The age-dependent association of risk factors with pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer presents as advanced disease in >80% of patients; yet, appropriate ages to consider prevention and early detection strategies are poorly defined. We investigated age-specific associations and attributable risks of pancreatic cancer for established modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included 167 483 participants from two prospective US cohort studies with 1190 incident cases of pancreatic cancer during >30 years of follow-up; 5107 pancreatic cancer cases and 8845 control participants of European ancestry from a completed multicenter genome-wide association study (GWAS); and 248 893 pancreatic cancer cases documented in the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Across different age categories, we investigated cigarette smoking, obesity, diabetes, height, and non-O blood group in the prospective cohorts; weighted polygenic risk score of 22 previously identified single nucleotide polymorphisms in the GWAS; and male sex and black race in the SEER Program. RESULTS: In the prospective cohorts, all five risk factors were more strongly associated with pancreatic cancer risk among younger participants, with associations attenuated among those aged >70 years. The hazard ratios comparing participants with three to five risk factors with those with no risk factors were 9.24 [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.11-20.77] among those aged ≤60 years, 3.00 (95% CI 1.85-4.86) among those aged 61-70 years, and 1.46 (95% CI 1.10-1.94) among those aged >70 years (Pheterogeneity = 3×10-5). These factors together were related to 65.6%, 49.7%, and 17.2% of incident pancreatic cancers in these age groups, respectively. In the GWAS and the SEER Program, the associations with the polygenic risk score, male sex, and black race were all stronger among younger individuals (Pheterogeneity ≤0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Established risk factors are more strongly associated with earlier-onset pancreatic cancer, emphasizing the importance of age at initiation for cancer prevention and control programs targeting this highly lethal malignancy.

Vitamin D and pancreatic cancer: a pooled analysis from the Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium.

BACKGROUND: The potential role of vitamin D in the aetiology of pancreatic cancer is unclear, with recent studies suggesting both positive and negative associations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used data from nine case-control studies from the International Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanC4) to examine associations between pancreatic cancer risk and dietary vitamin D intake. Study-specific odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using multivariable logistic regression, and ORs were then pooled using a random-effects model. From a subset of four studies, we also calculated pooled estimates of association for supplementary and total vitamin D intake. RESULTS: Risk of pancreatic cancer increased with dietary intake of vitamin D [per 100 international units (IU)/day: OR = 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.19, P = 7.4 × 10(-6), P-heterogeneity = 0.52; ≥230 versus <110 IU/day: OR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.10-1.55, P = 2.4 × 10(-3), P-heterogeneity = 0.81], with the association possibly stronger in people with low retinol/vitamin A intake. CONCLUSION: Increased risk of pancreatic cancer was observed with higher levels of dietary vitamin D intake. Additional studies are required to determine whether or not our finding has a causal basis.

Combining clinicopathological predictors and molecular biomarkers in the oncogenic K-RAS/Ki67/HIF-1α pathway to predict survival in resectable pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: The dismal prognosis of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer points to our limited arsenal of effective anticancer therapies. Oncogenic K-RAS hyperactivation is virtually universal in pancreatic cancer, that confers drug resistance, drives aggressive tumorigenesis and rapid metastasis. Pancreatic tumours are often marked by hypovascularity, increased hypoxia and ineffective drug delivery. Thus, biomarker discovery and developing innovative means of countervailing oncogenic K-RAS activation are urgently needed. METHODS: Tumour specimens from 147 pancreatic cancer patients were analysed by immunohistochemical (IHC) staining and tissue microarray (TMA). Statistical correlations between selected biomarkers and clinicopathological predictors were examined to predict survival. RESULTS: We find that heightened hypoxia response predicts poor clinical outcome in resectable pancreatic cancer. SIAH is a tumour-specific biomarker. The combination of five biomarkers (EGFR, phospho-ERK, SIAH, Ki67 and HIF-1α) and four clinicopathological predictors (tumour size, pathological grade, margin and lymph node status) predict patient survival post surgery in pancreatic cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Combining five biomarkers in the K-RAS/Ki67/HIF-1α pathways with four clinicopathological predictors may assist to better predict survival in resectable pancreatic cancer.

