2019
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-17-1136
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Elevated Vitamin B12 Levels and Cancer Risk in UK Primary Care: A THIN Database Cohort Study

Abstract: Background: Elevated vitamin B12 levels (B12) are associated with increased short-term cancer risk. However, the implications for early cancer detection in primary care have not been assessed. Methods: Individuals with plasma B12 measurements were sampled from The Health Improvement Network primary care database, UK. Persons with low B12 levels were excluded together with persons with cancer or B12 treatment before date of B12 measurement. Incident cancer was the outcome of interest and was identified through … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
48
3
2

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(53 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
48
3
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In our study, the aOR was 2.0 [95%CI: 1.2-3.2] for nonmetastatic cancers and 4.2 [95%CI: 2.7-6.6] for metastatic cancers with a threshold of 1000 ng/L defining the elevated B12. Danish and British registries reported higher SIRs, i.e., 6.3 [95%CI: 5.7-6.9] and 4.7 [95%CI: 4.0-5.6], respectively [14,15]. There may be two explanations for these differences: the thresholds defining elevated B12 differed between the two registries (1084 and 1355 ng/L, respectively), and were higher than that of our study.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 84%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…In our study, the aOR was 2.0 [95%CI: 1.2-3.2] for nonmetastatic cancers and 4.2 [95%CI: 2.7-6.6] for metastatic cancers with a threshold of 1000 ng/L defining the elevated B12. Danish and British registries reported higher SIRs, i.e., 6.3 [95%CI: 5.7-6.9] and 4.7 [95%CI: 4.0-5.6], respectively [14,15]. There may be two explanations for these differences: the thresholds defining elevated B12 differed between the two registries (1084 and 1355 ng/L, respectively), and were higher than that of our study.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 84%
“…This finding was slightly lower than that reported in previous studies, including among inpatients with frequencies ranging from 10 to 15% [3,16]. Lower prevalence of elevated B12 was observed in the general population: 3.5% of the population had a B12 > 813 ng/L in the British registry [15], and 6.6% of the population had a B12 > 1084 ng/L in the Danish registry [14]. The differences between these studies may be explained by variations in the recruitment (mean age, inpatients or outpatients, studied departments) and the threshold defining the status of elevated B12.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 66%
See 3 more Smart Citations