Cancer Incidence in Patients With Acromegaly: A Cohort Study and Meta-Analysis of the Literature

Cancer Incidence in Patients With Acromegaly: A Cohort Study and Meta-Analysis of the Literature Abstract Context Acromegaly has been associated with increased risk of cancer morbidity and mortality, but research findings remain conflicting and population-based data are scarce. We therefore examined whether patients with acromegaly are at higher risk of cancer. Design A nationwide cohort study (1978 to 2010) including 529 acromegaly cases was performed. Incident cancer diagnoses and mortality were compared with national rates estimating standardized incidence ratios (SIRs). A meta-analysis of cancer SIRs from 23 studies (including the present one) was performed. Results The cohort study identified 81 cases of cancer after exclusion of cases diagnosed within the first year [SIR 1.1; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.9 to 1.4]. SIRs were 1.4 (95% CI, 0.7 to 2.6) for colorectal cancer, 1.1 (95% CI, 0.5 to 2.1) for breast cancer, and 1.4 (95% CI, 0.6 to 2.6) for prostate cancer. Whereas overall mortality was elevated in acromegaly (SIR 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.6), cancer-specific mortality was not. The meta-analysis yielded an SIR of overall cancer of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.2 to 1.8). SIRs were elevated for colorectal cancer, 2.6 (95% CI, 1.7 to 4.0); thyroid cancer, 9.2 (95% CI, 4.2 to 19.9); breast cancer, 1.6 (1.1 to 2.3); gastric cancer, 2.0 (95% CI, 1.4 to 2.9); and urinary tract cancer, 1.5 (95% CI, 1.0 to 2.3). In general, cancer SIR was higher in single-center studies and in studies with <10 cancer cases. Conclusions Cancer incidence rates were slightly elevated in patients with acromegaly in our study, and this finding was supported by the meta-analysis of 23 studies, although it also suggested the presence of selection bias in some earlier studies. Acromegaly is a rare disease caused by hypersecretion of growth hormone (GH), usually from a pituitary adenoma, with an annual incidence of 4 cases per million individuals and a prevalence of 85 per million individuals (1). Continuous hypersecretion of GH induces the hepatic and peripheral production of insulinlike growth factor 1 (IGF-1). Both GH and IGF-1 are implicated in cancer promotion, based on experimental and epidemiological data (2), and acromegaly has been linked with elevated risk of cancer, both in general and with thyroid and colorectal cancer in particular (3). However, not all studies have found this association (4, 5). Although acromegaly has been associated consistently with increased mortality (6, 7), it remains uncertain whether death from cancer is also increased. A major reason for the inconsistent epidemiological data on cancer risk is differences in study design, and the need for population-based studies persists (8). Danish databases provide an opportunity to conduct a study with virtually complete follow-up, using valid population-based data, rather than at a single-center or multicenter level. We therefore conducted a nationwide population-based cohort study to examine the long-term risk of cancer incidence and mortality in patients with acromegaly. We also conducted a meta-analysis of the literature on cancer standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) in acromegaly. Materials and Methods Population-based Danish cohort study The source population comprised the cumulative population of Denmark, with ~8.1 million inhabitants during the period 1991 to 2010. The Danish National Health Service provides tax-supported health care, with universal free access to hospital-based and primary medical care, including care for acromegaly. To ensure unambiguous data linkage, we used the Danish Civil Registration System, which assigns a unique personal identifier, the civil personal registration number, to each Danish resident at time of birth or upon immigration. We identified members of the acromegaly cohort from the Danish National Patient Registry, which contains records on all hospitalizations since 1 January 1977, together with primary and secondary diagnoses coded according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) (9). The Eighth Revision (ICD-8) was used until 1993 and then replaced by the Tenth Revision (ICD-10). To identify cancers among patients with acromegaly, we used the Danish Cancer Registry (DCR), which has recorded all cases of incident cancer in Denmark since 1943 (10). ICD-10 codes are used in the DCR’s current format. Finally, we identified causes of mortality from the Danish Registry of Causes of Death, which contains individual digitalized classification of causes of death in accordance with World Health Organization rules and, since 1994, by ICD-10 codes (11). We validated each individual acromegaly diagnosis as previously described (1). Briefly, hospital records and charts for each possible patient with acromegaly were reviewed by an expert endocrinologist. All patients with validated acromegaly diagnoses who resided in Denmark between 1978 and 2010 were eligible for our cohort study. Those who received a cancer diagnosis before their acromegaly diagnosis were excluded from the study. Disease-specific clinical variables were retrieved from patient records, including pituitary tumor size (maximal diameter), serum GH and IGF-1 levels (at diagnosis, 1 year after diagnosis, and 2 years after diagnosis), and acromegaly treatment modality [surgery only, somatostatin analog (SA) treatment with and without surgery, and irradiation with and without other treatment]. These biochemical and treatment-related data were available only for patients diagnosed after 1991. All incident cancers were identified in the DCR between the index date (date of acromegaly diagnosis) and 30 November 2013. Cancer types of specific interest were colorectal cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, thyroid cancer, gastric cancer, and prostate cancer. Cancer of any type and colorectal, breast, and lung cancers were classified further as localized or nonlocalized. Aggregated groupings were created for urinary tract cancers and hematological cancers. Causes of death were categorized as cancer, cardiovascular disease, other conditions not including cancer, and unknown. Each patient was followed from the date of the acromegaly diagnosis until first occurrence of a cancer diagnosis, death, emigration, or end of the study period (30 November 2013), whichever came first. SIRs were used to compare the number of cancers observed in patients with acromegaly with the expected number, calculated from national cancer incidence rates obtained from the DCR (10). Patients with incident acromegaly were not excluded from the general population before calculation of SIRs. For all SIRs, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were also calculated. All estimates were standardized to the general population by age, sex, and calendar period (5-year intervals). To reduce the risk of surveillance bias, cancer cases identified within the first year after the acromegaly diagnosis were not included in the primary analysis. However, in a sensitivity analysis, we included cancer cases diagnosed within the first year after the acromegaly diagnosis. To explore whether variation in clinical variables (pituitary tumor size and GH and IGF-1 levels before and 1 to 2 years after diagnosis) predicted the outcomes of cancer incidence, cancer mortality, and overall mortality, we used a Cox proportional hazards model to calculate hazard ratios with 95% CIs. All analyses were performed in SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Meta-analysis To identify published studies on the risk of cancer in acromegaly, we searched the PubMed and Scopus databases in January 2018 for publications in English, Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, and Swedish (languages spoken by the authors). The search string focused on acromegaly AND overall cancer or specific cancers. Studies were chosen that provided data permitting calculation of SIRs for cancer in patients with acromegaly compared with a control population. Initial selection of studies by title and abstract was performed by one reviewer (M.B.). Selected studies were retrieved for closer scrutiny by three reviewers (M.B., J.O.L.J., and O.M.D.), and disagreements were resolved by consensus. SIRs were computed by dividing the number of observed events by the number of expected events in the selected studies. The meta-analysis of SIRs used a random-effects model (12), and heterogeneity was assessed via χ2 tests and I2 statistics (13). Funnel plots were used when ≥10 studies were available for analysis. All statistical analyses were performed in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 3.3 (Biostat, Englewood, NJ). Results Cohort study Five hundred twenty-nine patients with acromegaly (51% male) were included in the cohort study. The mean age [standard deviation (SD)] at acromegaly diagnosis was 47.4 (14.2) years, and of these, 25% (n = 132) received a diagnosis of acromegaly between 35 and 44 years of age and 13% (n = 67) after the age of 65 (Table 1). Regarding prevalence of comorbid conditions at the time of diagnosis, 8.3% presented with diabetes, 7.8% with hypertension, and 3.0% with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. As treatments, 46% received SA treatment, 34% underwent surgery only, and 17% underwent radiation therapy (with and without additional treatment). In total, 90 patients with acromegaly (17%) were diagnosed with cancer during the follow-up period. The mean follow-up time was 13.6 (8.3) years, and the mean age at cancer diagnosis was 63.5 (12.5) years. Table 1. Descriptive Characteristics of the Danish Acromegaly Cohort   Patients, N (%)  Median (Interquartile Range)  No. of patients  529 (100)     Sex, male  268 (51)    Age at acromegaly diagnosis       Mean age, y (SD)  47.4 (14.2)     <35 y  112 (21)     35–44 y  132 (25)     45–54 y  125 (24)     55–64 y  93 (18)     65+ y  67 (13)    Year of acromegaly diagnosis       1978–1993  201 (38)     1994–2010  328 (62)    Clinical variables (n = 408)       At diagnosis        Tumor diameter, mm    16 (10–25)    GH nadir, µg/L    12 (6–29)    IGF-1, µg/L    679 (440–930)   1 y after diagnosis        GH nadir, µg/L    1.5 (0.3–4.9)    IGF-1, µg/L    267 (158–481)   2 y after diagnosis        GH nadir, µg/L    1.6 (0.4–5.0)    IGF-1, µg/L    224 (135–375)    Patients, N (%)  Median (Interquartile Range)  No. of patients  529 (100)     Sex, male  268 (51)    Age at acromegaly diagnosis       Mean age, y (SD)  47.4 (14.2)     <35 y  112 (21)     35–44 y  132 (25)     45–54 y  125 (24)     55–64 y  93 (18)     65+ y  67 (13)    Year of acromegaly diagnosis       1978–1993  201 (38)     1994–2010  328 (62)    Clinical variables (n = 408)       At diagnosis        Tumor diameter, mm    16 (10–25)    GH nadir, µg/L    12 (6–29)    IGF-1, µg/L    679 (440–930)   1 y after diagnosis        GH nadir, µg/L    1.5 (0.3–4.9)    IGF-1, µg/L    267 (158–481)   2 y after diagnosis        GH nadir, µg/L    1.6 (0.4–5.0)    IGF-1, µg/L    224 (135–375)  The clinical variables derive from patients diagnosed after 1991 (N = 408). View Large Table 1. Descriptive Characteristics of the Danish Acromegaly Cohort   Patients, N (%)  Median (Interquartile Range)  No. of patients  529 (100)     Sex, male  268 (51)    Age at acromegaly diagnosis       Mean age, y (SD)  47.4 (14.2)     <35 y  112 (21)     35–44 y  132 (25)     45–54 y  125 (24)     55–64 y  93 (18)     65+ y  67 (13)    Year of acromegaly diagnosis       1978–1993  201 (38)     1994–2010  328 (62)    Clinical variables (n = 408)       At diagnosis        Tumor diameter, mm    16 (10–25)    GH nadir, µg/L    12 (6–29)    IGF-1, µg/L    679 (440–930)   1 y after diagnosis        GH nadir, µg/L    1.5 (0.3–4.9)    IGF-1, µg/L    267 (158–481)   2 y after diagnosis        GH nadir, µg/L    1.6 (0.4–5.0)    IGF-1, µg/L    224 (135–375)    Patients, N (%)  Median (Interquartile Range)  No. of patients  529 (100)     Sex, male  268 (51)    Age at acromegaly diagnosis       Mean age, y (SD)  47.4 (14.2)     <35 y  112 (21)     35–44 y  132 (25)     45–54 y  125 (24)     55–64 y  93 (18)     65+ y  67 (13)    Year of acromegaly diagnosis       1978–1993  201 (38)     1994–2010  328 (62)    Clinical variables (n = 408)       At diagnosis        Tumor diameter, mm    16 (10–25)    GH nadir, µg/L    12 (6–29)    IGF-1, µg/L    679 (440–930)   1 y after diagnosis        GH nadir, µg/L    1.5 (0.3–4.9)    IGF-1, µg/L    267 (158–481)   2 y after diagnosis        GH nadir, µg/L    1.6 (0.4–5.0)    IGF-1, µg/L    224 (135–375)  The clinical variables derive from patients diagnosed after 1991 (N = 408). View Large Within the first year after the diagnosis of acromegaly, nine patients were diagnosed with cancer and excluded from subsequent SIR analysis to reduce surveillance bias. The SIR of all cancers was 1.1 (95% CI, 0.9 to 1.4) (Table 2). Inclusion of the nine cases diagnosed within the first year after an acromegaly diagnosis increased the overall cancer risk marginally [SIR 1.2 (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.5)] (Supplemental Table 1). The SIR for colorectal cancer was 1.4 (95% CI, 0.7 to 2.6), slightly elevated. The estimates as regards associations between pituitary tumor size and biochemical biomarkers (GH and IGF-1 levels) and cancer risk were imprecise, with wide CIs, and therefore are not reported. Table 2. Cancer Incidence Among Patients With Acromegaly in Denmark, Excluding the First Year After Acromegaly Diagnosis   Observed  Expected  SIR (95% CI)  Overall, cancer  81  72.7  1.1 (0.9–1.4)   Localized cancer  43  36.6  1.2 (0.9–1.6)   Nonlocalized cancer  25  22.0  1.1 (0.7–1.7)  Colorectal cancer  10  7.1  1.4 (0.7–2.6)   Localized  5  2.7  1.9 (0.6–4.3)   Nonlocalized  5  3.6  1.4 (0.5–3.3)  Breast cancer  9  8.1  1.1 (0.5–2.1)   Localized  4  4.0  N/A   Nonlocalized  5  3.6  1.4 (0.5–3.2)  Lung cancer  4  7.9  NA   Localized  0  1.5  NA   Nonlocalized  4  5.8  NA  Thyroid cancer  1  0.3  NA  Gastric cancer  4  1.1  NA  Prostate cancer  9  6.6  1.4 (0.6–2.6)  Urinary tract cancers  5  4.9  1.0 (0.3–2.4)  Hematological cancers  5  3.9  1.3 (0.4–3.0)    Observed  Expected  SIR (95% CI)  Overall, cancer  81  72.7  1.1 (0.9–1.4)   Localized cancer  43  36.6  1.2 (0.9–1.6)   Nonlocalized cancer  25  22.0  1.1 (0.7–1.7)  Colorectal cancer  10  7.1  1.4 (0.7–2.6)   Localized  5  2.7  1.9 (0.6–4.3)   Nonlocalized  5  3.6  1.4 (0.5–3.3)  Breast cancer  9  8.1  1.1 (0.5–2.1)   Localized  4  4.0  N/A   Nonlocalized  5  3.6  1.4 (0.5–3.2)  Lung cancer  4  7.9  NA   Localized  0  1.5  NA   Nonlocalized  4  5.8  NA  Thyroid cancer  1  0.3  NA  Gastric cancer  4  1.1  NA  Prostate cancer  9  6.6  1.4 (0.6–2.6)  Urinary tract cancers  5  4.9  1.0 (0.3–2.4)  Hematological cancers  5  3.9  1.3 (0.4–3.0)  Abbreviation: NA, <5 cancers observed, so SIRs are not reported. View Large Table 2. Cancer Incidence Among Patients With Acromegaly in Denmark, Excluding the First Year After Acromegaly Diagnosis   Observed  Expected  SIR (95% CI)  Overall, cancer  81  72.7  1.1 (0.9–1.4)   Localized cancer  43  36.6  1.2 (0.9–1.6)   Nonlocalized cancer  25  22.0  1.1 (0.7–1.7)  Colorectal cancer  10  7.1  1.4 (0.7–2.6)   Localized  5  2.7  1.9 (0.6–4.3)   Nonlocalized  5  3.6  1.4 (0.5–3.3)  Breast cancer  9  8.1  1.1 (0.5–2.1)   Localized  4  4.0  N/A   Nonlocalized  5  3.6  1.4 (0.5–3.2)  Lung cancer  4  7.9  NA   Localized  0  1.5  NA   Nonlocalized  4  5.8  NA  Thyroid cancer  1  0.3  NA  Gastric cancer  4  1.1  NA  Prostate cancer  9  6.6  1.4 (0.6–2.6)  Urinary tract cancers  5  4.9  1.0 (0.3–2.4)  Hematological cancers  5  3.9  1.3 (0.4–3.0)    Observed  Expected  SIR (95% CI)  Overall, cancer  81  72.7  1.1 (0.9–1.4)   Localized cancer  43  36.6  1.2 (0.9–1.6)   Nonlocalized cancer  25  22.0  1.1 (0.7–1.7)  Colorectal cancer  10  7.1  1.4 (0.7–2.6)   Localized  5  2.7  1.9 (0.6–4.3)   Nonlocalized  5  3.6  1.4 (0.5–3.3)  Breast cancer  9  8.1  1.1 (0.5–2.1)   Localized  4  4.0  N/A   Nonlocalized  5  3.6  1.4 (0.5–3.2)  Lung cancer  4  7.9  NA   Localized  0  1.5  NA   Nonlocalized  4  5.8  NA  Thyroid cancer  1  0.3  NA  Gastric cancer  4  1.1  NA  Prostate cancer  9  6.6  1.4 (0.6–2.6)  Urinary tract cancers  5  4.9  1.0 (0.3–2.4)  Hematological cancers  5  3.9  1.3 (0.4–3.0)  Abbreviation: NA, <5 cancers observed, so SIRs are not reported. View Large During the follow-up period, 141 patients died, of whom 46 were <55 years old. Cancer was the cause of death for 16% (n = 22) and cardiovascular disease for 30% (n = 42). Mortality risk in acromegaly was 1.4 times higher than in the general population (95% CI, 1.1 to 1.6); mortality risk after exclusion of the first year was 1.3 (95% CI, 1.1 to 1.6) (l). Mortality was elevated in the small group of patients who were not treated for acromegaly (n = 16) (data not shown). No difference in mortality was detected when different treatment groups were compared (data not shown). Meta-analysis and literature review Our initial search yielded 5365 publications, of which 5333 were excluded based on title or abstract. Thirty-two publications were retrieved for more detailed evaluation, of which 21 publications were eligible, and scrutiny of these identified 1 additional publication (4, 5, 14–33). Only 1 of these studies (23) excluded cancer cases diagnosed within the first year. Data from the current study including cancer cases detected within the first year after acromegaly diagnosis were included in the meta-analysis. Thus, 23 studies with a total of 9677 patients were included in the meta-analysis (Table 3). The mean weighted age at time of acromegaly diagnosis was 47.9 years, and the mean weighted follow-up time was 10.1 years (range: 4.5 to 15.0 years). The mean weighted age at time of cancer diagnosis was 62.0 years. The sex distribution was approximately equal (male/female ratio 53:47). Table 3. Characteristics of Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis Study (Year)  Country  Patients (N)  Men (%)  Mean Age at Acromegaly Diagnosis, y (SD)  Mean Age at Cancer Diagnosis, y (SD)  Mean Follow-Up, y (SD)  Design  Dal et al. (2018)  Denmark  529  51  47.4 (14.2)  63.5 (12.5)  13.6 (8.3)  Population-based  Terzolo et al. (14) (2017)  Italy  1512  41  45.0 (13.0)    8.3  Multicenter  Maione et al. (15) (2017)  France, Switzerland, and Belgium  999  46  46.0    6.7  Multicenter  Wolinski et al. (16) (2017)  Poland  200  36  47.6 (13.0)    5.6 (7.1)  Single-center  Petroff et al. (5) (2015)  Germany  445  45  45.7 (14.2)    15.0  Multicenter  Dos Santos et al. (17) (2013)  Brazil  124  39  45.1 (13.4)      Multicenter  Kauppinen et al. (18) (2010)  Finland  331        14.6  Population-based  Kurimoto et al. (19) (2008)  Japan  140  39        Single-center  Matano et al. (20) (2005)  Japan  19  58  46.7 (16.3)  65.3 (10.8)    Single-center  Tita et al. (21) (2005)  Italy  125  44  49.9 (14.1)  52.0 (9.0)  8.2a  Multicenter  Terzolo et al. (22) (2005)  Italy  235  49  49.1 (12.6)  50.3 (12.8)    Multicenter  Baris et al. (23) (2002)  Denmark and Sweden  1634  46  50.7  64.8  10.0  Population-based  Higuchi et al. (24) (2000)  Japan  44  57  45.7 (13.8)    15.2  Single-center  Renehan et al. (25) (2000)  United Kingdom  122  57  41.9a  69.7 (17.9)    Multicenter  Orme et al. (4) (1998)  United Kingdom  1239        13.5  Multicenter  Popovic et al. (26) (1998)  Serbia  220  38  49.5 (13.3)    4.5 (5.9)  Single-center  Cheung et al. (27) (1997)  Australia  50  58  48.0a  58.8 (12.9)  8.7  Single-center  Colao et al. (28) (1997)  Italy  50  50  25–70b      Single-center  Ron et al. (29) (1991)  United States  1041  100  52.7    8.3  Multicenter  Barzilay et al. (30) (1991)  United States  87  51  37.0a    13a  Single-center  Brunner et al. (31) (1990)  United States  52  54  45.2 (14.2)    12.5 (9.0)  Multicenter  Nabarro (32) (1987)  United Kingdom  256  52  43.0    6.8  Single-center  Mustacchi et al. (33) (1957)  United States  223  57      13.3 (7.8)  Multicenter  Study (Year)  Country  Patients (N)  Men (%)  Mean Age at Acromegaly Diagnosis, y (SD)  Mean Age at Cancer Diagnosis, y (SD)  Mean Follow-Up, y (SD)  Design  Dal et al. (2018)  Denmark  529  51  47.4 (14.2)  63.5 (12.5)  13.6 (8.3)  Population-based  Terzolo et al. (14) (2017)  Italy  1512  41  45.0 (13.0)    8.3  Multicenter  Maione et al. (15) (2017)  France, Switzerland, and Belgium  999  46  46.0    6.7  Multicenter  Wolinski et al. (16) (2017)  Poland  200  36  47.6 (13.0)    5.6 (7.1)  Single-center  Petroff et al. (5) (2015)  Germany  445  45  45.7 (14.2)    15.0  Multicenter  Dos Santos et al. (17) (2013)  Brazil  124  39  45.1 (13.4)      Multicenter  Kauppinen et al. (18) (2010)  Finland  331        14.6  Population-based  Kurimoto et al. (19) (2008)  Japan  140  39        Single-center  Matano et al. (20) (2005)  Japan  19  58  46.7 (16.3)  65.3 (10.8)    Single-center  Tita et al. (21) (2005)  Italy  125  44  49.9 (14.1)  52.0 (9.0)  8.2a  Multicenter  Terzolo et al. (22) (2005)  Italy  235  49  49.1 (12.6)  50.3 (12.8)    Multicenter  Baris et al. (23) (2002)  Denmark and Sweden  1634  46  50.7  64.8  10.0  Population-based  Higuchi et al. (24) (2000)  Japan  44  57  45.7 (13.8)    15.2  Single-center  Renehan et al. (25) (2000)  United Kingdom  122  57  41.9a  69.7 (17.9)    Multicenter  Orme et al. (4) (1998)  United Kingdom  1239        13.5  Multicenter  Popovic et al. (26) (1998)  Serbia  220  38  49.5 (13.3)    4.5 (5.9)  Single-center  Cheung et al. (27) (1997)  Australia  50  58  48.0a  58.8 (12.9)  8.7  Single-center  Colao et al. (28) (1997)  Italy  50  50  25–70b      Single-center  Ron et al. (29) (1991)  United States  1041  100  52.7    8.3  Multicenter  Barzilay et al. (30) (1991)  United States  87  51  37.0a    13a  Single-center  Brunner et al. (31) (1990)  United States  52  54  45.2 (14.2)    12.5 (9.0)  Multicenter  Nabarro (32) (1987)  United Kingdom  256  52  43.0    6.8  Single-center  Mustacchi et al. (33) (1957)  United States  223  57      13.3 (7.8)  Multicenter  a Reported as median. b Reported as age ranges. View Large Table 3. Characteristics of Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis Study (Year)  Country  Patients (N)  Men (%)  Mean Age at Acromegaly Diagnosis, y (SD)  Mean Age at Cancer Diagnosis, y (SD)  Mean Follow-Up, y (SD)  Design  Dal et al. (2018)  Denmark  529  51  47.4 (14.2)  63.5 (12.5)  13.6 (8.3)  Population-based  Terzolo et al. (14) (2017)  Italy  1512  41  45.0 (13.0)    8.3  Multicenter  Maione et al. (15) (2017)  France, Switzerland, and Belgium  999  46  46.0    6.7  Multicenter  Wolinski et al. (16) (2017)  Poland  200  36  47.6 (13.0)    5.6 (7.1)  Single-center  Petroff et al. (5) (2015)  Germany  445  45  45.7 (14.2)    15.0  Multicenter  Dos Santos et al. (17) (2013)  Brazil  124  39  45.1 (13.4)      Multicenter  Kauppinen et al. (18) (2010)  Finland  331        14.6  Population-based  Kurimoto et al. (19) (2008)  Japan  140  39        Single-center  Matano et al. (20) (2005)  Japan  19  58  46.7 (16.3)  65.3 (10.8)    Single-center  Tita et al. (21) (2005)  Italy  