Article | Published:

Epidemiology

Kidney stones and the risk of renal cell carcinoma and upper tract urothelial carcinoma: the Netherlands Cohort Study

Abstract

Background

We examined the association between kidney stones and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) risk in the Netherlands Cohort Study on diet and cancer.

Methods

In total, 120,852 participants aged 55–69 completed a self-administered questionnaire on diet, medical conditions and other risk factors for cancer at baseline (1986). After 20.3 years of cancer follow-up 4352 subcohort members, 544 RCC cases and 140 UTUC cases were eligible for case-cohort analysis. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by multivariable-adjusted proportional hazards models.

Results

Kidney stones were associated with an increased RCC risk (HR: 1.39, 95% CI 1.05–1.84), vs. no kidney stones. Kidney stones were associated with an increased risk of papillary RCC (HR: 3.08, 95% CI 1.55–6.11), but not clear-cell RCC (HR: 1.14, 95% CI 0.79–1.65). UTUC risk was increased for participants with kidney stones (HR: 1.66, 95% CI 1.03–2.68). No heterogeneity of associations was found for UTUC in the ureter and renal pelvis. An early kidney stone diagnosis (≤40 years) was associated with an increased RCC and UTUC risk, compared to later diagnosis.

Conclusion

Kidney stones were associated with increased papillary RCC risk, but not clear-cell RCC risk. No heterogeneity was found for UTUC subtypes.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Romero, V., Akpinar, H. & Assimos, D. G. Kidney stones: a global picture of prevalence, incidence, and associated risk factors. Rev. Urol. 12, e86–e96 (2010).

  2. 2.

    Sfoungaristos, S., Gofrit, O. N., Yutkin, V., Pode, D. & Duvdevani, M. Prevention of renal stone disease recurrence. A systematic review of contemporary pharmaceutical options. Expert. Opin. Pharmacother. 16, 1209–1218, https://doi.org/10.1517/14656566.2015.1037740 (2015).

  3. 3.

    Moe, O. W. Kidney stones: pathophysiology and medical management. Lancet 367, 333–344, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68071-9 (2006).

  4. 4.

    McCredie, M. & Stewart, J. H. Risk factors for kidney cancer in New South Wales, Australia. II. Urologic disease, hypertension, obesity, and hormonal factors. Cancer Causes Control 3, 323–331 (1992).

  5. 5.

    Chow, W. H. et al. Risk of urinary tract cancers following kidney or ureter stones. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 89, 1453–1457 (1997).

  6. 6.

    Chung, S. D. & Liu, S. P., . & Lin, H. C. A population-based study on the association between urinary calculi and kidney cancer. Can. Urol. Assoc. J. 7, E716–E721, https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.366 (2013).

  7. 7.

    Cheungpasitporn, W. et al. The risk of kidney cancer in patients with kidney stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. QJM 108, 205–212, https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcu195 (2015).

  8. 8.

    Sun, L. M. et al. Urinary tract stone raises subsequent risk for urinary tract cancer: a population-based cohort study. BJU Int. 112, 1150–1155, https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12402 (2013).

  9. 9.

    Shih, C. J. et al. Urinary calculi and risk of cancer: a nationwide population-based study. Medicine 93, e342, https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000000342 (2014).

  10. 10.

    Lin, C. L. et al. Associations between interventions for urolithiasis and urinary tract cancer among patients in Taiwan: the effect of early intervention. Medicine 95, e5594, https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000005594 (2016).

  11. 11.

    Schlehofer, B. et al. International renal-cell-cancer study. VI. the role of medical and family history. Int. J. Cancer 66, 723–726, https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0215(19960611)66:63.0.co;2-1 (1996).

  12. 12.

    Federico, A., Morgillo, F., Tuccillo, C., Ciardiello, F. & Loguercio, C. Chronic inflammation and oxidative stress in human carcinogenesis. Int. J. Cancer 121, 2381–2386, https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.23192 (2007).

  13. 13.

    Stewart, J. H. et al. Cancers of the kidney and urinary tract in patients on dialysis for end-stage renal disease: analysis of data from the United States, Europe, and Australia and New Zealand. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 14, 197–207 (2003).

