4.8 Article Proceedings Paper

Risk factors for the development of pancreatic cancer in familial pancreatic cancer kindreds

期刊

GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 124, 期 5, 页码 1292-1299

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO
DOI: 10.1016/S0016-5085(03)00272-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK07742] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aims: Approximately 10% of pancreatic cancers are inherited, but the factors that affect tumorigenesis in familial pancreatic cancer are unknown. We sought to determine whether smoking or other factors could predict cancer risk in familial pancreatic cancer kindreds. Methods: We conducted a nested case-control study including 251 members of 28 families. All families included 2 or more members with pancreatic cancer. We determined the effects of smoking, young age of onset within the family, diabetes mellitus, sex, and number/standing of affected relatives on the risk of pancreatic cancer. Results: Smoking was an independent risk factor for familial pancreatic cancer (odds ratio [OR], 3.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-7.6), and the risk was greatest in males and subjects younger than 50 (OR, 5.2 and OR, 7.6, respectively). Smokers developed cancer 1 decade earlier than nonsmokers (59.6 vs. 69.1 years; P = 0.01), and the number of affected first-degree relatives also increased risk (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9 for each additional family member). Diabetes was not a risk factor for pancreatic cancer, although diabetes was associated with pancreatic dysplasia. One third of families demonstrated genetic anticipation, as the mean age of onset decreased by 2 decades between generations. Conclusions: Smoking is a strong risk factor in familial pancreatic cancer kindreds, particularly among males and those under age 50. Persons with multiple affected first-degree relatives are also at increased risk. These factors may be useful in selecting candidates for pancreatic cancer screening. Members of families with multiple pancreatic cancers should be counseled not to smoke.

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