4.6 Article

Association between chronic viral hepatitis infection and breast cancer risk: a nationwide population-based case-control study

期刊

BMC CANCER
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-11-495

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Sciences Council, Executive Yuan [DOH 97-HP-1101]
  2. China Medical University Hospital [1MS1, DMR-94-080]
  3. Taiwan Department of Health Clinical Trial and Research Center and for Excellence [DOH 100-TD-B-111-004]
  4. Taiwan Department of Health Cancer Research Center for Excellence [DOH100-TD-C-111-005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In Taiwan, there is a high incidence of breast cancer and a high prevalence of viral hepatitis. In this case-control study, we used a population-based insurance dataset to evaluate whether breast cancer in women is associated with chronic viral hepatitis infection. Methods: From the claims data, we identified 1,958 patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer during the period 2000-2008. A randomly selected, age-matched cohort of 7,832 subjects without cancer was selected for comparison. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to calculate odds ratios of breast cancer associated with viral hepatitis after adjustment for age, residential area, occupation, urbanization, and income. The age-specific (<50 years and >= 50 years) risk of breast cancer was also evaluated. Results: There were no significant differences in the prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV)infection, hepatitis B virus (HBV), or the prevalence of combined HBC/HBV infection between breast cancer patients and control subjects (p = 0.48). Multivariable logistic regression analysis, however, revealed that age <50 years was associated with a 2-fold greater risk of developing breast cancer (OR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.23-3.34). Conclusions: HCV infection, but not HBV infection, appears to be associated with early onset risk of breast cancer in areas endemic for HCV and HBV. This finding needs to be replicated in further studies.

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