Evidence Hub

Sex and smoking differences in the association between gastroesophageal reflux and risk of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in a high-incidence area: Golestan Cohort Study

A. Soroush, R. Malekzadeh, G. Roshandel, M. Khoshnia, H. Poustchi, F. Kamangar, P. Brennan, P. Boffetta et al.

International Journal of Cancer, 2022

290 participants · 10 citations

Abstract

Prior studies have conflicting findings regarding the association between gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). We examined this relationship in a prospective cohort in a region of high ESCC incidence. Baseline exposure data were collected from 50 045 individuals using in‐person interviews at the time of cohort entry. Participants were followed until they developed cancer, died, or were lost to follow up. Participants with GERD symptoms were categorized into any GERD (heartburn or regurgitation), mixed symptoms, or heartburn alone. Multivariable Cox regression was used to assess the relationship between GERD symptom group and histologically confirmed ESCC. The model was adjusted for known risk factors for GERD and ESCC. 49 559 individuals were included in this study, of which 9005 had GERD symptoms. Over 13.0 years of median follow up, 290 individuals were diagnosed with ESCC. We found no association between any GERD and risk of ESCC (aHR 0.90, 95% CI: 0.66‐1.24, P = .54). Similar findings were observed for the GERD symptom subtypes. Significant interactions between any GERD and sex (P = .013) as well as tobacco smoking (P = .028) were observed. In post‐hoc analyses, GERD was associated with a decreased risk of ESCC in men (aHR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.27‐0.98 P = .04) and in smokers (aHR 0.26, 95% CI: 0.08‐0.83 P = .02). While there was little evidence for an overall association between GERD symptoms and ESCC risk, significant…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 290 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free