| Literature DB >> 28384229 |
Akira Yokoyama1, Chikatoshi Katada2, Tetsuji Yokoyama3, Tomonori Yano4, Kazuhiro Kaneko4, Ichiro Oda5, Yuichi Shimizu6, Hisashi Doyama7, Tomoyuki Koike8, Kohei Takizawa9, Motohiro Hirao10, Hiroyuki Okada11, Takako Yoshii12, Kazuo Konishi13, Takenori Yamanouchi14, Takashi Tsuda15, Tai Omori16, Nozomu Kobayashi17, Haruhisa Suzuki5, Satoshi Tanabe18, Keisuke Hori4, Norisuke Nakayama12, Hirofumi Kawakubo19, Hideki Ishikawa20, Manabu Muto21.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alcohol consumption combined with inactive aldehyde dehydrogenase-2 (ALDH2) and the presence of multiple esophageal Lugol-voiding lesions (LVLs; dysplasia) are strong predictors for multiple development of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in East Asians. We invented a health risk appraisal (HRA) model for predicting the risk of ESCC based on drinking, smoking, dietary habits, and alcohol flushing, i.e., past or present facial flushing after drinking a glass of beer, a surrogate marker for inactive ALDH2.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28384229 PMCID: PMC5383267 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175182
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1HRA model for predicting esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).
The risk score is calculated as the sum of scores A to E. Higher scores mean higher risk of esophageal SCC.
Fig 2Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve according to HRA score at 24 months for predicting metachronous esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in patients who had undergone endoscopic mucosectomy for early esophageal SCC.
Clinical characteristics of subjects according to HRA score.
| HRA score | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Low (0–11) | High (≥12) | P | |
| (n = 278) | (n = 174) | (n = 104) | ||
| Age (years) | ||||
| 40–59 | 16.9% | 13.8% | 22.1% | |
| 60–69 | 45.3% | 42.5% | 50.0% | |
| 70+ | 37.8% | 43.7% | 27.9% | 0.019 |
| Mean±SD | 66.7±7.9 | 67.6±7.9 | 65.3±7.7 | 0.020 |
| Current or former flushers | (n = 179) | (n = 85) | (n = 94) | |
| Never/rare drinkers | 5.0% | 10.6% | 0.0% | |
| Light drinkers | 19.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% | |
| Moderate drinkers | 32.4% | 31.8% | 33.0% | |
| Heavy drinkers | 33.0% | 3.5% | 59.6% | |
| Ex-drinker | 10.6% | 14.1% | 7.4% | <0.0001 |
| Never flushers | (n = 99) | (n = 89) | (n = 10) | |
| Never/rare drinkers | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | |
| Light drinkers | 12.1% | 13.5% | 0.0% | |
| Moderate drinkers | 27.3% | 30.3% | 0.0% | |
| Heavy drinkers | 52.5% | 49.4% | 80.0% | |
| Ex-drinker | 8.1% | 6.7% | 20.0% | 0.026 |
| Strong alcoholic beverage consumption | ||||
| Frequent | 11.9% | 3.4% | 26.0% | |
| Sometimes or never | 88.1% | 96.6% | 74.0% | <0.0001 |
| Smoking (pack years) | ||||
| <30 | 28.1% | 37.9% | 11.5% | |
| ≥30 | 71.9% | 62.1% | 88.5% | <0.0001 |
| Green-yellow vegetable consumption | ||||
| Seldom to 3–4 days/week | 61.5% | 50.0% | 80.8% | |
| Almost every day | 38.5% | 50.0% | 19.2% | <0.0001 |
| Fruit consumption | ||||
| Seldom to 3–4 days/week | 73.0% | 63.2% | 89.4% | |
| Almost every day | 27.0% | 36.8% | 10.6% | <0.0001 |
| LVL grade | ||||
| A | 11.2% | 13.2% | 7.7% | |
| B | 53.2% | 55.7% | 49.0% | |
| C | 35.6% | 31.0% | 43.3% | 0.025 |
| Drinking cessation | (n = 212) | (n = 117) | (n = 95) | |
| No | 70.3% | 73.5% | 66.3% | |
| Yes | 29.7% | 26.5% | 33.7% | 0.29 |
| Smoking cessation | (n = 119) | (n = 58) | (n = 61) | |
| No | 45.4% | 41.4% | 49.2% | |
| Yes | 54.6% | 58.6% | 50.8% | 0.46 |
HRA, health risk appraisal; LVL, Lugol-voiding lesion.
a P-values are by t-test (mean age), Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for trend (LVL grade), or Fisher's exact test (other variables).
b Never/rare, <1 unit/week; light, 1–8.9 units/week; moderate, 9–17.9 units/week; heavy, ≥18 units/week (1 unit = 22 grams ethanol).
c Among those who had drunk 1 unit or more per day at baseline.
d Among those who had smoked at baseline.
Person-years and numbers of metachronous SCC in the esophagus according to HRA score.
| HRA score | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Low (0–11) | High (≥12) | P | |
| Metachronous SCC | (n = 278) | (n = 174) | (n = 104) | |
| No. of events | 64 | 29 | 35 | |
| Person-years | 998.3 | 642.2 | 356.1 | |
| Per 100 person-years | 6.4 | 4.5 | 9.8 | 0.002 |
| (95% CI) | (4.9–8.2) | (3.0–6.5) | (6.8–13.7) | |
HRA, health risk appraisal; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma.
Fig 3Cumulative incidences of metachronous esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in the esophagus according to HRA score.
Hazard ratio was adjusted for age and LVL grades.
Prediction of metachronous SCC in the esophagus based on Cox proportional hazards models.
| Metachronous SCC | Multivariate model 1 (n = 278) | Multivariate model 2 (n = 212) | Multivariate model 3 (n = 119) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | ||
| LVL grade | A | 1 (ref.) | 0.00 (NC) | 0.00 (NC) |
| B | 4.76 (0.64–35.3) | 1 (ref.) | 1 (ref.) | |
| C | 14.1 (1.93–103) | 3.23 (1.78–5.83) | 4.17 (1.92–9.08) | |
| P for trend | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | ||
| HRA score | Low (0–11) | 1 (ref.) | 1 (ref.) | 1 (ref.) |
| High (≥12) | 2.00 (1.21–3.30) | 2.17 (1.24–3.81) | 1.91 (0.92–3.97) | |
| P value | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.085 | |
| Drinking cessation | No | 1 (ref.) | ||
| Yes | 0.45 (0.22–0.89) | |||
| P value | 0.023 | |||
| Smoking cessation | No | 1 (ref.) | ||
| Yes | 0.71 (0.35–1.45) | |||
| P value | 0.35 | |||
HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; LVL, Lugol-voiding lesion; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma.
NC, it was impossible to calculate the 95% CI because of the zero number of events in the LVL grade A group.
Model 1: all subjects.
Model 2: subjects who had drunk 1 unit or more per day at baseline.
Model 3: subjects who had smoked at baseline.
a Grade of LVLs, HRA score, and drinking cessation (model 2) or smoking cessation (model 3) were simultaneously entered into a multivariate Cox proportional-hazards model; an adjustment was made for age but is not shown in this table.
Fig 4Cumulative incidences of metachronous esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in the esophagus according to drinking status in the high-HRA-score drinker group and in the-low-HRA-score drinker group.
Hazard ratios were adjusted for age and LVL grades.