4.5 Article

Relationship between Histamine(2)-receptor antagonist medications and risk of invasive breast cancer

期刊

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0765

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA 85913] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA085913] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Histamine(2)-receptor antagonist (H-2 blocker) medications are used to treat heartburn, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and ulcers. Some H-2 blockers, specifically cimetidine and ranitidine, also increase serum prolactin concentrations. Given the positive relationship between prolactin levels and postmenopausal breast cancer risk, use of H-2 blockers is a potential breast cancer risk factor. The few previous studies evaluating this association have been null but have been limited by small sample sizes, and none have evaluated risk by either histologic type or estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor status. Methods: Combining data from two population-based case-control studies conducted in western Washington, we assessed the relationship between use of H-2 blockers and risk of different types of breast cancer among 1,941 cases and 1,476 controls 55 to 79 years old. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (95% Cl) were calculated using polytomous logistic regression. Results: Current use of H-2 blockers overall, cimetidine, and famotidine was not associated with an increased risk of either invasive ductal or invasive lobular breast cancer. Current users of ranitidine had a 2.2-fold (95% CI, 1.1-4.3) increased risk of ductal carcinoma that was confined to a 2.4-fold (95% CI, 1.2-4.9) increased risk of estrogen receptor- positive/progesterone receptor-positive ductal carcinoma. Conclusions: Use of H-2 blockers in general is not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, although current use of ranitidine may increase risk of hormone receptor-positive ductal carcinoma. Further studies to confirm this finding are warranted.

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