125  44  49.9 (14.1)  52.0 (9.0)  8.2a  Multicenter  Terzolo et al. (22) (2005)  Italy  235  49  49.1 (12.6)  50.3 (12.8)    Multicenter  Baris et al. (23) (2002)  Denmark and Sweden  1634  46  50.7  64.8  10.0  Population-based  Higuchi et al. (24) (2000)  Japan  44  57  45.7 (13.8)    15.2  Single-center  Renehan et al. (25) (2000)  United Kingdom  122  57  41.9a  69.7 (17.9)    Multicenter  Orme et al. (4) (1998)  United Kingdom  1239        13.5  Multicenter  Popovic et al. (26) (1998)  Serbia  220  38  49.5 (13.3)    4.5 (5.9)  Single-center  Cheung et al. (27) (1997)  Australia  50  58  48.0a  58.8 (12.9)  8.7  Single-center  Colao et al. (28) (1997)  Italy  50  50  25–70b      Single-center  Ron et al. (29) (1991)  United States  1041  100  52.7    8.3  Multicenter  Barzilay et al. (30) (1991)  United States  87  51  37.0a    13a  Single-center  Brunner et al. (31) (1990)  United States  52  54  45.2 (14.2)    12.5 (9.0)  Multicenter  Nabarro (32) (1987)  United Kingdom  256  52  43.0    6.8  Single-center  Mustacchi et al. (33) (1957)  United States  223  57      13.3 (7.8)  Multicenter  Study (Year)  Country  Patients (N)  Men (%)  Mean Age at Acromegaly Diagnosis, y (SD)  Mean Age at Cancer Diagnosis, y (SD)  Mean Follow-Up, y (SD)  Design  Dal et al. (2018)  Denmark  529  51  47.4 (14.2)  63.5 (12.5)  13.6 (8.3)  Population-based  Terzolo et al. (14) (2017)  Italy  1512  41  45.0 (13.0)    8.3  Multicenter  Maione et al. (15) (2017)  France, Switzerland, and Belgium  999  46  46.0    6.7  Multicenter  Wolinski et al. (16) (2017)  Poland  200  36  47.6 (13.0)    5.6 (7.1)  Single-center  Petroff et al. (5) (2015)  Germany  445  45  45.7 (14.2)    15.0  Multicenter  Dos Santos et al. (17) (2013)  Brazil  124  39  45.1 (13.4)      Multicenter  Kauppinen et al. (18) (2010)  Finland  331        14.6  Population-based  Kurimoto et al. (19) (2008)  Japan  140  39        Single-center  Matano et al. (20) (2005)  Japan  19  58  46.7 (16.3)  65.3 (10.8)    Single-center  Tita et al. (21) (2005)  Italy  125  44  49.9 (14.1)  52.0 (9.0)  8.2a  Multicenter  Terzolo et al. (22) (2005)  Italy  235  49  49.1 (12.6)  50.3 (12.8)    Multicenter  Baris et al. (23) (2002)  Denmark and Sweden  1634  46  50.7  64.8  10.0  Population-based  Higuchi et al. (24) (2000)  Japan  44  57  45.7 (13.8)    15.2  Single-center  Renehan et al. (25) (2000)  United Kingdom  122  57  41.9a  69.7 (17.9)    Multicenter  Orme et al. (4) (1998)  United Kingdom  1239        13.5  Multicenter  Popovic et al. (26) (1998)  Serbia  220  38  49.5 (13.3)    4.5 (5.9)  Single-center  Cheung et al. (27) (1997)  Australia  50  58  48.0a  58.8 (12.9)  8.7  Single-center  Colao et al. (28) (1997)  Italy  50  50  25–70b      Single-center  Ron et al. (29) (1991)  United States  1041  100  52.7    8.3  Multicenter  Barzilay et al. (30) (1991)  United States  87  51  37.0a    13a  Single-center  Brunner et al. (31) (1990)  United States  52  54  45.2 (14.2)    12.5 (9.0)  Multicenter  Nabarro (32) (1987)  United Kingdom  256  52  43.0    6.8  Single-center  Mustacchi et al. (33) (1957)  United States  223  57      13.3 (7.8)  Multicenter  a Reported as median. b Reported as age ranges. View Large In general, SIRs for overall cancer were similar across studies, with 12 of 14 (14–16, 18, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33) reporting a SIR >1.0. The pooled SIR for overall cancer in the meta-analysis was 1.5 (95% CI, 1.2 to 1.8) (Fig. 1), with considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 84%). The funnel plot was not clearly asymmetric, and the Egger test was nonsignificant (P = 0.36) (Supplemental Fig. 1), providing no clear evidence of publication bias. Stratification based on study design revealed a higher SIR for cancer in single-center studies (pooled SIR = 3.2; 95% CI, 2.4 to 4.1) (16, 24, 26, 27, 30) compared with both multicenter studies (pooled SIR = 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.5) (4, 5, 14, 15, 29, 33) and population-based studies (pooled SIR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.6) (18, 23) (Table 4). When a partial overlap of patients between the current study and Baris et al. (23) became evident, we calculated the pooled SIR excluding the Baris article, which did not influence the pooled SIR (1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9); similarly, excluding the current study did not change the estimate (SIR 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9). Exclusion of studies reporting <10 expected cases (16, 24, 26, 27, 30, 33) changed the pooled SIR to 1.2 (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.5). Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Overall incidence of cancer in patients with acromegaly. Reference 15 provided only SIR, as presented here. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Overall incidence of cancer in patients with acromegaly. Reference 15 provided only SIR, as presented here. Table 4. SIRs for Overall Cancer in Patients With Acromegaly, Subgroup Analyses Within the Meta-Analysis Subgroup  Studies (N)  Patients (N)  SIR (95% CI)  Stratified by sex         Men  9  3180  1.5 (1.3–1.7)   Women  8  2630  1.9 (1.4–2.5)  Stratified by study population         Single center  5  601  3.2 (2.4–4.1)   Multicenter  6  5459  1.2 (0.9–1.5)   Population based  3  2494  1.4 (1.2–1.6)  Stratified by study period         1950–1974  5a  4224  1.3 (0.9–1.9)   1975–1999  11a  6645  1.5 (1.2–1.8)   2000–2017  5a  3685  1.4 (1.0–1.8)  Subgroup  Studies (N)  Patients (N)  SIR (95% CI)  Stratified by sex         Men  9  3180  1.5 (1.3–1.7)   Women  8  2630  1.9 (1.4–2.5)  Stratified by study population         Single center  5  601  3.2 (2.4–4.1)   Multicenter  6  5459  1.2 (0.9–1.5)   Population based  3  2494  1.4 (1.2–1.6)  Stratified by study period         1950–1974  5a  4224  1.3 (0.9–1.9)   1975–1999  11a  6645  1.5 (1.2–1.8)   2000–2017  5a  3685  1.4 (1.0–1.8)  a Studies may be included in >1 subgroup. View Large Table 4. SIRs for Overall Cancer in Patients With Acromegaly, Subgroup Analyses Within the Meta-Analysis Subgroup  Studies (N)  Patients (N)  SIR (95% CI)  Stratified by sex         Men  9  3180  1.5 (1.3–1.7)   Women  8  2630  1.9 (1.4–2.5)  Stratified by study population         Single center  5  601  3.2 (2.4–4.1)   Multicenter  6  5459  1.2 (0.9–1.5)   Population based  3  2494  1.4 (1.2–1.6)  Stratified by study period         1950–1974  5a  4224  1.3 (0.9–1.9)   1975–1999  11a  6645  1.5 (1.2–1.8)   2000–2017  5a  3685  1.4 (1.0–1.8)  Subgroup  Studies (N)  Patients (N)  SIR (95% CI)  Stratified by sex         Men  9  3180  1.5 (1.3–1.7)   Women  8  2630  1.9 (1.4–2.5)  Stratified by study population         Single center  5  601  3.2 (2.4–4.1)   Multicenter  6  5459  1.2 (0.9–1.5)   Population based  3  2494  1.4 (1.2–1.6)  Stratified by study period         1950–1974  5a  4224  1.3 (0.9–1.9)   1975–1999  11a  6645  1.5 (1.2–1.8)   2000–2017  5a  3685  1.4 (1.0–1.8)  a Studies may be included in >1 subgroup. View Large Stratification based on sex in 9 studies (14, 15, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33) yielded similar SIRs for men and women: 1.5 (95% CI, 1.3 to 1.7) and 1.9 (95% CI, 1.4 to 2.5). Stratification based on study period (calendar year) did not clearly affect the outcome (Table 4). Stratified by cancer type, elevated risks were shown for colorectal cancer (pooled SIR = 2.6; 95% CI, 1.7 to 4.0), thyroid cancer (pooled SIR = 9.2; 95% CI, 4.2 to 19.9), gastric cancer (pooled SIR = 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4 to 2.9), breast cancer (pooled SIR = 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.3), and urinary tract cancer (pooled SIR = 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.3). SIRs for other cancers were as follows: lung cancer (0.8; 95% CI, 0.5 to 1.2), prostate cancer (1.2; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.9), and hematological cancers (1.3; 95% CI, 0.8 to 2.3). The increase in colorectal cancer incidence was reported in 13 out of 14 studies (4, 14, 16, 18–20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 31) (Fig. 2), without evidence of funnel plot asymmetry (Egger test result; P = 0.67) (Supplemental Fig. 2). The colorectal cancer incidence rates among single-center studies (pooled SIR = 7.3; 95% CI, 2.6 to 20.6) (16, 19, 20, 28), multicenter studies (pooled SIR = 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.1) (4, 5, 14, 22, 25, 29, 31), and population-based studies (pooled SIR = 2.2; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.0) (18, 23) were all elevated. Figure 2. View largeDownload slide Incidence of colorectal cancer in patients with acromegaly. N/A, <5 cancers observed, so SIRs are not reported. Figure 2. View largeDownload slide Incidence of colorectal cancer in patients with acromegaly. N/A, <5 cancers observed, so SIRs are not reported. No major difference was observed in thyroid cancer incidence between multicenter studies (pooled SIR = 7.6; 95% CI, 2.4 to 24.5) (4, 5, 14, 17, 21, 29) and population-based studies (pooled SIR = 8.2; 95% CI, 3.6 to 18.7) (18, 23); only two single-center studies (16, 19) evaluated thyroid cancer incidence (SIR = 20.3; 95% CI, 1.2 to 332.0). Discussion The findings from our population-based study and the meta-analysis suggest that overall cancer risk is slightly elevated in patients with acromegaly compared with the general population. Data from laboratory, animal, and human studies strongly indicate that GH and IGF-1 are closely associated with cancer development and progression (2). Moreover, circulating IGF-1 levels within the upper normal range have been associated with elevated risk of breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancers in the general population (2). Our study has several strengths stemming from its use of population-based nationwide data with virtually complete follow-up. This design reduces the risk of selection bias. This advantage is reinforced by free health care access in Denmark, implying that care is equally and openly accessible. Our study also excluded cancer cases detected within the first year after an acromegaly diagnosis, to minimize the risk of surveillance bias. Moreover, the diagnosis of each patient in our study was validated, as previously reported (1). The results of the meta-analysis added support to our finding of increased cancer incidence among patients with acromegaly but also revealed potential sources of bias. The elevated overall cancer incidence risk in the meta-analysis was more pronounced in single-center studies (Table 4) and was lower when we excluded studies with <10 cases, suggesting the presence of selection or sample bias (8). It is possible that the patient population in single centers represents difficult cases with previous treatment failure and increased comorbidity. It is also possible that the comparator group in single-center studies derived from screening programs, which poses the risk of healthy user bias. This possibility is of particular relevance in the context of colorectal cancer and breast cancer, for which screening programs are often available. The risks of surveillance bias or diagnostic workup bias are also present. As mentioned, we reduced this risk by excluding cancer cases detected within the first year after the acromegaly diagnosis. Indeed, 9 out of 90 cancer cases were diagnosed within the first year in our study. When we included these 9 cancer cases in a sensitivity analysis, risk estimates increased for overall cancer, colorectal cancer, and lung cancer (Supplemental Table 