4.6 Article

Cholelithiasis and the risk of liver cancer: results from cohort studies of 134 546 Chinese men and women

期刊

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jech-2013-203503

关键词

-

资金

  1. State Key Project Specialized for Infectious Diseases of China [2008ZX10002-015, 2012ZX10002008-002]
  2. United States National Institutes of Health [R37 CA070867, R01 CA082729]
  3. Fogarty International Clinical Research Scholars and Fellows Program at Vanderbilt University [R24 TW007988-5]
  4. Cancer Prevention and Control Training Program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham - National Institutes of Health [5R25 CA047888]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Cholelithiasis and cholecystectomy have been proposed as risk factors for liver cancer, but findings have been inconsistent. We assessed this association using data from the Shanghai Women's and Men's Health Studies. Methods History of cholelithiasis and cholecystectomy were reported at baseline and follow-up interviews, and liver cancer diagnoses were ascertained from the Shanghai Cancer Registry and Vital Statistics Unit. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% CIs were calculated after adjustment for potential confounders. Results A history of cholelithiasis and cholecystectomy was reported by 9.5% and 3.6% of participants at baseline, respectively. After a total of 859 882 person-years of follow-up for women and 391 093 for men, incident liver cancer was detected in 160 women and 252 men. A positive association was observed between a history of cholelithiasis or cholecystectomy and liver cancer in men (aHR 1.46; 95% CI 1.02 to 2.07) and women (aHR 1.55; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.26). Similar results were observed for cholelithiasis only, but cholecystectomy did not reach statistical significance. There was no strong evidence for detection bias of liver cancer due to cholelithiasis or cholecystectomy. Conclusions Our study suggests that cholelithiasis and possibly cholecystectomy may increase the risk of liver cancer.

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

4.6
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