Diabetes, antidiabetic medications, and pancreatic cancer risk: an analysis from the International Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus has been associated with an excess risk of pancreatic cancer, but the magnitude of the risk and the time-risk relationship are unclear, and there is limited information on the role of antidiabetic medications. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed individual-level data from 15 case-control studies within the Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium, including 8305 cases and 13 987 controls. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were estimated from multiple logistic regression models, adjusted for relevant covariates. RESULTS: Overall, 1155 (15%) cases and 1087 (8%) controls reported a diagnosis of diabetes 2 or more years before cancer diagnosis (or interview, for controls), corresponding to an OR of 1.90 (95% confidence interval, CI, 1.72-2.09). Consistent risk estimates were observed across strata of selected covariates, including body mass index and tobacco smoking. Pancreatic cancer risk decreased with duration of diabetes, but a significant excess risk was still evident 20 or more years after diabetes diagnosis (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.03-1.63). Among diabetics, long duration of oral antidiabetic use was associated with a decreased pancreatic cancer risk (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14-0.69, for ≥15 years). Conversely, insulin use was associated with a pancreatic cancer risk in the short term (OR 5.60, 95% CI 3.75-8.35, for <5 years), but not for longer duration of use (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.53-1.70, for ≥15 years). CONCLUSION: This study provides the most definitive quantification to date of an excess risk of pancreatic cancer among diabetics. It also shows that a 30% excess risk persists for more than two decades after diabetes diagnosis, thus supporting a causal role of diabetes in pancreatic cancer. Oral antidiabetics may decrease the risk of pancreatic cancer, whereas insulin showed an inconsistent duration-risk relationship.

Pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer risk: a pooled analysis in the International Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanC4).

BACKGROUND: Pancreatitis is a known risk factor for pancreatic cancer; however, an unknown fraction of the disease is thought to be a consequence of tumor-related duct obstruction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A pooled analysis of a history of pancreatitis and risk of pancreatic cancer was carried out considering the time interval between diagnoses and potential modification by covariates. Adjusted pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from 10 case-control studies (5048 cases of ductal pancreatic adenocarcinoma and 10,947 controls) taking part in the International Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanC4). RESULTS: The association between pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer was nearly three-fold at intervals of >2 years between diagnoses (OR: 2.71, 95% CI: 1.96-3.74) and much stronger at intervals of ≤2 years (OR: 13.56, 95% CI: 8.72-21.90) probably reflecting a combination of reverse causation and antecedent misdiagnosis of pancreas cancer as pancreatitis. The younger (<65 years) pancreatic cancer cases showed stronger associations with previous (>2 years) pancreatitis (OR: 3.91, 95% CI: 2.53-6.04) than the older (≥65 years) cases (OR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.02-2.76; P value for interaction: 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a moderately strong association between pancreatitis (diagnosed before >2 years) and pancreatic cancer, the population attributable fraction was estimated at 1.34% (95% CI: 0.612-2.07%), suggesting that a relatively small proportion of pancreatic cancer might be avoided if pancreatitis could be prevented.

Alcohol consumption and pancreatic cancer: a pooled analysis in the International Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanC4).

BACKGROUND: Heavy alcohol drinking has been related to pancreatic cancer, but the issue is still unsolved. METHODS: To evaluate the role of alcohol consumption in relation to pancreatic cancer, we conducted a pooled analysis of 10 case-control studies (5585 cases and 11,827 controls) participating in the International Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium. We computed pooled odds ratios (ORs) by estimating study-specific ORs adjusted for selected covariates and pooling them using random effects models. RESULTS: Compared with abstainers and occasional drinkers (< 1 drink per day), we observed no association for light-to-moderate alcohol consumption (≤ 4 drinks per day) and pancreatic cancer risk; however, associations were above unity for higher consumption levels (OR = 1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.2-2.2 for subjects drinking ≥ 9 drinks per day). Results did not change substantially when we evaluated associations by tobacco smoking status, or when we excluded participants who reported a history of pancreatitis, or participants whose data were based upon proxy responses. Further, no notable differences in pooled risk estimates emerged across strata of sex, age, race, study type, and study area. CONCLUSION: This collaborative-pooled analysis provides additional evidence for a positive association between heavy alcohol consumption and the risk of pancreatic cancer.

Cigar and pipe smoking, smokeless tobacco use and pancreatic cancer: an analysis from the International Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanC4).

BACKGROUND: Cigarette smoking is the best-characterized risk factor for pancreatic cancer. However, data are limited for other tobacco smoking products and smokeless tobacco. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a pooled analysis of cigar and pipe smoking and smokeless tobacco use and risk of pancreatic cancer using data from 11 case-control studies (6056 cases and 11,338 controls) within the International Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanC4). Pooled odds ratios (OR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for study center and selected covariates. RESULTS: Compared with never tobacco users, the OR for cigar-only smokers was 1.6 (95% CI: 1.2-2.3), i.e. comparable to that of cigarette-only smokers (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.4-1.6). The OR was 1.1 (95% CI 0.69-1.6) for pipe-only smokers. There was some evidence of increasing risk with increasing amount of cigar smoked per day (OR 1.82 for ≥ 10 grams of tobacco), although not with duration. The OR for ever smokeless tobacco users as compared with never tobacco users was 0.98 (95% CI 0.75-1.3). CONCLUSION: This collaborative analysis provides evidence that cigar smoking is associated with an excess risk of pancreatic cancer, while no significant association emerged for pipe smoking and smokeless tobacco use.

