Tamoxifen exposure and risk of oesophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma: a population-based cohort study of breast cancer patients in Sweden.

In a population-based cohort study of all women aged over 50 years with breast cancer in the Swedish Cancer Register in 1961-2003, those diagnosed before 31 December 1987 were regarded as unexposed to tamoxifen, whereas those diagnosed after that date were considered potentially exposed. Crosslinkages within the Cancer Register and the Registers of Death and Emigration enabled follow-up. Standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) of oesophageal and gastric cancer represented relative risks. Among 138 885 cohort members contributing with 1 075 724 person-years of follow-up, we found a nonsignificantly increased risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma during the potential tamoxifen exposure period (SIR 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-3.08), but the risk estimates decreased with increasing latency interval. No association was observed during the unexposed period. No increased risk of cardia adenocarcinoma was identified in either period. The risk of non-cardia gastric adenocarcinoma was increased in the potential tamoxifen period (SIR 1.27, 1.03-1.57), and almost doubled (SIR 1.86, 95% CI 1.10-3.14) in the period of longest latency (10-14 years). The corresponding overall SIR was increased in the unexposed group also, but here SIR did not increase with longer latency intervals. An increased risk of tobacco-related tumours, that is, oesophageal squamous-cell carcinoma and lung cancer, was limited to the unexposed cohort, indicating that confounding by smoking might explain the increased SIR during the unexposed period. We concluded that there might be a link between tamoxifen and risk of non-cardia gastric adenocarcinoma.

Hormone replacement therapy and risks of oesophageal and gastric adenocarcinomas.

Oesophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma share an unexplained male predominance, which would be explained by the hypothesis that oestrogens are protective in this respect. We carried out a nested case-control study of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) among 299 women with oesophageal cancer, 313 with gastric cancer, and 3191 randomly selected control women, frequency matched by age and calendar year in the General Practitioners Research Database in the United Kingdom. Data were adjusted for age, calendar year, tobacco smoking, alcohol consumption, body mass index, hysterectomy, and upper gastrointestinal disorders. Among 1 619 563 person-years of follow-up, more than 50% reduced risk of gastric adenocarcinoma was found among users of HRT compared to nonusers (odds ratio (OR), 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29-0.79). This inverse association appeared to be stronger for gastric noncardia (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14-0.78) and weaker for gastric cardia tumours (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23-2.01). There was no association between HRT and oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.41-3.32).

Reliability of the reported size of removed colorectal polyps.

BACKGROUND: The size of colorectal polyps is important in the clinical management of these lesions. AIM: To audit the accuracy in calculating the size of "polyps" by various specialists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen pathologists and four surgeons measured, with a conventional millimetre ruler, the largest diameter of 12 polyp phantoms. The results of two independent measurements (two weeks apart) were compared with the gold standard-size assessed at The Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden. RESULTS: Thirty-one percent (83/264-trial 1) and 33% (88/264-trial 2) of the measurements underestimated or overestimated the gold standard size by >1 mm. Of the 22 experienced participants, 95% (21/22-trial 1) and 91% (20/22-trial 2) misjudged by >1 mm the size of one or more polyps. Values given by 13 participants (4.9%) in trial 1 and by 15 participants (5.7%) in trial 2, differed by > or = +/-4 mm from the gold standard size. In addition, a big difference between the highest and the lowest values was recorded in some polyps (up to 11.4 mm). Those disparate values were regarded as a human error in reading the scale on the ruler. CONCLUSION: Using a conventional ruler (the tool of pathologists worldwide) unacceptably high intra-observer and inter-observer variations in assessing the size of polyp-phantoms was found. The volume and the shape of devices, as well as human error in reading the scale of the ruler were confounding factors in size assessment. In praxis, the size is crucial in the management of colorectal polyps. Considering the clinical implications of the results obtained, the possibility of developing a method that will allow assessment of the true size of removed clinical polyps is being explored.