4.8 Article

Insulin therapy and colorectal cancer risk among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients

期刊

GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 127, 期 4, 页码 1044-1050

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2004.07.011

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK50306] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aims: Endogenous hyperinsulinemia in the context of type 2 diabetes mellitus is potentially associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. We aimed to determine whether insulin therapy might increase the risk of colorectal cancer among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among all patients with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the General Practice Research Database from the United Kingdom. We excluded patients with <3 years of colorectal cancer-free database follow-up after the diabetes diagnosis as well as those insulin users who developed colorectal cancer after <1 year of insulin therapy. The remaining insulin users and the noninsulin-using type 2 diabetic patients were followed for the occurrence of colorectal cancer. Hazard ratios (HR) were determined in Cox proportional hazard analysis. A nested case-control study was conducted to perform multivariable analysis and to determine a duration-response effect. Results: The incidence of colorectal cancer in insulin users (n = 3160) was 197 per 100,000 person-years, compared with 124 per 100,000 person-years in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients not receiving insulin (n = 21,758). The age- and sex-adjusted HR of colorectal cancer associated with greater than or equal to1 year of insulin use was 2.1 (95% CI: 1.2-3.4, P = 0.005). The positive association strengthened after adjusting for potential confounders. The multivariable odds ratio associated with each incremental year of insulin therapy was 1.21 (95% CI: 1.03-1.42, P = 0.02). Conclusions: Chronic insulin therapy significantly increases the risk of colorectal cancer among type 2 diabetes mellitus 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

4.8
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