NIH consensus development statement on management of hepatitis B.

OBJECTIVE: To provide health care providers, patients, and the general public with a responsible assessment of currently available data on the management of hepatitis B. PARTICIPANTS: A non-DHHS, nonadvocate 12-member panel representing the fields of hepatology and liver transplantation, gastroenterology, public health and epidemiology, infectious diseases, pathology, oncology, family practice, internal medicine, and a public representative. In addition, 22 experts from pertinent fields presented data to the panel and conference audience. EVIDENCE: Presentations by experts and a systematic review of the literature prepared by the Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center, through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Scientific evidence was given precedence over anecdotal experience. CONFERENCE PROCESS: The panel drafted its statement based on scientific evidence presented in open forum and on published scientific literature. The draft statement was presented on the final day of the conference and circulated to the audience for comment. The panel released a revised statement later that day at http://consensus.nih.gov. This statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the NIH or the Federal Government. CONCLUSIONS: The most important predictors of cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma in persons who have chronic HBV are persistently elevated HBV DNA and ALT levels in blood. Other risk factors include HBV genotype C infection, male sex, older age, family history of hepatocellular carcinoma, and co-infection with HCV or HIV. The major goals of anti-HBV therapy are to prevent the development of progressive disease, specifically cirrhosis and liver failure, as well as hepatocellular carcinoma development and subsequent death. To date, no RCTs of anti-HBV therapies have demonstrated a beneficial impact on overall mortality, liver-specific mortality, or development of hepatocellular carcinoma. Most published reports of hepatitis therapy use changes in short-term virologic, biochemical, and histologic parameters to infer likelihood of long-term benefit. Approved therapies are associated with improvements in intermediate biomarkers, including HBV DNA, HBeAg loss or seroconversion, decreases in ALT levels, and improvement in liver histology (Table). Although various monitoring practices have been recommended, no clear evidence exists for an optimal approach. The most important research needs include representative prospective cohort studies to define the natural history of the disease and large RCTs of monotherapy and combined therapies, including placebo-controlled trials, that measure the effects on clinical health outcomes. Table. Criteria Useful in Determining for Whom Therapy is Indicated: Patients for whom therapy is indicated: Patients who have acute liver failure, cirrhosis and clinical complications, cirrhosis or advanced fibrosis and HBV DNA in serum, or reactivation of chronic HBV after chemotherapy or immunosuppression; Infants born to women who are HBsAg-positive (immunoglobulin and vaccination). Patients for whom therapy may be indicated: Patients in the immune-active phase who do not have advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis. Patients for whom immediate therapy is not routinely indicated: Patients with chronic hepatitis B in the immune-tolerant phase (with high levels of serum HBV DNA but normal serum ALT levels or little activity on liver biopsy); Patients in the inactive carrier or low replicative phase (with low levels of or no detectable HBV DNA in serum and normal serum ALT levels); Patients who have latent HBV infection (HBV DNA without HBsAg). We recommend routine screening for hepatitis B of newly arrived immigrants to the United States from countries where the HBV prevalence rate is greater than 2%. Screening will facilitate the provision of medical and public health services for infected patients and their families and provide public health data on the burden of disease in immigrant populations. The screening test should not be used to prohibit immigration.

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs): incidence, prognosis and recent trend toward improved survival.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) are uncommon neoplasms that can present with symptoms of hormone overproduction. We evaluated the incidence, prognosis, and temporal trends of PNETs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed all cases of PNETs registered in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 1973 to 2000. Age-adjusted incidence and survival rates were calculated and survival trends over time were evaluated. RESULTS: We identified 1483 cases of PNETs. The crude annual incidence per 1,000,000 was 1.8 in females and 2.6 in males and increased with advancing age. The incidence increased over the study period. Most patients (90.8%) had nonfunctional tumors. Advanced stage, higher grade, and age were the strongest predictors of worse survival. Patients with functional tumors had better outcomes than patients with nonfunctional tumors in both univariate and multivariate analysis (P = 0.004). Survival time increased over the period from 1973 to 2000. No differences were seen in the distribution of stage or age at diagnosis among time periods. CONCLUSION: PNETs are uncommon neoplasms but the incidence may be increasing. Age, grade, stage, and functional status predict survival in patients with PNETs. Survival has improved over time, but this is not explained by earlier diagnosis or stage migration.