1). This approach was used only in one additional study (23), which may have introduced bias and overestimation of cancer risks in the remaining studies. Surveillance bias is of particular concern for thyroid cancer, because thyroid volume is enlarged in acromegaly, which may lead to more frequent use of ultrasonography and subsequent overdiagnosis of occult thyroid cancer (34), and endocrinologists are generally more likely to focus on endocrine diseases. In our own study, only a single case of thyroid cancer was diagnosed (Table 2), even when the first year of follow-up after acromegaly diagnosis was included (Supplemental Fig. 1). A possible association between colorectal cancer risk and acromegaly has attracted particular interest and controversy, as has been extensively reviewed (3). A number of biological mechanisms have been proposed in addition to the fact that the bowel in patients with acromegaly is ~15% to 20% longer, which by itself has been estimated to increase bowel cancer risk by 15% to 20% (3). The meta-analysis confirmed an elevated risk of colorectal cancer, which was more pronounced in single-center studies. Taken together, our cohort study and the meta-analysis suggest only a slightly elevated overall risk of cancer in patients with acromegaly. This finding does not call into question nonhuman data on the carcinogenic effects of GH and IGF-1, nor should it deter patients or health care professionals from adhering to current cancer surveillance guidelines. However, our findings agree with the previously drawn conclusion that excessive GH in humans is not a serious cancer risk (8). Abbreviations: Abbreviations: CI confidence interval DCR Danish Cancer Registry GH growth hormone ICD International Classification of Diseases IGF-1 insulinlike growth factor 1 SA somatostatin analog SD standard deviation SIR standardized incidence ratio Acknowledgments Financial Support: This study was supported by unrestricted research grants from Pfizer and Ipsen to J.O.L.J. J.O.L.J. and U.F.-R. have received grants and lecture fees from Pfizer, Ipsen, and Novartis. Disclosure Summary: The authors have nothing to disclose. References 1. Dal J, Feldt-Rasmussen U, Andersen M, Kristensen LO, Laurberg P, Pedersen L, Dekkers OM, Sørensen HT, Jørgensen JO. Acromegaly incidence, prevalence, complications and long-term prognosis: a nationwide cohort study. Eur J Endocrinol . 2016; 175( 3): 181– 190. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  2. Renehan AG, Zwahlen M, Minder C, O’Dwyer ST, Shalet SM, Egger M. Insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I, IGF binding protein-3, and cancer risk: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Lancet . 2004; 363( 9418): 1346– 1353. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  3. Renehan AG, O’Connell J, O’Halloran D, Shanahan F, Potten CS, O’Dwyer ST, Shalet SM. Acromegaly and colorectal cancer: a comprehensive review of epidemiology, biological mechanisms, and clinical implications. Horm Metab Res . 2003; 35( 11–12): 712– 725. Google Scholar PubMed  4. Orme SM, McNally RJ, Cartwright RA, Belchetz PE; United Kingdom Acromegaly Study Group. Mortality and cancer incidence in acromegaly: a retrospective cohort study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab . 1998; 83( 8): 2730– 2734. Google Scholar PubMed  5. Petroff D, Tönjes A, Grussendorf M, Droste M, Dimopoulou C, Stalla G, Jaursch-Hancke C, Mai M, Schopohl J, Schöfl C. The incidence of cancer among acromegaly patients: results from the German acromegaly registry. J Clin Endocrinol Metab . 2015; 100( 10): 3894– 3902. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  6. Dekkers OM, Biermasz NR, Pereira AM, Romijn JA, Vandenbroucke JP. Mortality in acromegaly: a metaanalysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab . 2008; 93( 1): 61– 67. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  7. Holdaway IM, Bolland MJ, Gamble GD. A meta-analysis of the effect of lowering serum levels of GH and IGF-I on mortality in acromegaly. Eur J Endocrinol . 2008; 159( 2): 89– 95. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  8. Renehan AG, Shalet SM. Acromegaly and colorectal cancer: risk assessment should be based on population-based studies. J Clin Endocrinol Metab . 2002; 87( 4): 1909, author reply 1909. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  9. Lynge E, Sandegaard JL, Rebolj M. The Danish National Patient Register. Scand J Public Health . 2011; 39( 7 suppl): 30– 33. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  10. Gjerstorff ML. The Danish Cancer Registry. Scand J Public Health . 2011; 39( 7 suppl): 42– 45. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  11. Helweg-Larsen K. The Danish Register of Causes of Death. Scand J Public Health . 2011; 39( 7 suppl) 26– 29. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  12. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials . 1986; 7( 3): 177– 188. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  13. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med . 2002; 21( 11): 1539– 1558. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  14. Terzolo M, Reimondo G, Berchialla P, Ferrante E, Malchiodi E, De Marinis L, Pivonello R, Grottoli S, Losa M, Cannavo S, Ferone D, Montini M, Bondanelli M, De Menis E, Martini C, Puxeddu E, Velardo A, Peri A, Faustini-Fustini M, Tita P, Pigliaru F, Peraga G, Borretta G, Scaroni C, Bazzoni N, Bianchi A, Berton A, Serban AL, Baldelli R, Fatti LM, Colao A, Arosio M; Italian Study Group of Acromegaly. Acromegaly is associated with increased cancer risk: a survey in Italy. Endocr Relat Cancer . 2017; 24( 9): 495– 504. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  15. Maione L, Brue T, Beckers A, Delemer B, Petrossians P, Borson-Chazot F, Chabre O, François P, Bertherat J, Cortet-Rudelli C, Chanson P; French Acromegaly Registry Group. Changes in the management and comorbidities of acromegaly over three decades: the French Acromegaly Registry. Eur J Endocrinol . 2017; 176( 5): 645– 655. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  16. Wolinski K, Stangierski A, Dyrda K, Nowicka K, Pelka M, Iqbal A, Car A, Lazizi M, Bednarek N, Czarnywojtek A, Gurgul E, Ruchala M. Risk of malignant neoplasms in acromegaly: a case-control study. J Endocrinol Invest . 2017; 40( 3): 319– 322. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  17. dos Santos MC, Nascimento GC, Nascimento AG, Carvalho VC, Lopes MH, Montenegro R, Montenegro R Jr, Vilar L, Albano MF, Alves AR, Parente CV, dos Santos Faria M. Thyroid cancer in patients with acromegaly: a case-control study. Pituitary . 2013; 16( 1): 109– 114. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  18. Kauppinen-Mäkelin R, Sane T, Välimäki MJ, Markkanen H, Niskanen L, Ebeling T, Jaatinen P, Juonala M, Pukkala E; Finnish Acromegaly Study Group. Increased cancer incidence in acromegaly--a nationwide survey. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) . 2010; 72( 2): 278– 279. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  19. Kurimoto M, Fukuda I, Hizuka N, Takano K. The prevalence of benign and malignant tumors in patients with acromegaly at a single institute. Endocr J . 2008; 55( 1): 67– 71. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  20. Matano Y, Okada T, Suzuki A, Yoneda T, Takeda Y, Mabuchi H. Risk of colorectal neoplasm in patients with acromegaly and its relationship with serum growth hormone levels. Am J Gastroenterol . 2005; 100( 5): 1154– 1160. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  21. Tita P, Ambrosio MR, Scollo C, Carta A, Gangemi P, Bondanelli M, Vigneri R, degli Uberti EC, Pezzino V. High prevalence of differentiated thyroid carcinoma in acromegaly. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) . 2005; 63( 2): 161– 167. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  22. Terzolo M, Reimondo G, Gasperi M, Cozzi R, Pivonello R, Vitale G, Scillitani A, Attanasio R, Cecconi E, Daffara F, Gaia E, Martino E, Lombardi G, Angeli A, Colao A. Colonoscopic screening and follow-up in patients with acromegaly: a multicenter study in Italy. J Clin Endocrinol Metab . 2005; 90( 1): 84– 90. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  23. Baris D, Gridley G, Ron E, Weiderpass E, Mellemkjaer L, Ekbom A, Olsen JH, Baron JA, Fraumeni JF Jr. Acromegaly and cancer risk: a cohort study in Sweden and Denmark. Cancer Causes Control . 2002; 13( 5): 395– 400. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  24. Higuchi Y, Saeki N, Iuchi T, Uchino Y, Tatsuno I, Uchida D, Tanaka T, Noguchi Y, Nakamura S, Yasuda T, Yamaura A, Sunami K, Oka Y, Uozumi A. Incidence of malignant tumors in patients with acromegaly. Endocr J . 2000; 47( Suppl): S57– S60. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  25. Renehan AG, Bhaskar P, Painter JE, O’Dwyer ST, Haboubi N, Varma J, Ball SG, Shalet SM. The prevalence and characteristics of colorectal neoplasia in acromegaly. J Clin Endocrinol Metab . 2000; 85( 9): 3417– 3424. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  26. Popovic V, Damjanovic S, Micic D, Nesovic M, Djurovic M, Petakov M, Obradovic S, Zoric S, Simic M, Penezic Z, Marinkovic J; The Pituitary Study Group. Increased incidence of neoplasia in patients with pituitary adenomas. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) . 1998; 49( 4): 441– 445. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  27. Cheung NW, Boyages SC. Increased incidence of neoplasia in females with acromegaly. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) . 1997; 47( 3): 323– 327. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  28. Colao A, Balzano A, Ferone D, Panza N, Grande G, Marzullo P, Bove A, Iodice G, Merola B, Lombardi G. Increased prevalence of colonic polyps and altered lymphocyte subset pattern in the colonic lamina propria in acromegaly. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) . 1997; 47( 1): 23– 28. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  29. Ron E, Gridley G, Hrubec Z, Page W, Arora S, Fraumeni JF Jr. Acromegaly and gastrointestinal cancer. Cancer . 1991; 68( 8): 1673– 1677. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  30. Barzilay J, Heatley GJ, Cushing GW. Benign and malignant tumors in patients with acromegaly. Arch Intern Med . 1991; 151( 8): 1629– 1632. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  31. Brunner JE, Johnson CC, Zafar S, Peterson EL, Brunner JF, Mellinger RC. Colon cancer and polyps in acromegaly: increased risk associated with family history of colon cancer. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) . 1990; 32( 1): 65– 71. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  32. Nabarro JD. Acromegaly. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) . 1987; 26( 4): 481– 512. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  33. Mustacchi P, Shimkin MB. Occurrence of cancer in acromegaly and in hypopituitarism. Cancer . 1957; 10( 1): 100– 104. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  34. Davies L, Welch HG. Increasing incidence of thyroid cancer in the United States, 1973–2002. JAMA . 2006; 295( 18): 2164– 2167. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Copyright © 2018 Endocrine Society http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism Oxford University Press

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/cancer-incidence-in-patients-with-acromegaly-a-cohort-study-and-meta-z8FCtcrfkH
Publisher
Endocrine Society
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Endocrine Society
ISSN
0021-972X
eISSN
1945-7197
D.O.I.
