4.7 Article

Common infection-related conditions and risk of lymphoid malignancies in older individuals

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 110, 期 11, 页码 2796-2803

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2014.173

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute
  2. Queen's University Belfast
  3. MRC [MR/K023241/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Medical Research Council [MR/K023241/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Chronic antigenic stimulation may initiate non-Hodgkin (NHL) and Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) development. Antecedent, infection-related conditions have been associated, but evidence by lymphoproliferative subtype is limited. Methods: From the US SEER-Medicare database, 44 191 NHL, 1832 HL and 200 000 population-based controls, frequency matched to all SEER cancer cases, were selected. Logistic regression models, adjusted for potential confounders, compared infection-related conditions in controls with HL and NHL patients and by the NHL subtypes diffuse large B-cell, T-cell, follicular and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL). Stratification by race was undertaken. Results: Respiratory tract infections were broadly associated with NHL, particularly MZL. Skin infections were associated with a 15-28% increased risk of NHL and with most NHL subtypes, particularly cellulitis with T-cell lymphoma (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.24-1.49). Only herpes zoster remained associated with HL following Bonferroni correction (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.28-1.87). Gastrointestinal and urinary tract infections were not strongly associated with NHL or HL. In stratified analyses by race, sinusitis, pharyngitis, bronchitis and cellulitis showed stronger associations with total NHL in blacks than whites (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Infections may contribute to the aetiologic pathway and/or be markers of underlying immune modulation. Precise elucidation of these mechanisms may provide important clues for understanding how immune disturbance contributes to lymphoma.

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