A major lung cancer susceptibility locus maps to chromosome 6q23-25.

Lung cancer is a major cause of death in the United States and other countries. The risk of lung cancer is greatly increased by cigarette smoking and by certain occupational exposures, but familial factors also clearly play a major role. To identify susceptibility genes for familial lung cancer, we conducted a genomewide linkage analysis of 52 extended pedigrees ascertained through probands with lung cancer who had several first-degree relatives with the same disease. Multipoint linkage analysis, under a simple autosomal dominant model, of all 52 families with three or more individuals affected by lung, throat, or laryngeal cancer, yielded a maximum heterogeneity LOD score (HLOD) of 2.79 at 155 cM on chromosome 6q (marker D6S2436). A subset of 38 pedigrees with four or more affected individuals yielded a multipoint HLOD of 3.47 at 155 cM. Analysis of a further subset of 23 multigenerational pedigrees with five or more affected individuals yielded a multipoint HLOD score of 4.26 at the same position. The 14 families with only three affected relatives yielded negative LOD scores in this region. A predivided samples test for heterogeneity comparing the LOD scores from the 23 multigenerational families with those from the remaining families was significant (P=.007). The 1-HLOD multipoint support interval from the multigenerational families extends from C6S1848 at 146 cM to 164 cM near D6S1035, overlapping a genomic region that is deleted in sporadic lung cancers as well as numerous other cancer types. Parametric linkage and variance-components analysis that incorporated effects of age and personal smoking also supported linkage in this region, but with somewhat diminished support. These results localize a major susceptibility locus influencing lung cancer risk to 6q23-25.

The prevalence of MADH4 and BMPR1A mutations in juvenile polyposis and absence of BMPR2, BMPR1B, and ACVR1 mutations.

BACKGROUND: Juvenile polyposis (JP) is an autosomal dominant syndrome predisposing to colorectal and gastric cancer. We have identified mutations in two genes causing JP, MADH4 and bone morphogenetic protein receptor 1A (BMPR1A): both are involved in bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) mediated signalling and are members of the TGF-beta superfamily. This study determined the prevalence of mutations in MADH4 and BMPR1A, as well as three other BMP/activin pathway candidate genes in a large number of JP patients. METHODS: DNA was extracted from the blood of JP patients and used for PCR amplification of each exon of these five genes, using primers flanking each intron-exon boundary. Mutations were determined by comparison to wild type sequences using sequence analysis software. A total of 77 JP cases were sequenced for mutations in the MADH4, BMPR1A, BMPR1B, BMPR2, and/or ACVR1 (activin A receptor) genes. The latter three genes were analysed when MADH4 and BMPR1A sequencing found no mutations. RESULTS: Germline MADH4 mutations were found in 14 cases (18.2%) and BMPR1A mutations in 16 cases (20.8%). No mutations were found in BMPR1B, BMPR2, or ACVR1 in 32 MADH4 and BMPR1A mutation negative cases. DISCUSSION: In the largest series of JP patients reported to date, the prevalence of germline MADH4 and BMPR1A mutations is approximately 20% for each gene. Since mutations were not found in more than half the JP patients, either additional genes predisposing to JP remain to be discovered, or alternate means of inactivation of the two known genes are responsible for these JP cases.

The APC E1317Q variant in adenomatous polyps and colorectal cancers.

Genetic susceptibility may play a role in many colorectal cancers (CRCs). Known syndromes such as familial adenomatous polyposis and hereditary nonpolyposis CRC account for <5% of CRCs. The germ-line missense variant of the APC gene, E1317Q, has been proposed to confer a risk for colonic adenomatous polyps (adenomas), but not for CRCs in the general population. These findings are contradictory and controversial. In the present study, 608 cases (377 patients with CRC, 145 patients with 4-100 lifetime adenomas, and 86 with < or =3 lifetime adenomas), and 679 controls (362 spouses and 317 patients with normal colonoscopy) were screened for the APC E1317Q variant. The frequency of heterozygotes for E1317Q among patients with CRC (2.4%), patients with 4-100 adenomas (1.4%), and < or =3 adenomas (3.5%) did not differ from spouse controls (2.8%). When CRC patients were examined by DNA mismatch repair status, age at onset (< or =age 50 versus >50), or family history of CRC, no differences in the frequency of E1317Q were found. The APC variant E1317Q does not appear to be associated with increased risk for colorectal neoplasia in the general population. However, when we used normal colonoscopy controls (E1317Q carrier frequency = 0.3%), the prevalence of E1317Q was significantly increased in CRC patients, in patients with < or =3 adenomas, and in CRC patients with intact mismatch repair status, suggesting a possible role for E1317Q in colorectal tumorigenesis. These results underscore the importance of carefully defining the controls to be used in comparisons of allele frequencies.

