Skip to main content

Table 4 Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (in parentheses) of hepatocellular carcinoma per 1 unit increase in serum anti-LPS and anti-flagellin immunoglobulins from analyses stratified according to selected characteristics and sensitivity analyses, EPIC study, 1992–2010

From: Exposure to bacterial products lipopolysaccharide and flagellin and hepatocellular carcinoma: a nested case-control study

Model Cases Anti-LPS IgG + IgA Anti-flagellin IgG + IgA Anti-LPS IgG + anti-flagellin IgG Anti-LPS IgA + anti-flagellin IgA Anti-LPS IgG + IgA + anti-flagellin IgG + IgA
Stratified analyses
 By sex
  Men 98 5.12 (2.09–12.55) 5.58 (2.11–14.78) 4.93 (2.06–11.79) 2.34 (1.38–3.97) 2.65 (1.58–4.45)
  Women 41 1.61 (0.58–4.44) 1.54 (0.54–4.36) 1.21 (0.43–3.41) 1.71 (0.72–4.03) 1.34 (0.75–2.41)
   P interaction by sex   0.062 0.059 0.030 0.402 0.055
 Cases diagnosed
  >2 years since blood collection 117 2.75 (1.62–4.67) 2.04 (1.29–3.21) 2.35 (1.38–4.01) 2.05 (1.33–3.15) 1.68 (1.27–2.23)
  >4 years since blood collection 97 4.87 (2.18–10.89) 2.52 (1.4–4.54) 3.70 (1.64–8.34) 2.52 (1.47–4.33) 2.11 (1.41–3.15)
 By follow-up timea
   < 6 y since blood collection 65 2.45 (1.41–4.26) 2.17 (1.27–3.73) 2.43 (1.36–4.37) 1.89 (1.20–2.95) 1.67 (1.22–2.29)
   ≥ 6 y since blood collection 74 3.16 (1.65–6.06) 2.57 (1.42–4.64) 2.56 (1.38–4.77) 2.23 (1.36–3.63) 1.82 (1.30–2.56)
Sensitivity analyses
 All data, subset with data on HBV/HCV status 100 2.83 (1.61–4.99) 2.62 (1.43–4.81) 2.88 (1.61–5.15) 1.95 (1.24–3.06) 1.83 (1.32–2.55)
 Additionally adjusted for
  Liver damage scoreb 100 2.92 (1.02–8.40) 1.76 (0.83–3.72) 2.86 (1.03–7.92) 1.41 (0.75–2.64) 1.56 (0.96–2.51)
  HBV/HCV status and liver damage scoreb 100 3.35 (0.82–13.77) 1.66 (0.62–4.44) 2.35 (0.81–6.79) 1.33 (0.64–2.77) 1.60 (0.83–3.06)
  1. IRRs and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by conditional logistic regression conditioned on the matching factors and adjusted for smoking status (never, former, current), body mass index (continuous), baseline alcohol intake (continuous), coffee intake (continuous), lifetime alcohol drinking pattern (always heavy, periodically heavy, former heavy, never heavy, former light, light, and never drinker), physical activity (active, moderately active, moderately inactive, inactive), and level of education (none, primary school, secondary school, more than secondary school, not specified)
  2. aMean follow-up time among cases (6 years) was used as a cut-point
  3. bSubjects with liver damage score of 0 and 1 were considered to have normal liver function. Liver damage score ranges from 0 to 6, grouped in categories as 0, 1, ≥2 abnormal liver function tests based on the values provided by the laboratory: ALT >55 U/L, AST >34 U/L, GGT men >64 U/L, GGT women >36 U/L, AP >150 U/L, albumin <35 g/L, total bilirubin >1.2 mg/dL. Available for 100 cases and 100 controls