4.5 Article

Serum concentrations of insulin-like growth factor and insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3 and recurrent colorectal adenomas

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
卷 17, 期 6, 页码 1493-1498

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0048

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCI NIH HHS [K07 CA108910-01A1, K07 CA108910] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) and its primary binding protein, IGFBP-3, have been associated with colorectal cancer incidence in prior epidemiologic studies. High concentrations of IGF-I generally result in increasing risk and high concentrations of IGFBP-3 in decreasing risk. Only one prior study of IGF-I and IGFBP-3 and adenoma recurrence has been reported. We assayed fasting serum from 375 subjects with and 375 subjects without a recurrent adenoma during the course of the Polyp Prevention Trial to determine baseline concentrations of IGF-I and IGFBP-3. To estimate relative risk of adenoma recurrence over the course of 4 years of follow-up for each of these serum measures, we calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age, gender, body mass index, intervention group, aspirin, smoking, ethnicity, and education. For both IGF-I and IGFBP-3, we found trends indicating decreased risk for subjects in the high compared with the low quartile (for IGF-I: OR, 0.65; 95% CI 0.41-1.01; for IGFBP-3: OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.42-1.05). The associations were even greater for advanced adenomas (for IGF-I: OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.21-1.29; for IGFBP-3: OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13-0.82). These results showed an unexpected null association, or even the suggestion of a reduction in risk for recurrent adenoma, with not just high IGFBP-3 concentration but also with high levels of IGF-I. Why IGF-I would decrease risk of recurrent adenoma (as distinct from incident adenoma or colorectal cancer) is not clear.

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