10.1210/jc.2017-02457
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract Context Acromegaly has been associated with increased risk of cancer morbidity and mortality, but research findings remain conflicting and population-based data are scarce. We therefore examined whether patients with acromegaly are at higher risk of cancer. Design A nationwide cohort study (1978 to 2010) including 529 acromegaly cases was performed. Incident cancer diagnoses and mortality were compared with national rates estimating standardized incidence ratios (SIRs). A meta-analysis of cancer SIRs from 23 studies (including the present one) was performed. Results The cohort study identified 81 cases of cancer after exclusion of cases diagnosed within the first year [SIR 1.1; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.9 to 1.4]. SIRs were 1.4 (95% CI, 0.7 to 2.6) for colorectal cancer, 1.1 (95% CI, 0.5 to 2.1) for breast cancer, and 1.4 (95% CI, 0.6 to 2.6) for prostate cancer. Whereas overall mortality was elevated in acromegaly (SIR 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.6), cancer-specific mortality was not. The meta-analysis yielded an SIR of overall cancer of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.2 to 1.8). SIRs were elevated for colorectal cancer, 2.6 (95% CI, 1.7 to 4.0); thyroid cancer, 9.2 (95% CI, 4.2 to 19.9); breast cancer, 1.6 (1.1 to 2.3); gastric cancer, 2.0 (95% CI, 1.4 to 2.9); and urinary tract cancer, 1.5 (95% CI, 1.0 to 2.3). In general, cancer SIR was higher in single-center studies and in studies with <10 cancer cases. Conclusions Cancer incidence rates were slightly elevated in patients with acromegaly in our study, and this finding was supported by the meta-analysis of 23 studies, although it also suggested the presence of selection bias in some earlier studies. Acromegaly is a rare disease caused by hypersecretion of growth hormone (GH), usually from a pituitary adenoma, with an annual incidence of 4 cases per million individuals and a prevalence of 85 per million individuals (1). Continuous hypersecretion of GH induces the hepatic and peripheral production of insulinlike growth factor 1 (IGF-1). Both GH and IGF-1 are implicated in cancer promotion, based on experimental and epidemiological data (2), and acromegaly has been linked with elevated risk of cancer, both in general and with thyroid and colorectal cancer in particular (3). However, not all studies have found this association (4, 5). Although acromegaly has been associated consistently with increased mortality (6, 7), it remains uncertain whether death from cancer is also increased. A major reason for the inconsistent epidemiological data on cancer risk is differences in study design, and the need for population-based studies persists (8). Danish databases provide an opportunity to conduct a study with virtually complete follow-up, using valid population-based data, rather than at a single-center or multicenter level. We therefore conducted a nationwide population-based cohort study to examine the long-term risk of cancer incidence and mortality in patients with acromegaly. We also conducted a meta-analysis of the literature on cancer standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) in acromegaly. Materials and Methods Population-based Danish cohort study The source population comprised the cumulative population of Denmark, with ~8.1 million inhabitants during the period 1991 to 2010. The Danish National Health Service provides tax-supported health care, with universal free access to hospital-based and primary medical care, including care for acromegaly. To ensure unambiguous data linkage, we used the Danish Civil Registration System, which assigns a unique personal identifier, the civil personal registration number, to each Danish resident at time of birth or upon immigration. We identified members of the acromegaly cohort from the Danish National Patient Registry, which contains records on all hospitalizations since 1 January 1977, together with primary and secondary diagnoses coded according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) (9). The Eighth Revision (ICD-8) was used until 1993 and then replaced by the Tenth Revision (ICD-10). To identify cancers among patients with acromegaly, we used the Danish Cancer Registry (DCR), which has recorded all cases of incident cancer in Denmark since 1943 (10). ICD-10 codes are used in the DCR’s current format. Finally, we identified causes of mortality from the Danish Registry of Causes of Death, which contains individual digitalized classification of causes of death in accordance with World Health Organization rules and, since 1994, by ICD-10 codes (11). We validated each individual acromegaly diagnosis as previously described (1). Briefly, hospital records and charts for each possible patient with acromegaly were reviewed by an expert endocrinologist. All patients with validated acromegaly diagnoses who resided in Denmark between 1978 and 2010 were eligible for our cohort study. Those who received a cancer diagnosis before their acromegaly diagnosis were excluded from the study. Disease-specific clinical variables were retrieved from patient records, including pituitary tumor size (maximal diameter), serum GH and IGF-1 levels (at diagnosis, 1 year after diagnosis, and 2 years after diagnosis), and acromegaly treatment modality [surgery only, somatostatin analog (SA) treatment with and without surgery, and irradiation with and without other treatment]. These biochemical and treatment-related data were available only for patients diagnosed after 1991. All incident cancers were identified in the DCR between the index date (date of acromegaly diagnosis) and 30 November 2013. Cancer types of specific interest were colorectal cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, thyroid cancer, gastric cancer, and prostate cancer. Cancer of any type and colorectal, breast, and lung cancers were classified further as localized or nonlocalized. Aggregated groupings were created for urinary tract cancers and hematological cancers. Causes of death were categorized as cancer, cardiovascular disease, other conditions not including cancer, and unknown. Each patient was followed from the date of the acromegaly diagnosis until first occurrence of a cancer diagnosis, death, emigration, or end of the study period (30 November 2013), whichever came first. SIRs were used to compare the number of cancers observed in patients with acromegaly with the expected number, calculated from national cancer incidence rates obtained from the DCR (10). Patients with incident acromegaly were not excluded from the general population before calculation of SIRs. For all SIRs, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were also calculated. All estimates were standardized to the general population by age, sex, and calendar period (5-year intervals). To reduce the risk of surveillance bias, cancer cases identified within the first year after the acromegaly diagnosis were not included in the primary analysis. However, in a sensitivity analysis, we included cancer cases diagnosed within the first year after the acromegaly diagnosis. To explore whether variation in clinical variables (pituitary tumor size and GH and IGF-1 levels before and 1 to 2 years after diagnosis) predicted the outcomes of cancer incidence, cancer mortality, and overall mortality, we used a Cox proportional hazards model to calculate hazard ratios with 95% CIs. All analyses were performed in SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Meta-analysis To identify published studies on the risk of cancer in acromegaly, we searched the PubMed and Scopus databases in January 2018 for publications in English, Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, and Swedish (languages spoken by the authors). The search string focused on acromegaly AND overall cancer or specific cancers. Studies were chosen that provided data permitting calculation of SIRs for cancer in patients with acromegaly compared with a control population. Initial selection of studies by title and abstract was performed by one reviewer (M.B.). Selected studies were retrieved for closer scrutiny by three reviewers (M.B., J.O.L.J., and O.M.D.), and disagreements were resolved by consensus. SIRs were computed by dividing the number of observed events by the number of expected events in the selected studies. The meta-analysis of SIRs used a random-effects model (12), and heterogeneity was assessed via χ2 tests and I2 statistics (13). Funnel plots were used when ≥10 studies were available for analysis. All statistical analyses were performed in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 3.3 (Biostat, Englewood, NJ). Results Cohort study Five hundred twenty-nine patients with acromegaly (51% male) were included in the cohort study. The mean age [standard deviation (SD)] at acromegaly diagnosis was 47.4 (14.2) years, and of these, 25% (n = 132) received a diagnosis of acromegaly between 35 and 44 years of age and 13% (n = 67) after the age of 65 (Table 1). Regarding prevalence of comorbid conditions at the time of diagnosis, 8.3% presented with diabetes, 7.8% with hypertension, and 3.0% with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. As treatments, 46% received SA treatment, 34% underwent surgery only, and 17% underwent radiation therapy (with and without additional treatment). In total, 90 patients with acromegaly (17%) were diagnosed with cancer during the follow-up period. The mean follow-up time was 13.6 (8.3) years, and the mean age at cancer diagnosis was 63.5 (12.5) years. Table 1. Descriptive Characteristics of the Danish Acromegaly Cohort   Patients, N (%)  Median (Interquartile Range)  No. of patients  529 (100)     Sex, male  268 (51)    Age at acromegaly diagnosis       Mean age, y (SD)  47.4 (14.2)     <35 y  112 (21)     35–44 y  132 (25)     45–54 y  125 (24)     55–64 y  93 (18)     65+ y  67 (13)    Year of acromegaly diagnosis       1978–1993  201 (38)     1994–2010  328 (62)    Clinical variables (n = 408)       At diagnosis        Tumor diameter, mm    16 (10–25)    GH nadir, µg/L    12 (6–29)    IGF-1, µg/L    679 (440–930)   1 y after diagnosis        GH nadir, µg/L    1.5 (0.3–4.9)    IGF-1, µg/L    267 (158–481)   2 y after diagnosis        GH nadir, µg/L    1.6 (0.4–5.0)    IGF-1, µg/L    224 (135–375)    Patients, N (%)  Median (Interquartile Range)  No. of patients  529 (100)     Sex, male  268 (51)    Age at acromegaly diagnosis       Mean age, y (SD)  47.4 (14.2)     <35 y  112 (21)     35–44 y  132 (25)     45–54 y  125 (24)     55–64 y  93 (18)     65+ y  67 (13)    Year of acromegaly diagnosis       1978–1993  201 (38)     1994–2010  328 (62)    Clinical variables (n = 408)       At diagnosis        Tumor diameter, mm    16 (10–25)    GH nadir, µg/L    12 (6–29)    IGF-1, µg/L    679 (440–930)   1 y after diagnosis        GH nadir, µg/L    1.5 (0.3–4.9)    IGF-1, µg/L    267 (158–481)   2 y after diagnosis        GH nadir, µg/L    1.6 (0.4–5.0)    IGF-1, µg/L    224 (135–375)  The clinical variables derive from patients diagnosed after 1991 (N = 408). View Large Table 1. Descriptive Characteristics of the Danish Acromegaly Cohort   Patients, N (%)  Median (Interquartile Range)  No. of patients  529 (100)     Sex, male  268 (51)    Age at acromegaly diagnosis       Mean age, y (SD)  47.4 (14.2)     <35 y  112 (21)     35–44 y  132 (25)     45–54 y  125 (24)     55–64 y  93 (18)     65+ y  67 (13)    Year of acromegaly diagnosis       1978–1993  