Germline SMAD4 or BMPR1A mutations and phenotype of juvenile polyposis.

BACKGROUND: Juvenile polyposis (JP) is an inherited condition predisposing to upper gastrointestinal (UGI) polyps and colorectal cancer. Two genes are known to predispose to JP, SMAD4 and bone morphogenetic protein receptor type 1A (BMPR1A). The object of this study was to determine the differences in phenotype of patients with SMAD4 or BMPR1A mutations (MUT+) compared with those without (MUT-). METHODS: DNA was extracted from 54 JP probands and used for polymerase chain reaction of all exons of SMAD4 and BMPR1A. Products were then sequenced and analyzed for mutations. Medical record data were used to create a JP database, and statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact and unpaired t-tests. RESULTS: Nine of 54 patients had germline SMAD4 mutations, 13 had BMPR1A mutations, and 32 had neither. There were no significant differences between SMAD4+ and BMPR1A+ cases in terms of clinical factors examined, except for a family history of UGI involvement (P <.01). There was a higher prevalence of familial cases in MUT+ patients (P =.09), >10 lower gastrointestinal polyps (P =.06), and frequency of family history of gastrointestinal cancer compared with MUT- patients (P =.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with germline SMAD4 or BMPR1A mutations have a more prominent JP phenotype than those without, and SMAD4 mutations predispose to UGI polyposis.

Familial pancreatic cancer.

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death in both men and women in the United States and will be responsible for an estimated 28,900 deaths in 2001. Relatively little is known of its etiology, and the only well-established risk factor is cigarette smoking. Studies over the past 3 decades have shown that 4%-16% of patients with pancreatic cancer have a family history of the disease. A small fraction of this aggregation can be accounted for in inherited cancer syndromes, including familial atypical multiple-mole melanoma, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, hereditary breast-ovarian cancer, hereditary pancreatitis, and hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. These syndromes arise as a result of germline mutations in the BRCA2, pl6 (familial atypical multiple-mole melanoma), mismatch repair (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer), and STK11 (Peutz-Jeghers syndrome) genes. In addition, hereditary plays a role in predisposing certain patients with apparently sporadic pancreatic cancer. Many patients with pancreatic cancers caused by a germline mutation in a cancer-causing gene do not have a pedigree that is suggestive of a familial cancer syndrome. A recent prospective analysis of the pedigrees in the National Familial Pancreatic Tumor Registry found that individuals with a family history of pancreatic cancer in multiple first-degree relatives have a high risk of pancreatic cancer themselves. The identification of such high-risk individuals will help clinicians target screening programs and develop preventive interventions with the hope of reducing the mortality of pancreatic cancer in these families.

Health beliefs and endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer: potential for cancer prevention.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer can be prevented through endoscopic removal of adenomatous polyps. Because screening endoscopy rates are low, it is critical to identify correlates of screening behavior that are amenable to interventions to improve screening rates. Our purpose was to identify the correlates of endoscopic screening among persons at risk for colorectal cancer. METHODS: We surveyed 1,160 healthy, adult, first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients in 583 kindreds, for a 43% response rate. Using multiple logistic regression analysis, we tested the association between screening behavior and perceived risk for colorectal cancer, the belief that colorectal cancer can be prevented, demographic factors, strength of family history, and practical barriers to screening. RESULTS: Persons screened at least once were older, were male, had stronger family histories, had a regular doctor, and had health insurance. After these fixed factors were accounted for, the belief that colorectal cancer can be prevented and higher perceived risk were associated with significantly greater odds of screening. CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes the need for trials evaluating the cancer prevention potential of the link between screening behavior and health beliefs. Physicians must be aware of their patients' family colorectal cancer history and recommend appropriate endoscopic screening for those at increased risk, particularly women. Patients should be educated about their cancer risk and about preventing colorectal cancer.

AGA technical review on hereditary colorectal cancer and genetic testing.

This literature review and the recommendations therein were prepared for the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Clinical Practice and Practice Economics Committee. The paper was approved by the Committee on March 20, 2001, and by the AGA Governing Board on April 18, 2001.