MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PD29-02 ASSOCIATION OF PROTON PUMP INHIBITORS CUMULATIVE USE WITH PROSTATE CANCER RISK AND ADVERSE OUTCOMES: A POPULATION-BASED ANALYSIS

2024· article· en· W4394801025 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rashid K. Sayyid, Raj Tiwari, Bo Zhang, Andrew S. Wilton, Katherine Lajkosz, Jessica Cockburn, Rui Bernardino, Zizo Al‐Daqqaq, Majed Al-Rumayyan, Refik Saskin, Neil Fleshner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple and Secondary Primary Cancers
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerPopulationInternal medicineAdverse effectLogistic regressionProton-pump inhibitorCumulative doseCancerEpidemiologyDemographyGynecologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Epidemiology & Natural History I (PD29)1 May 2024PD29-02 ASSOCIATION OF PROTON PUMP INHIBITORS CUMULATIVE USE WITH PROSTATE CANCER RISK AND ADVERSE OUTCOMES: A POPULATION-BASED ANALYSIS Rashid K. Sayyid, Raj Tiwari, Bo Zhang, Andrew Wilton, Katherine Lajkosz, Jessica Cockburn, Rui Bernardino, Zizo Al-Daqqaq, Majed Al-Rumayyan, Refik Saskin, and Neil E. Fleshner Rashid K. SayyidRashid K. Sayyid , Raj TiwariRaj Tiwari , Bo ZhangBo Zhang , Andrew WiltonAndrew Wilton , Katherine LajkoszKatherine Lajkosz , Jessica CockburnJessica Cockburn , Rui BernardinoRui Bernardino , Zizo Al-DaqqaqZizo Al-Daqqaq , Majed Al-RumayyanMajed Al-Rumayyan , Refik SaskinRefik Saskin , and Neil E. FleshnerNeil E. Fleshner View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008736.23117.7f.02AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are intended for short-term use; however, long-term, off-label use of PPIs continues to increase (6-10% of Americans). The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of cumulative PPI use with PCa diagnosis and adverse outcomes. METHODS: This is a population-based study, using provincewide-linked administrative data from Ontario including all men≥66 years with no prior PCa diagnosis, work-up, or treatment, and no PPI/H2-blocker prescriptions within the year preceding study inclusion (study period: January 2003 to December 2018). The primary exposure was cumulative PPI use, with H2-blockers as a positive control. Associations between study exposure and time-to-event outcomes were evaluated using multivariable complementary log-log logistic regression. RESULTS: The study cohort included 559,425 men (median follow-up: 10.1 years). Median age was 66 years. Any PPI use was observed in 26.1% of men. Annual PPI use increased from 0.9% to 15% between 2003 and 2019. On multivariable modeling, adjusted for age, income quintile and comorbidities, cumulative PPI exposure was associated with significantly increased rates of PCa diagnosis (HR=4.10, 95% CI:3.97-4.23). This association persisted following further adjustment for frequency of general practitioner visits and PSA testing (HR=2.87, p<0.001). Cumulative PPI exposure was also associated with increased rates of clinically significant (HR=4.42, 95% CI:4.11-4.75) and high-grade PCa (HR=3.78, 95% CI:3.37-4.24), time to first ADT prescription/bilateral orchiectomy (HR=2.93, 95% CI:2.77-3.09), and PSA doubling time≤6 months (HR=3.12, 95% CI:2.98-3.27). Compared to PPI use, the associations between H2-blocker use and study outcomes were of significantly lower magnitudes of effect. CONCLUSIONS: In a population-based cohort of elderly men, cumulative PPI intake was associated with clinically significant increases in the rates of PCa diagnosis, independent of PSA testing frequency and/or GP visits, as well as adverse PCa-related outcomes. In lieu of prospective data, these results should be used to counsel long-term PPI users regarding the long-term risks of adverse PCa outcomes. Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e618 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Rashid K. Sayyid More articles by this author Raj Tiwari More articles by this author Bo Zhang More articles by this author Andrew Wilton More articles by this author Katherine Lajkosz More articles by this author Jessica Cockburn More articles by this author Rui Bernardino More articles by this author Zizo Al-Daqqaq More articles by this author Majed Al-Rumayyan More articles by this author Refik Saskin More articles by this author Neil E. Fleshner More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of UrologySame topicMultiple and Secondary Primary CancersFrench-language works237,207