201 (38)     1994–2010  328 (62)    Clinical variables (n = 408)       At diagnosis        Tumor diameter, mm    16 (10–25)    GH nadir, µg/L    12 (6–29)    IGF-1, µg/L    679 (440–930)   1 y after diagnosis        GH nadir, µg/L    1.5 (0.3–4.9)    IGF-1, µg/L    267 (158–481)   2 y after diagnosis        GH nadir, µg/L    1.6 (0.4–5.0)    IGF-1, µg/L    224 (135–375)    Patients, N (%)  Median (Interquartile Range)  No. of patients  529 (100)     Sex, male  268 (51)    Age at acromegaly diagnosis       Mean age, y (SD)  47.4 (14.2)     <35 y  112 (21)     35–44 y  132 (25)     45–54 y  125 (24)     55–64 y  93 (18)     65+ y  67 (13)    Year of acromegaly diagnosis       1978–1993  201 (38)     1994–2010  328 (62)    Clinical variables (n = 408)       At diagnosis        Tumor diameter, mm    16 (10–25)    GH nadir, µg/L    12 (6–29)    IGF-1, µg/L    679 (440–930)   1 y after diagnosis        GH nadir, µg/L    1.5 (0.3–4.9)    IGF-1, µg/L    267 (158–481)   2 y after diagnosis        GH nadir, µg/L    1.6 (0.4–5.0)    IGF-1, µg/L    224 (135–375)  The clinical variables derive from patients diagnosed after 1991 (N = 408). View Large Within the first year after the diagnosis of acromegaly, nine patients were diagnosed with cancer and excluded from subsequent SIR analysis to reduce surveillance bias. The SIR of all cancers was 1.1 (95% CI, 0.9 to 1.4) (Table 2). Inclusion of the nine cases diagnosed within the first year after an acromegaly diagnosis increased the overall cancer risk marginally [SIR 1.2 (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.5)] (Supplemental Table 1). The SIR for colorectal cancer was 1.4 (95% CI, 0.7 to 2.6), slightly elevated. The estimates as regards associations between pituitary tumor size and biochemical biomarkers (GH and IGF-1 levels) and cancer risk were imprecise, with wide CIs, and therefore are not reported. Table 2. Cancer Incidence Among Patients With Acromegaly in Denmark, Excluding the First Year After Acromegaly Diagnosis   Observed  Expected  SIR (95% CI)  Overall, cancer  81  72.7  1.1 (0.9–1.4)   Localized cancer  43  36.6  1.2 (0.9–1.6)   Nonlocalized cancer  25  22.0  1.1 (0.7–1.7)  Colorectal cancer  10  7.1  1.4 (0.7–2.6)   Localized  5  2.7  1.9 (0.6–4.3)   Nonlocalized  5  3.6  1.4 (0.5–3.3)  Breast cancer  9  8.1  1.1 (0.5–2.1)   Localized  4  4.0  N/A   Nonlocalized  5  3.6  1.4 (0.5–3.2)  Lung cancer  4  7.9  NA   Localized  0  1.5  NA   Nonlocalized  4  5.8  NA  Thyroid cancer  1  0.3  NA  Gastric cancer  4  1.1  NA  Prostate cancer  9  6.6  1.4 (0.6–2.6)  Urinary tract cancers  5  4.9  1.0 (0.3–2.4)  Hematological cancers  5  3.9  1.3 (0.4–3.0)    Observed  Expected  SIR (95% CI)  Overall, cancer  81  72.7  1.1 (0.9–1.4)   Localized cancer  43  36.6  1.2 (0.9–1.6)   Nonlocalized cancer  25  22.0  1.1 (0.7–1.7)  Colorectal cancer  10  7.1  1.4 (0.7–2.6)   Localized  5  2.7  1.9 (0.6–4.3)   Nonlocalized  5  3.6  1.4 (0.5–3.3)  Breast cancer  9  8.1  1.1 (0.5–2.1)   Localized  4  4.0  N/A   Nonlocalized  5  3.6  1.4 (0.5–3.2)  Lung cancer  4  7.9  NA   Localized  0  1.5  NA   Nonlocalized  4  5.8  NA  Thyroid cancer  1  0.3  NA  Gastric cancer  4  1.1  NA  Prostate cancer  9  6.6  1.4 (0.6–2.6)  Urinary tract cancers  5  4.9  1.0 (0.3–2.4)  Hematological cancers  5  3.9  1.3 (0.4–3.0)  Abbreviation: NA, <5 cancers observed, so SIRs are not reported. View Large Table 2. Cancer Incidence Among Patients With Acromegaly in Denmark, Excluding the First Year After Acromegaly Diagnosis   Observed  Expected  SIR (95% CI)  Overall, cancer  81  72.7  1.1 (0.9–1.4)   Localized cancer  43  36.6  1.2 (0.9–1.6)   Nonlocalized cancer  25  22.0  1.1 (0.7–1.7)  Colorectal cancer  10  7.1  1.4 (0.7–2.6)   Localized  5  2.7  1.9 (0.6–4.3)   Nonlocalized  5  3.6  1.4 (0.5–3.3)  Breast cancer  9  8.1  1.1 (0.5–2.1)   Localized  4  4.0  N/A   Nonlocalized  5  3.6  1.4 (0.5–3.2)  Lung cancer  4  7.9  NA   Localized  0  1.5  NA   Nonlocalized  4  5.8  NA  Thyroid cancer  1  0.3  NA  Gastric cancer  4  1.1  NA  Prostate cancer  9  6.6  1.4 (0.6–2.6)  Urinary tract cancers  5  4.9  1.0 (0.3–2.4)  Hematological cancers  5  3.9  1.3 (0.4–3.0)    Observed  Expected  SIR (95% CI)  Overall, cancer  81  72.7  1.1 (0.9–1.4)   Localized cancer  43  36.6  1.2 (0.9–1.6)   Nonlocalized cancer  25  22.0  1.1 (0.7–1.7)  Colorectal cancer  10  7.1  1.4 (0.7–2.6)   Localized  5  2.7  1.9 (0.6–4.3)   Nonlocalized  5  3.6  1.4 (0.5–3.3)  Breast cancer  9  8.1  1.1 (0.5–2.1)   Localized  4  4.0  N/A   Nonlocalized  5  3.6  1.4 (0.5–3.2)  Lung cancer  4  7.9  NA   Localized  0  1.5  NA   Nonlocalized  4  5.8  NA  Thyroid cancer  1  0.3  NA  Gastric cancer  4  1.1  NA  Prostate cancer  9  6.6  1.4 (0.6–2.6)  Urinary tract cancers  5  4.9  1.0 (0.3–2.4)  Hematological cancers  5  3.9  1.3 (0.4–3.0)  Abbreviation: NA, <5 cancers observed, so SIRs are not reported. View Large During the follow-up period, 141 patients died, of whom 46 were <55 years old. Cancer was the cause of death for 16% (n = 22) and cardiovascular disease for 30% (n = 42). Mortality risk in acromegaly was 1.4 times higher than in the general population (95% CI, 1.1 to 1.6); mortality risk after exclusion of the first year was 1.3 (95% CI, 1.1 to 1.6) (l). Mortality was elevated in the small group of patients who were not treated for acromegaly (n = 16) (data not shown). No difference in mortality was detected when different treatment groups were compared (data not shown). Meta-analysis and literature review Our initial search yielded 5365 publications, of which 5333 were excluded based on title or abstract. Thirty-two publications were retrieved for more detailed evaluation, of which 21 publications were eligible, and scrutiny of these identified 1 additional publication (4, 5, 14–33). Only 1 of these studies (23) excluded cancer cases diagnosed within the first year. Data from the current study including cancer cases detected within the first year after acromegaly diagnosis were included in the meta-analysis. Thus, 23 studies with a total of 9677 patients were included in the meta-analysis (Table 3). The mean weighted age at time of acromegaly diagnosis was 47.9 years, and the mean weighted follow-up time was 10.1 years (range: 4.5 to 15.0 years). The mean weighted age at time of cancer diagnosis was 62.0 years. The sex distribution was approximately equal (male/female ratio 53:47). Table 3. Characteristics of Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis Study (Year)  Country  Patients (N)  Men (%)  Mean Age at Acromegaly Diagnosis, y (SD)  Mean Age at Cancer Diagnosis, y (SD)  Mean Follow-Up, y (SD)  Design  Dal et al. (2018)  Denmark  529  51  47.4 (14.2)  63.5 (12.5)  13.6 (8.3)  Population-based  Terzolo et al. (14) (2017)  Italy  1512  41  45.0 (13.0)    8.3  Multicenter  Maione et al. (15) (2017)  France, Switzerland, and Belgium  999  46  46.0    6.7  Multicenter  Wolinski et al. (16) (2017)  Poland  200  36  47.6 (13.0)    5.6 (7.1)  Single-center  Petroff et al. (5) (2015)  Germany  445  45  45.7 (14.2)    15.0  Multicenter  Dos Santos et al. (17) (2013)  Brazil  124  39  45.1 (13.4)      Multicenter  Kauppinen et al. (18) (2010)  Finland  331        14.6  Population-based  Kurimoto et al. (19) (2008)  Japan  140  39        Single-center  Matano et al. (20) (2005)  Japan  19  58  46.7 (16.3)  65.3 (10.8)    Single-center  Tita et al. (21) (2005)  Italy  125  44  49.9 (14.1)  52.0 (9.0)  8.2a  Multicenter  Terzolo et al. (22) (2005)  Italy  235  49  49.1 (12.6)  50.3 (12.8)    Multicenter  Baris et al. (23) (2002)  Denmark and Sweden  1634  46  50.7  64.8  10.0  Population-based  Higuchi et al. (24) (2000)  Japan  44  57  45.7 (13.8)    15.2  Single-center  Renehan et al. (25) (2000)  United Kingdom  122  57  41.9a  69.7 (17.9)    Multicenter  Orme et al. (4) (1998)  United Kingdom  1239        13.5  Multicenter  Popovic et al. (26) (1998)  Serbia  220  38  49.5 (13.3)    4.5 (5.9)  Single-center  Cheung et al. (27) (1997)  Australia  50  58  48.0a  58.8 (12.9)  8.7  Single-center  Colao et al. (28) (1997)  Italy  50  50  25–70b      Single-center  Ron et al. (29) (1991)  United States  1041  100  52.7    8.3  Multicenter  Barzilay et al. (30) (1991)  United States  87  51  37.0a    13a  Single-center  Brunner et al. (31) (1990)  United States  52  54  45.2 (14.2)    12.5 (9.0)  Multicenter  Nabarro (32) (1987)  United Kingdom  256  52  43.0    6.8  Single-center  Mustacchi et al. (33) (1957)  United States  223  57      13.3 (7.8)  Multicenter  Study (Year)  Country  Patients (N)  Men (%)  Mean Age at Acromegaly Diagnosis, y (SD)  Mean Age at Cancer Diagnosis, y (SD)  Mean Follow-Up, y (SD)  Design  Dal et al. (2018)  Denmark  529  51  47.4 (14.2)  63.5 (12.5)  13.6 (8.3)  Population-based  Terzolo et al. (14) (2017)  Italy  1512  41  45.0 (13.0)    8.3  Multicenter  Maione et al. (15) (2017)  France, Switzerland, and Belgium  999  46  46.0    6.7  Multicenter  Wolinski et al. (16) (2017)  Poland  200  36  47.6 (13.0)    5.6 (7.1)  Single-center  Petroff et al. (5) (2015)  Germany  445  45  45.7 (14.2)    15.0  Multicenter  Dos Santos et al. (17) (2013)  Brazil  124  39  45.1 (13.4)      Multicenter  Kauppinen et al. (18) (2010)  Finland  331        14.6  Population-based  Kurimoto et al. (19) (2008)  Japan  140  39        Single-center  Matano et al. (20) (2005)  Japan  19  58  46.7 (16.3)  65.3 (10.8)    Single-center  Tita et al. (21) (2005)  Italy  125  44  49.9 (14.1)  52.0 (9.0)  8.2a  Multicenter  Terzolo et al. (22) (2005)  Italy  235  49  49.1 (12.6)  50.3 (12.8)    Multicenter  Baris et al. (23) (2002)  Denmark and Sweden  1634  46  50.7  64.8  10.0  Population-based  Higuchi et al. (24) (2000)  Japan  44  57  45.7 (13.8)    15.2  Single-center  Renehan et al. (25) (2000)  United Kingdom  122  57  41.9a  69.7 (17.9)    Multicenter  Orme et al. (4) (1998)  United Kingdom  1239        13.5  Multicenter  Popovic et al. (26) (1998)  Serbia  220  38  49.5 (13.3)    4.5 (5.9)  Single-center  Cheung et al. (27) (1997)  Australia  50  58  48.0a  58.8 (12.9)  8.7  Single-center  Colao et al. (28) (1997)  Italy  50  50  25–70b      Single-center  Ron et al. (29) (1991)  United States  1041  100  52.7    8.3  Multicenter  Barzilay et al. (30) (1991)  United States  87  51  37.0a    13a  Single-center  Brunner et al. (31) (1990)  United States  52  54  45.2 (14.2)    12.5 (9.0)  Multicenter  Nabarro (32) (1987)  United Kingdom  256  52  43.0    6.8  Single-center  Mustacchi et al. (33) (1957)  United States  223  57      13.3 (7.8)  Multicenter  a Reported as median. b Reported as age ranges. View Large Table 3. Characteristics of Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis Study (Year)  Country  Patients (N)  Men (%)  Mean Age at Acromegaly Diagnosis, y (SD)  Mean Age at Cancer Diagnosis, y (SD)  Mean Follow-Up, y (SD)  Design  Dal et al. (2018)  Denmark  529  51  47.4 (14.2)  63.5 (12.5)  13.6 (8.3)  Population-based  Terzolo et al. (14) (2017)  Italy  1512  41  45.0 (13.0)    8.3  Multicenter  Maione et al. (15) (2017)  France, Switzerland, and Belgium  999  46  46.0    6.7  Multicenter  Wolinski et al. (16) (2017)  Poland  200  36  47.6 (13.0)    5.6 (7.1)  Single-center  Petroff et al. (5) (2015)  Germany  445  45  45.7 (14.2)    15.0  Multicenter  Dos Santos et al. (17) (2013)  Brazil  124  39  45.1 (13.4)      Multicenter  Kauppinen et al. (18) (2010)  Finland  331        14.6  Population-based  Kurimoto et al. (19) (2008)  Japan  140  39        Single-center  Matano et al. (20) (2005)  Japan  19  58  46.7 (16.3)  65.3 (10.8)    Single-center  Tita