4.5 Article

Case-Control Study of Aspirin Use and Risk of Pancreatic Cancer

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
卷 23, 期 7, 页码 1254-1263

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1284

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [5R01 CA 098870]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Pancreas-cancer prognosis is dismal, with 5-year survival less than 5%. Significant relationships between aspirin use and decreased pancreas-cancer incidence and mortality have been shown in four of 13 studies. Methods: To evaluate further a possible association between aspirin use and risk of pancreatic cancer, we used data from a population-based Connecticut study conducted from January 2005 to August 2009, of 362 pancreas-cancer cases frequency matched to 690 randomly sampled controls. Results: Overall, regular use of aspirin was associated with reduced risk of pancreatic cancer [odds ratio (OR), 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.39-0.69]. Increments of decreasing risk of pancreatic cancer were observed for each year of low-dose or regular-dose aspirin use (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.98 and OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.96-1.01, respectively) and for increasing years in the past that low-dose or regular-dose aspirin use had started (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92-0.99 and OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.96-1.00, respectively). Reduced risk of pancreatic cancer was seen in most categories of calendar time period of aspirin use, for both low-dose aspirin and regular-dose aspirin use. Relative to continuing use at the time of interview, termination of aspirin use within 2 years of interview was associated with increased risk of pancreatic cancer (OR, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.58-6.65). Conclusions: Our results provide some support that a daily aspirin regimen may reduce risk of developing pancreatic cancer. Impact: Long-term aspirin use has benefits for both cardiovascular disease and cancer, but appreciable bleeding complications that necessitate risk-benefit analysis for individual applications. (C) 2014 AACR.

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