A154 CANCERS ASSOCIATED WITH INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE IN CANADA: A POPULATION-BASED ANALYSIS OF CASES AND MATCHED CONTROLS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are known to have a higher risk of digestive tract cancers and cancers associated with immunosuppression. As the IBD population is ageing, age-related cancers may be more commonly diagnosed. Purpose To assess whether IBD patients were at a higher odds of incident cancers than their matched controls stratified by age above and below 65 years. Method A population-based surveillance study was conducted in Alberta, Canada (April 1, 2002 to March 30, 2018). A validated algorithm identified cases of IBD. Each case was age and sex matched to up to 10 non-IBD cases from the general population and linked to the Alberta provincial cancer registry to extract pathology-confirmed incident cancer. Controls were removed if they were not residents of Alberta at the time the matched case was diagnosed with IBD. Only incident cancers diagnosed after the diagnosis of IBD (or matched indexed date for controls) were considered. Age was calculated based on year of inclusion in the cohort or, if applicable, the year of cancer diagnosis. Cancer diagnoses were classified: bladder, biliary and liver, breast, cervix, colorectal, endometrium, gastrointestinal, gynecological, head and neck, hematological, kidney, lung, melanoma, neurological, non-melanoma, pancreas, prostate, renal and bladder, small intestine, thyroid, and miscellaneous. Odds ratios (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI), compared IBD cases to matched controls using conditional logistic regression. Stratified analysis at age 65 (<65 and ≥65) was done for all cancers. Result(s) Overall, 3695 incident cancers were diagnosed among 35,763 individuals with IBD as compared to 22,687 cancers among 289,212 controls (OR:1.12; 95%CI: 1.08, 1.16). Those less than 65 years old were at higher odds of developing cancer (1.20; 95%CI: 1.15, 1.26) than those ≥65 (0.97; 95%CI: 0.90, 1.04). Those with IBD had a higher odds biliary and liver (7.41; 95%CI: 5.58, 9.84) and gastrointestinal (2.26; 95%CI: 2.06, 2.48), which including: colorectal (1.78; 95%CI: 1.57, 2.02), pancreas (7.79; 95%CI: 5.53, 10.97), and small intestine (6.59; 95%CI: 4.65, 9.35). Melanoma and non-melanoma, head and neck, and thyroid cancers did not have an increased odds but hematological, lung, neurological, and kidney cancers did show an increased odds among those with IBD. Cancers outside of the gastrointestinal tract were at a lower odds for IBD patients, including: bladder (0.68; 95%CI: 0.54, 0.87), breast (0.72; 95%CI: 0.64, 0.81), gynecological (incl. cervix (0.68; 95%CI: 0.61, 0.78) and endometrium (0.48; 95%CI: 0.34, 0.66), and prostate (0.64; 95%CI: 0.57, 0.73). Image Conclusion(s) Under the age of 65, individuals with IBD have a higher odds of being diagnosed with cancer than the general population, with cancers of the digestive tract driving this association across the age spectrum. Healthcare providers should be aware of higher occurrence of hematological, neurological, lung and renal cancers in those with IBD. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below CIHR Disclosure of Interest S. Coward: None Declared, S. Murthy: None Declared, H. Singh Consultant of: Pendopharm, Amgen Canada, Bristol Myers Squibb Canada, Roche Canada, Sandoz Canada, Takeda Canada, and Guardant Health, Inc., E. Benchimol Consultant of: Hoffman La-Roche Limited and Peabody & Arnold LLP for matters unrelated to medications used to treat inflammatory bowel disease and McKesson Canada and the Dairy Farmers of Ontario for matters unrelated to medications used to treat inflammatory bowel disease., E. Kuenzig: None Declared, G. Kaplan Grant / Research support from: Ferring, Janssen, AbbVie, GlaxoSmith Kline, Merck, and Shire, Consultant of: Gilead, Speakers bureau of: AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, Amgen, and Takeda
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».