4.2 Article

Positive association between hypertension and urinary bladder cancer: epidemiologic evidence involving 79,236 propensity score-matched individuals

Journal

UPSALA JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
Volume 123, Issue 2, Pages 109-115

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/03009734.2018.1473534

Keywords

Essential hypertension; population-based cohort study; propensity analysis; urinary bladder cancer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: We hypothesized that hypertensive patients harbor a higher risk of urinary bladder (UB) cancer. Material and methods: We performed a population-based cohort study on adults using a National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) dataset. Hypertension and comparison non-hypertensive (COMP) groups comprising 39,618 patients each were propensity score-matched by age, sex, index date, and medical comorbidities. The outcome was incident UB cancer validated using procedure codes. We constructed multivariable Cox models to derive adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Cumulative incidence was compared using a log-rank test. Results: During a total follow-up duration of 380,525 and 372,020 person-years in the hypertension and COMP groups, 248 and 186 patients developed UB cancer, respectively, representing a 32% increase in the risk (aHR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.09-1.60). Hypertensive women harbored a significantly increased risk of UB cancer (aHR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.12-2.13) compared with non-hypertensive women, whereas men with hypertension had a statistically non-significant increased risk (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.96-1.55). The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the increased risk was sustained throughout different follow-up durations for the entire cohort; a statistical increase in the risk was also noted among hypertensive men. Conclusion: This nationwide population-based propensity score-matched cohort study supports a positive association between hypertension and subsequent UB cancer development.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available