4.5 Article

Adenocarcinoma of the lung among women:: risk associated with smoking, prior lung disease, diet and menstrual and pregnancy history

期刊

LUNG CANCER
卷 41, 期 3, 页码 283-293

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0169-5002(03)00234-4

关键词

adenocarcinoma; tobacco; diet; women; epidemiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To investigate the role of tobacco and some other known or suspected factors responsible for the risk of developing adenocarcinoma, of the lung, and to compare with other cell types (squamous-, small- and large-cell cancers) in Czech women, we conducted a case-control study. Data collected by personal interviews from 145 cases of adenocarcinoma of the lung, 221 lung cancer cases of other cell types, and 1624 controls were analyzed using unconditional Logistic regression. Cigarette smoking was the main determinant of all major cell types of lung cancer among Czech women, its effect was weaker on adenocarcinoma than on squamous-, small- and large-cell cancers. Among never smokers, passive smoking in childhood (before age 16) did not significantly increase the risk of adenocarcinoma (OR = 1.35, 95%Cl 0.75-2.45), contrasting with an elevation in the risk of squamous-, small- and large-cell cancers combined (OR= 2.10, 95%Cl 1.02-4.33). Excess risk associated with consumption of red meat daily or several times per week (OR = 1.81, 95%Cl 1.04-3.18) was restricted to squamous-, small- and large-cell cancers combined. Wine drinking, at higher frequency than once per month, was inversely associated with the risk of adenocarcinoma (OR= 0.46, 95%Cl 0.23-0.92), however, not with squamous-, small- and large-cell cancers combined (OR= 0.77, 95%Cl 0.47-1.28). Inverse associations with the risk of squamous-, small- and large-cell cancers combined emerged for the quantity of menstrual flow (OR= 0.63, 95%Cl 0.40-0.99), and pains or mental tension related to menses (OR = 0.61, 95%Cl 0.42-0.89). (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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