Christopher Martin1, Claire L Leiser2, Brock O'Neil1, Sumati Gupta2, William T Lowrance1, Wendy Kohlmann2, Samantha Greenberg2,3, Piyush Pathak1, Ken R Smith4,2, Heidi A Hanson1,2. 1. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT. 2. University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Population Sciences, Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT. 3. Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT. 4. Department of Family and Consumer Studies, Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Abstract
Background: Family history of bladder cancer confers an increased risk for concordant and discordant cancers in relatives. However, previous studies investigating this relationship lack any correction for smoking status of family members. We conducted a population-based study of cancer risks in relatives of bladder cancer patients and matched controls with exclusion of variant subtypes to improve the understanding of familial cancer clustering. Methods: Case subjects with urothelial carcinoma were identified using the Utah Cancer Registry and matched 1:5 to cancer-free controls from the Utah Population Database. Cox regression was used to determine the risk of cancer in first-degree relatives, second-degree relatives, first cousins, and spouses. A total of 229 251 relatives of case subjects and 1 197 552 relatives of matched control subjects were analyzed. To correct for smoking status, we performed a secondary analysis excluding families with elevated rates of smoking-related cancers. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: First- and second-degree relatives of case subjects had an increased risk for any cancer diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03 to 1.09, P < .001; HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.07, P = .001) and urothelial cancer (HR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.50 to 1.99, P < .001; HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.21 to 1.51, P < .001). Site-specific analysis found increased risk for bladder (HR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.47 to 1.95, P < .001), kidney (HR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.08 to 1.57, P = .006), cervical (HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.49, P = .01), and lung cancer (HR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.51, P < .001) in first-degree relatives. Second-degree relatives had increased risk for bladder (HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.2 to 1.5, P < .001) and thyroid cancer (HR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.35, P = .02). Spouses showed an increased risk for laryngeal (HR = 2.68, 95% CI = 1.02 to 7.05, P = .04) and cervical cancer (HR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.13 to 2.17, P = .007). These results did not substantively change after correction for suspected smoking behaviors. Conclusion: Our results suggest familial urothelial cancer clustering independent of smoking, with increased risk in relatives for both concordant and discordant cancers, suggesting shared genetic or environmental roots. Identifying families with statistically significant risks for non-smoking-related urothelial cancer would be extremely informative for genetic linkage studies.
Background: Family history of bladder cancer confers an increased risk for concordant and discordant cancers in relatives. However, previous studies investigating this relationship lack any correction for smoking status of family members. We conducted a population-based study of cancer risks in relatives of bladder cancerpatients and matched controls with exclusion of variant subtypes to improve the understanding of familial cancer clustering. Methods: Case subjects with urothelial carcinoma were identified using the Utah Cancer Registry and matched 1:5 to cancer-free controls from the Utah Population Database. Cox regression was used to determine the risk of cancer in first-degree relatives, second-degree relatives, first cousins, and spouses. A total of 229 251 relatives of case subjects and 1 197 552 relatives of matched control subjects were analyzed. To correct for smoking status, we performed a secondary analysis excluding families with elevated rates of smoking-related cancers. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: First- and second-degree relatives of case subjects had an increased risk for any cancer diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03 to 1.09, P < .001; HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.07, P = .001) and urothelial cancer (HR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.50 to 1.99, P < .001; HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.21 to 1.51, P < .001). Site-specific analysis found increased risk for bladder (HR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.47 to 1.95, P < .001), kidney (HR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.08 to 1.57, P = .006), cervical (HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.49, P = .01), and lung cancer (HR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.51, P < .001) in first-degree relatives. Second-degree relatives had increased risk for bladder (HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.2 to 1.5, P < .001) and thyroid cancer (HR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.35, P = .02). Spouses showed an increased risk for laryngeal (HR = 2.68, 95% CI = 1.02 to 7.05, P = .04) and cervical cancer (HR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.13 to 2.17, P = .007). These results did not substantively change after correction for suspected smoking behaviors. Conclusion: Our results suggest familial urothelial cancer clustering independent of smoking, with increased risk in relatives for both concordant and discordant cancers, suggesting shared genetic or environmental roots. Identifying families with statistically significant risks for non-smoking-related urothelial cancer would be extremely informative for genetic linkage studies.
Authors: Z H Li; C R Xu; Y Liu; H Guan; M Zhang; X Y Che; Q Tang; Y B Huang; X S Li; L Q Hou Journal: Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban Date: 2022-08-18
Authors: Heidi A Hanson; Claire L Leiser; Brock O'Neil; Christopher Martin; Sumati Gupta; Ken R Smith; Christopher Dechet; William T Lowrance; Michael J Madsen; Nicola J Camp Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Heidi A Hanson; Claire L Leiser; Michael J Madsen; John Gardner; Stacey Knight; Melissa Cessna; Carol Sweeney; Jennifer A Doherty; Ken R Smith; Philip S Bernard; Nicola J Camp Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Alexander Pemov; Talia Wegman-Ostrosky; Jung Kim; Stella Koutros; Brenna Douthitt; Kristine Jones; Bin Zhu; Dalsu Baris; Molly Schwenn; Alison Johnson; Margaret R Karagas; Brian D Carter; Marjorie L McCullough; Maria Teresa Landi; Neal D Freedman; Demetrius Albanes; Debra T Silverman; Nathaniel Rothman; Neil E Caporaso; Mark H Greene; Joseph F Fraumeni; Douglas R Stewart Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2021-12-22
Authors: Nurul Khalida Ibrahim; Ahmed Eraky; Jan Eggers; Tim Alexander Steiert; Susanne Sebens; Klaus-Peter Jünemann; Alexander Hendricks; Corinna Bang; Martin Stanulla; Andre Franke; Claudius Hamann; Christoph Röcken; Norbert Arnold; Laura Hinze; Michael Forster Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-02-15 Impact factor: 6.575