et al. (21) (2005)  Italy  125  44  49.9 (14.1)  52.0 (9.0)  8.2a  Multicenter  Terzolo et al. (22) (2005)  Italy  235  49  49.1 (12.6)  50.3 (12.8)    Multicenter  Baris et al. (23) (2002)  Denmark and Sweden  1634  46  50.7  64.8  10.0  Population-based  Higuchi et al. (24) (2000)  Japan  44  57  45.7 (13.8)    15.2  Single-center  Renehan et al. (25) (2000)  United Kingdom  122  57  41.9a  69.7 (17.9)    Multicenter  Orme et al. (4) (1998)  United Kingdom  1239        13.5  Multicenter  Popovic et al. (26) (1998)  Serbia  220  38  49.5 (13.3)    4.5 (5.9)  Single-center  Cheung et al. (27) (1997)  Australia  50  58  48.0a  58.8 (12.9)  8.7  Single-center  Colao et al. (28) (1997)  Italy  50  50  25–70b      Single-center  Ron et al. (29) (1991)  United States  1041  100  52.7    8.3  Multicenter  Barzilay et al. (30) (1991)  United States  87  51  37.0a    13a  Single-center  Brunner et al. (31) (1990)  United States  52  54  45.2 (14.2)    12.5 (9.0)  Multicenter  Nabarro (32) (1987)  United Kingdom  256  52  43.0    6.8  Single-center  Mustacchi et al. (33) (1957)  United States  223  57      13.3 (7.8)  Multicenter  Study (Year)  Country  Patients (N)  Men (%)  Mean Age at Acromegaly Diagnosis, y (SD)  Mean Age at Cancer Diagnosis, y (SD)  Mean Follow-Up, y (SD)  Design  Dal et al. (2018)  Denmark  529  51  47.4 (14.2)  63.5 (12.5)  13.6 (8.3)  Population-based  Terzolo et al. (14) (2017)  Italy  1512  41  45.0 (13.0)    8.3  Multicenter  Maione et al. (15) (2017)  France, Switzerland, and Belgium  999  46  46.0    6.7  Multicenter  Wolinski et al. (16) (2017)  Poland  200  36  47.6 (13.0)    5.6 (7.1)  Single-center  Petroff et al. (5) (2015)  Germany  445  45  45.7 (14.2)    15.0  Multicenter  Dos Santos et al. (17) (2013)  Brazil  124  39  45.1 (13.4)      Multicenter  Kauppinen et al. (18) (2010)  Finland  331        14.6  Population-based  Kurimoto et al. (19) (2008)  Japan  140  39        Single-center  Matano et al. (20) (2005)  Japan  19  58  46.7 (16.3)  65.3 (10.8)    Single-center  Tita et al. (21) (2005)  Italy  125  44  49.9 (14.1)  52.0 (9.0)  8.2a  Multicenter  Terzolo et al. (22) (2005)  Italy  235  49  49.1 (12.6)  50.3 (12.8)    Multicenter  Baris et al. (23) (2002)  Denmark and Sweden  1634  46  50.7  64.8  10.0  Population-based  Higuchi et al. (24) (2000)  Japan  44  57  45.7 (13.8)    15.2  Single-center  Renehan et al. (25) (2000)  United Kingdom  122  57  41.9a  69.7 (17.9)    Multicenter  Orme et al. (4) (1998)  United Kingdom  1239        13.5  Multicenter  Popovic et al. (26) (1998)  Serbia  220  38  49.5 (13.3)    4.5 (5.9)  Single-center  Cheung et al. (27) (1997)  Australia  50  58  48.0a  58.8 (12.9)  8.7  Single-center  Colao et al. (28) (1997)  Italy  50  50  25–70b      Single-center  Ron et al. (29) (1991)  United States  1041  100  52.7    8.3  Multicenter  Barzilay et al. (30) (1991)  United States  87  51  37.0a    13a  Single-center  Brunner et al. (31) (1990)  United States  52  54  45.2 (14.2)    12.5 (9.0)  Multicenter  Nabarro (32) (1987)  United Kingdom  256  52  43.0    6.8  Single-center  Mustacchi et al. (33) (1957)  United States  223  57      13.3 (7.8)  Multicenter  a Reported as median. b Reported as age ranges. View Large In general, SIRs for overall cancer were similar across studies, with 12 of 14 (14–16, 18, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33) reporting a SIR >1.0. The pooled SIR for overall cancer in the meta-analysis was 1.5 (95% CI, 1.2 to 1.8) (Fig. 1), with considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 84%). The funnel plot was not clearly asymmetric, and the Egger test was nonsignificant (P = 0.36) (Supplemental Fig. 1), providing no clear evidence of publication bias. Stratification based on study design revealed a higher SIR for cancer in single-center studies (pooled SIR = 3.2; 95% CI, 2.4 to 4.1) (16, 24, 26, 27, 30) compared with both multicenter studies (pooled SIR = 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.5) (4, 5, 14, 15, 29, 33) and population-based studies (pooled SIR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.6) (18, 23) (Table 4). When a partial overlap of patients between the current study and Baris et al. (23) became evident, we calculated the pooled SIR excluding the Baris article, which did not influence the pooled SIR (1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9); similarly, excluding the current study did not change the estimate (SIR 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9). Exclusion of studies reporting <10 expected cases (16, 24, 26, 27, 30, 33) changed the pooled SIR to 1.2 (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.5). Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Overall incidence of cancer in patients with acromegaly. Reference 15 provided only SIR, as presented here. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Overall incidence of cancer in patients with acromegaly. Reference 15 provided only SIR, as presented here. Table 4. SIRs for Overall Cancer in Patients With Acromegaly, Subgroup Analyses Within the Meta-Analysis Subgroup  Studies (N)  Patients (N)  SIR (95% CI)  Stratified by sex         Men  9  3180  1.5 (1.3–1.7)   Women  8  2630  1.9 (1.4–2.5)  Stratified by study population         Single center  5  601  3.2 (2.4–4.1)   Multicenter  6  5459  1.2 (0.9–1.5)   Population based  3  2494  1.4 (1.2–1.6)  Stratified by study period         1950–1974  5a  4224  1.3 (0.9–1.9)   1975–1999  11a  6645  1.5 (1.2–1.8)   2000–2017  5a  3685  1.4 (1.0–1.8)  Subgroup  Studies (N)  Patients (N)  SIR (95% CI)  Stratified by sex         Men  9  3180  1.5 (1.3–1.7)   Women  8  2630  1.9 (1.4–2.5)  Stratified by study population         Single center  5  601  3.2 (2.4–4.1)   Multicenter  6  5459  1.2 (0.9–1.5)   Population based  3  2494  1.4 (1.2–1.6)  Stratified by study period         1950–1974  5a  4224  1.3 (0.9–1.9)   1975–1999  11a  6645  1.5 (1.2–1.8)   2000–2017  5a  3685  1.4 (1.0–1.8)  a Studies may be included in >1 subgroup. View Large Table 4. SIRs for Overall Cancer in Patients With Acromegaly, Subgroup Analyses Within the Meta-Analysis Subgroup  Studies (N)  Patients (N)  SIR (95% CI)  Stratified by sex         Men  9  3180  1.5 (1.3–1.7)   Women  8  2630  1.9 (1.4–2.5)  Stratified by study population         Single center  5  601  3.2 (2.4–4.1)   Multicenter  6  5459  1.2 (0.9–1.5)   Population based  3  2494  1.4 (1.2–1.6)  Stratified by study period         1950–1974  5a  4224  1.3 (0.9–1.9)   1975–1999  11a  6645  1.5 (1.2–1.8)   2000–2017  5a  3685  1.4 (1.0–1.8)  Subgroup  Studies (N)  Patients (N)  SIR (95% CI)  Stratified by sex         Men  9  3180  1.5 (1.3–1.7)   Women  8  2630  1.9 (1.4–2.5)  Stratified by study population         Single center  5  601  3.2 (2.4–4.1)   Multicenter  6  5459  1.2 (0.9–1.5)   Population based  3  2494  1.4 (1.2–1.6)  Stratified by study period         1950–1974  5a  4224  1.3 (0.9–1.9)   1975–1999  11a  6645  1.5 (1.2–1.8)   2000–2017  5a  3685  1.4 (1.0–1.8)  a Studies may be included in >1 subgroup. View Large Stratification based on sex in 9 studies (14, 15, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33) yielded similar SIRs for men and women: 1.5 (95% CI, 1.3 to 1.7) and 1.9 (95% CI, 1.4 to 2.5). Stratification based on study period (calendar year) did not clearly affect the outcome (Table 4). Stratified by cancer type, elevated risks were shown for colorectal cancer (pooled SIR = 2.6; 95% CI, 1.7 to 4.0), thyroid cancer (pooled SIR = 9.2; 95% CI, 4.2 to 19.9), gastric cancer (pooled SIR = 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4 to 2.9), breast cancer (pooled SIR = 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.3), and urinary tract cancer (pooled SIR = 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.3). SIRs for other cancers were as follows: lung cancer (0.8; 95% CI, 0.5 to 1.2), prostate cancer (1.2; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.9), and hematological cancers (1.3; 95% CI, 0.8 to 2.3). The increase in colorectal cancer incidence was reported in 13 out of 14 studies (4, 14, 16, 18–20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 31) (Fig. 2), without evidence of funnel plot asymmetry (Egger test result; P = 0.67) (Supplemental Fig. 2). The colorectal cancer incidence rates among single-center studies (pooled SIR = 7.3; 95% CI, 2.6 to 20.6) (16, 19, 20, 28), multicenter studies (pooled SIR = 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.1) (4, 5, 14, 22, 25, 29, 31), and population-based studies (pooled SIR = 2.2; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.0) (18, 23) were all elevated. Figure 2. View largeDownload slide Incidence of colorectal cancer in patients with acromegaly. N/A, <5 cancers observed, so SIRs are not reported. Figure 2. View largeDownload slide Incidence of colorectal cancer in patients with acromegaly. N/A, <5 cancers observed, so SIRs are not reported. No major difference was observed in thyroid cancer incidence between multicenter studies (pooled SIR = 7.6; 95% CI, 2.4 to 24.5) (4, 5, 14, 17, 21, 29) and population-based studies (pooled SIR = 8.2; 95% CI, 3.6 to 18.7) (18, 23); only two single-center studies (16, 19) evaluated thyroid cancer incidence (SIR = 20.3; 95% CI, 1.2 to 332.0). Discussion The findings from our population-based study and the meta-analysis suggest that overall cancer risk is slightly elevated in patients with acromegaly compared with the general population. Data from laboratory, animal, and human studies strongly indicate that GH and IGF-1 are closely associated with cancer development and progression (2). Moreover, circulating IGF-1 levels within the upper normal range have been associated with elevated risk of breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancers in the general population (2). Our study has several strengths stemming from its use of population-based nationwide data with virtually complete follow-up. This design reduces the risk of selection bias. This advantage is reinforced by free health care access in Denmark, implying that care is equally and openly accessible. Our study also excluded cancer cases detected within the first year after an acromegaly diagnosis, to minimize the risk of surveillance bias. Moreover, the diagnosis of each patient in our study was validated, as previously reported (1). The results of the meta-analysis added support to our finding of increased cancer incidence among patients with acromegaly but also revealed potential sources of bias. The elevated overall cancer incidence risk in the meta-analysis was more pronounced in single-center studies (Table 4) and was lower when we excluded studies with <10 cases, suggesting the presence of selection or sample bias (8). It is possible that the patient population in single centers represents difficult cases with previous treatment failure and increased comorbidity. It is also possible that the comparator group in single-center studies derived from screening programs, which poses the risk of healthy user bias. This possibility is of particular relevance in the context of colorectal cancer and breast cancer, for which screening programs are often available. The risks of surveillance bias or diagnostic workup bias are also present. As mentioned, we reduced this risk by excluding cancer cases detected within the first year after the acromegaly diagnosis. Indeed, 9 out of 90 cancer cases were diagnosed within the first year in our study. When we included these 9 cancer cases in a sensitivity