4.6 Article

Autoimmune Disease and Subsequent Urological Cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 189, 期 6, 页码 2262-2268

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.12.014

关键词

kidney; prostate; urinary bladder; autoimmune diseases; urologic neoplasms

资金

  1. Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research
  2. Deutsche Krebshilfe
  3. Swedish Cancer Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We examined the subsequent risk and prognosis of urological cancer in individuals diagnosed with autoimmune disease. Materials and Methods: We systematically analyzed the risk and prognosis of prostate, kidney and bladder cancers in individuals diagnosed with any of 33 autoimmune diseases based on a national Swedish database for 1964 through 2008. The SIR and HR were calculated for subsequent urological cancers between 1964 and 2008 in individuals hospitalized for autoimmune disease. Results: An increased SIR for urological cancer was recorded after 26 autoimmune diseases. An increased HR for cancer specific survival was noted after 4 autoimmune diseases and for overall survival after 18. The highest SIRs were seen for kidney cancer after polyarteritis nodosa (2.85) and polymyositis/dermatomyositis (2.68), and for bladder cancer after polymyositis/dermatomyositis (2.45). The highest risk of prostate cancer (1.70) was observed after polyarteritis nodosa. SIRs were lower during followup from 1990 to 2008 compared to the previous period. Individuals diagnosed with prostate and kidney cancers showed an improved cancer specific prognosis, in contrast to the poorer overall prognosis for all 3 urological cancers. Conclusions: The risk of urological cancer was increased after all autoimmune diseases. The most significant changes after individual autoimmune diseases were toward higher risk. Survival data were reassuring since autoimmune disease only marginally influences the prognosis of cancer specific mortality. However, overall survival was decreased for the 3 types of 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