4.5 Article

Aspirin use and risk of biliary tract cancer: A population-based study in Shanghai, China

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
卷 14, 期 5, 页码 1315-1318

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0032

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The association of gallbladder and bile duct cancers with gallstones, cholecystitis, and cholangitis suggest that chronic inflammation contributes to the carcinogenic process. However, the effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, such as aspirin, on biliary tract cancer has not been well studied. In a population-based case-control study conducted in Shanghai, China, we examined the relationship between aspirin use and the risk of biliary disease. A total of 627 patients with biliary tract cancer, including cancers of the gallbladder (n = 368), extrahepatic bile duct (n = 191), and ampulla of Vater (n = 68); 1,037 patients with biliary stones; and 958 healthy adults were included in the study. Self-reported data on aspirin use was collected from study participants by in-person interview. The prevalence of aspirin use was low, with 5.7% of the population controls being regular users. After controlling for age, sex, education, and biliary stone status, aspirin use was associated with a reduced risk of gallbladder cancer [odds ratio (OR), 0.37; 95% confidence interval (0), 0.17-0.88]. An inverse relationship was also observed for frequency and duration of use and with younger age when starting use. In addition, there was a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of bile duct (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.19-1.19) and ampullary cancers (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.03-1.65) associated with aspirin use, whereas no clear association was seen with biliary stones (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.59-1.44). Further studies of biliary tract cancer in other populations are needed to confirm these results and to elucidate the mechanisms that underlie the reduced risk associated with use of aspirin and possibly other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

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