analysis, risk estimates increased for overall cancer, colorectal cancer, and lung cancer (Supplemental Table 1). This approach was used only in one additional study (23), which may have introduced bias and overestimation of cancer risks in the remaining studies. Surveillance bias is of particular concern for thyroid cancer, because thyroid volume is enlarged in acromegaly, which may lead to more frequent use of ultrasonography and subsequent overdiagnosis of occult thyroid cancer (34), and endocrinologists are generally more likely to focus on endocrine diseases. In our own study, only a single case of thyroid cancer was diagnosed (Table 2), even when the first year of follow-up after acromegaly diagnosis was included (Supplemental Fig. 1). A possible association between colorectal cancer risk and acromegaly has attracted particular interest and controversy, as has been extensively reviewed (3). A number of biological mechanisms have been proposed in addition to the fact that the bowel in patients with acromegaly is ~15% to 20% longer, which by itself has been estimated to increase bowel cancer risk by 15% to 20% (3). The meta-analysis confirmed an elevated risk of colorectal cancer, which was more pronounced in single-center studies. Taken together, our cohort study and the meta-analysis suggest only a slightly elevated overall risk of cancer in patients with acromegaly. This finding does not call into question nonhuman data on the carcinogenic effects of GH and IGF-1, nor should it deter patients or health care professionals from adhering to current cancer surveillance guidelines. However, our findings agree with the previously drawn conclusion that excessive GH in humans is not a serious cancer risk (8). Abbreviations: Abbreviations: CI confidence interval DCR Danish Cancer Registry GH growth hormone ICD International Classification of Diseases IGF-1 insulinlike growth factor 1 SA somatostatin analog SD standard deviation SIR standardized incidence ratio Acknowledgments Financial Support: This study was supported by unrestricted research grants from Pfizer and Ipsen to J.O.L.J. J.O.L.J. and U.F.-R. have received grants and lecture fees from Pfizer, Ipsen, and Novartis. Disclosure Summary: The authors have nothing to disclose. References 1. Dal J, Feldt-Rasmussen U, Andersen M, Kristensen LO, Laurberg P, Pedersen L, Dekkers OM, Sørensen HT, Jørgensen JO. Acromegaly incidence, prevalence, complications and long-term prognosis: a nationwide cohort study. Eur J Endocrinol . 2016; 175( 3): 181– 190. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  2. Renehan AG, Zwahlen M, Minder C, O’Dwyer ST, Shalet SM, Egger M. Insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I, IGF binding protein-3, and cancer risk: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Lancet . 2004; 363( 9418): 1346– 1353. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  3. Renehan AG, O’Connell J, O’Halloran D, Shanahan F, Potten CS, O’Dwyer ST, Shalet SM. Acromegaly and colorectal cancer: a comprehensive review of epidemiology, biological mechanisms, and clinical implications. Horm Metab Res . 2003; 35( 11–12): 712– 725. Google Scholar PubMed  4. Orme SM, McNally RJ, Cartwright RA, Belchetz PE; United Kingdom Acromegaly Study Group. Mortality and cancer incidence in acromegaly: a retrospective cohort study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab . 1998; 83( 8): 2730– 2734. Google Scholar PubMed  5. Petroff D, Tönjes A, Grussendorf M, Droste M, Dimopoulou C, Stalla G, Jaursch-Hancke C, Mai M, Schopohl J, Schöfl C. The incidence of cancer among acromegaly patients: results from the German acromegaly registry. J Clin Endocrinol Metab . 2015; 100( 10): 3894– 3902. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  6. Dekkers OM, Biermasz NR, Pereira AM, Romijn JA, Vandenbroucke JP. Mortality in acromegaly: a metaanalysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab . 2008; 93( 1): 61– 67. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  7. Holdaway IM, Bolland MJ, Gamble GD. A meta-analysis of the effect of lowering serum levels of GH and IGF-I on mortality in acromegaly. Eur J Endocrinol . 2008; 159( 2): 89– 95. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  8. Renehan AG, Shalet SM. Acromegaly and colorectal cancer: risk assessment should be based on population-based studies. J Clin Endocrinol Metab . 2002; 87( 4): 1909, author reply 1909. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  9. Lynge E, Sandegaard JL, Rebolj M. The Danish National Patient Register. Scand J Public Health . 2011; 39( 7 suppl): 30– 33. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  10. Gjerstorff ML. The Danish Cancer Registry. Scand J Public Health . 2011; 39( 7 suppl): 42– 45. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  11. Helweg-Larsen K. The Danish Register of Causes of Death. Scand J Public Health . 2011; 39( 7 suppl) 26– 29. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  12. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials . 1986; 7( 3): 177– 188. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  13. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med . 2002; 21( 11): 1539– 1558. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  14. Terzolo M, Reimondo G, Berchialla P, Ferrante E, Malchiodi E, De Marinis L, Pivonello R, Grottoli S, Losa M, Cannavo S, Ferone D, Montini M, Bondanelli M, De Menis E, Martini C, Puxeddu E, Velardo A, Peri A, Faustini-Fustini M, Tita P, Pigliaru F, Peraga G, Borretta G, Scaroni C, Bazzoni N, Bianchi A, Berton A, Serban AL, Baldelli R, Fatti LM, Colao A, Arosio M; Italian Study Group of Acromegaly. Acromegaly is associated with increased cancer risk: a survey in Italy. Endocr Relat Cancer . 2017; 24( 9): 495– 504. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  15. Maione L, Brue T, Beckers A, Delemer B, Petrossians P, Borson-Chazot F, Chabre O, François P, Bertherat J, Cortet-Rudelli C, Chanson P; French Acromegaly Registry Group. Changes in the management and comorbidities of acromegaly over three decades: the French Acromegaly Registry. Eur J Endocrinol . 2017; 176( 5): 645– 655. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  16. Wolinski K, Stangierski A, Dyrda K, Nowicka K, Pelka M, Iqbal A, Car A, Lazizi M, Bednarek N, Czarnywojtek A, Gurgul E, Ruchala M. Risk of malignant neoplasms in acromegaly: a case-control study. J Endocrinol Invest . 2017; 40( 3): 319– 322. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  17. dos Santos MC, Nascimento GC, Nascimento AG, Carvalho VC, Lopes MH, Montenegro R, Montenegro R Jr, Vilar L, Albano MF, Alves AR, Parente CV, dos Santos Faria M. Thyroid cancer in patients with acromegaly: a case-control study. Pituitary . 2013; 16( 1): 109– 114. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  18. Kauppinen-Mäkelin R, Sane T, Välimäki MJ, Markkanen H, Niskanen L, Ebeling T, Jaatinen P, Juonala M, Pukkala E; Finnish Acromegaly Study Group. Increased cancer incidence in acromegaly--a nationwide survey. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) . 2010; 72( 2): 278– 279. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  19. Kurimoto M, Fukuda I, Hizuka N, Takano K. The prevalence of benign and malignant tumors in patients with acromegaly at a single institute. Endocr J . 2008; 55( 1): 67– 71. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  20. Matano Y, Okada T, Suzuki A, Yoneda T, Takeda Y, Mabuchi H. Risk of colorectal neoplasm in patients with acromegaly and its relationship with serum growth hormone levels. Am J Gastroenterol . 2005; 100( 5): 1154– 1160. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  21. Tita P, Ambrosio MR, Scollo C, Carta A, Gangemi P, Bondanelli M, Vigneri R, degli Uberti EC, Pezzino V. High prevalence of differentiated thyroid carcinoma in acromegaly. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) . 2005; 63( 2): 161– 167. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  22. Terzolo M, Reimondo G, Gasperi M, Cozzi R, Pivonello R, Vitale G, Scillitani A, Attanasio R, Cecconi E, Daffara F, Gaia E, Martino E, Lombardi G, Angeli A, Colao A. Colonoscopic screening and follow-up in patients with acromegaly: a multicenter study in Italy. J Clin Endocrinol Metab . 2005; 90( 1): 84– 90. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  23. Baris D, Gridley G, Ron E, Weiderpass E, Mellemkjaer L, Ekbom A, Olsen JH, Baron JA, Fraumeni JF Jr. Acromegaly and cancer risk: a cohort study in Sweden and Denmark. Cancer Causes Control . 2002; 13( 5): 395– 400. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  24. Higuchi Y, Saeki N, Iuchi T, Uchino Y, Tatsuno I, Uchida D, Tanaka T, Noguchi Y, Nakamura S, Yasuda T, Yamaura A, Sunami K, Oka Y, Uozumi A. Incidence of malignant tumors in patients with acromegaly. Endocr J . 2000; 47( Suppl): S57– S60. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  25. Renehan AG, Bhaskar P, Painter JE, O’Dwyer ST, Haboubi N, Varma J, Ball SG, Shalet SM. The prevalence and characteristics of colorectal neoplasia in acromegaly. J Clin Endocrinol Metab . 2000; 85( 9): 3417– 3424. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  26. Popovic V, Damjanovic S, Micic D, Nesovic M, Djurovic M, Petakov M, Obradovic S, Zoric S, Simic M, Penezic Z, Marinkovic J; The Pituitary Study Group. Increased incidence of neoplasia in patients with pituitary adenomas. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) . 1998; 49( 4): 441– 445. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  27. Cheung NW, Boyages SC. Increased incidence of neoplasia in females with acromegaly. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) . 1997; 47( 3): 323– 327. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  28. Colao A, Balzano A, Ferone D, Panza N, Grande G, Marzullo P, Bove A, Iodice G, Merola B, Lombardi G. Increased prevalence of colonic polyps and altered lymphocyte subset pattern in the colonic lamina propria in acromegaly. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) . 1997; 47( 1): 23– 28. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  29. Ron E, Gridley G, Hrubec Z, Page W, Arora S, Fraumeni JF Jr. Acromegaly and gastrointestinal cancer. Cancer . 1991; 68( 8): 1673– 1677. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  30. Barzilay J, Heatley GJ, Cushing GW. Benign and malignant tumors in patients with acromegaly. Arch Intern Med . 1991; 151( 8): 1629– 1632. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  31. Brunner JE, Johnson CC, Zafar S, Peterson EL, Brunner JF, Mellinger RC. Colon cancer and polyps in acromegaly: increased risk associated with family history of colon cancer. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) . 1990; 32( 1): 65– 71. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  32. Nabarro JD. Acromegaly. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) . 1987; 26( 4): 481– 512. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  33. Mustacchi P, Shimkin MB. Occurrence of cancer in acromegaly and in hypopituitarism. Cancer . 1957; 10( 1): 100– 104. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  34. Davies L, Welch HG. Increasing incidence of thyroid cancer in the United States, 1973–2002. JAMA . 2006; 295( 18): 2164– 2167. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Copyright © 2018 Endocrine Society

Journal

Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and MetabolismOxford University Press

Published: Mar 23, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off