4.7 Article

Bladder cancer in cancer patients: population-based estimates from a large Swedish study

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 101, 期 7, 页码 1091-1099

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605325

关键词

urinary bladder cancer; second primary tumours; recurrence risk; population based studies

类别

资金

  1. Deutsche Krebshilfe
  2. Swedish Cancer Society
  3. The Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research
  4. EU [LSHC-CT-2004-503465]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: This study quantified the risk of urinary bladder neoplasms in cancer patients taking into account the age at first diagnosis, the gender of the patients and the lead time between diagnoses. METHODS: We used standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) to compare the incidence of bladder tumours in 967 767 cancer patients with the incidence rate in the general Swedish population. A total of 3324 male and 1560 female patients developed bladder tumours at least 1 year after first cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: After bladder and renal pelvis cancers, the SIRs of bladder neoplasms were higher in female than in male patients. Men affected by lung, stomach and larynx tumours belonged to the population at high risk for bladder cancer. Treatment of breast, ovarian and cervical cancers seems to contribute to the subsequent development of bladder neoplasms. Long latencies (16-25 years) were observed after testicular, cervical and endometrial cancers. Detection bias had an important role after prostate cancer. Chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and cisplatin, and also radiotherapy, seem to increase the risk of subsequent neoplasms in the bladder. CONCLUSIONS: These population-based results may help urologists to assess the risk of bladder neoplasms in cancer survivors. Our data should guide ongoing studies that investigate the effectiveness of bladder cancer screening in cancer patients. British Journal of Cancer (2009) 101, 1091-1099. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605325 www.bjcancer.com Published online 15 September 2009 (C) 2009 Cancer Research UK

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