites with aspirin use associated with a decreased risk of oesophageal cancer and suggestive of a decreased risk of hypopharyngeal and laryngeal cancers.

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