  14. 14.

    McLaughlin, J. K., Lipworth, L., Tarone, R. E., Blot, W. J. Renal Cancer. In Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention 3rd edn, (eds Schottenfeld, D., Fraumeni, J. F.) 1087–1100 (Oxford University Press, New York, 2006).

  15. 15.

    van den Brandt, P. A. et al. A large-scale prospective cohort study on diet and cancer in The Netherlands. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 43, 285–295 (1990).

  16. 16.

    Goldbohm, R. A., van den Brandt, P. A. & Dorant, E. Estimation of the coverage of dutch minicipalities by cancer registries and PALGA based on hospital discharge data. Tijdschr. Soc. Gezondh. 72, 80–84 (1994).

  17. 17.

    Eble, J. N., Sauter, G., Epstein, J. I. & Sesterhenn, I. A. World Health Organization classification of Tumours. Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs. (IARC Press, Lyon, 2004).

  18. 18.

    Schoenfeld, D. Partial residuals for the proportional hazards regression model. Biometrika 69, 239–241, https://doi.org/10.2307/2335876 (1982).

  19. 19.

    Barlow, W. E. Robust variance estimation for the case-cohort design. Biometrics 50, 1064–1072 (1994).

  20. 20.

    de Vogel, S. et al. Associations of dietary methyl donor intake with MLH1 promoter hypermethylation and related molecular phenotypes in sporadic colorectal cancer. Carcinogenesis 29, 1765–1773, https://doi.org/10.1093/carcin/bgn074 (2008).

  21. 21.

    Wacholder, S., Gail, M. H., Pee, D. & Brookmeyer, R. Alternative variance and efficiency calculations for the case-cohort design. Biometrika 76, 117–123, https://doi.org/10.2307/2336375 (1989).

  22. 22.

    Rockhill, B., Newman, B. & Weinberg, C. Use and misuse of population attributable fractions. Am. J. Public Health 88, 15–19 (1998).

  23. 23.

    Shuch, B. et al. Understanding pathologic variants of renal cell carcinoma: distilling therapeutic opportunities from biologic complexity. Eur. Urol. 67, 85–97, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.04.029 (2015).

  24. 24.

    Delahunt, B. et al. Morphologic typing of papillary renal cell carcinoma: comparison of growth kinetics and patient survival in 66 cases. Hum. Pathol. 32, 590–595, https://doi.org/10.1053/hupa.2001.24984 (2001).

  25. 25.

    Ogasawara, H. et al. Urinary bladder carcinogenesis induced by melamine in F344 male rats: correlation between carcinogenicity and urolith formation. Carcinogenesis 16, 2773–2777 (1995).

  26. 26.

    Okumura, M. et al. Relationship between calculus formation and carcinogenesis in the urinary bladder of rats administered the non-genotoxic agents thymine or melamine. Carcinogenesis 13, 1043–1045 (1992).

  27. 27.

    Khan, S. R. Renal tubular damage/dysfunction: key to the formation of kidney stones. Urol. Res. 34, 86–91, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-005-0016-2 (2006).

  28. 28.

    Chow, W. H., Dong, L. M. & Devesa, S. S. Epidemiology and risk factors for kidney cancer. Nat. Rev. Urol. 7, 245–257, https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2010.46 (2010).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to the participants of this study and wish to thank the Netherlands Cancer Registry (IKNL), and Netherlands Pathology Registry (PALGA). We are grateful to Dr. C. Hulsbergen-van de Kaa and Dr. M. Baldewijns for revising the tumour histology. We also thank the staff of the Netherlands Cohort Study for their valuable contributions. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

All authors participated in the analysis and interpretation of data; L.J.S. conceived the study. J.A.A.v.d.P. carried out the statistical analyses and drafted the manuscript. J.A.A.v.d.P. and L.J.S. interpreted the data. P.A.v.d.B. and L.J.S. critically revised the manuscript. P.A.v.d.B. is principle investigator of the Netherlands Cohort Study. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The institutional review boards of the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research TNO (Zeist) and Maastricht University (Maastricht) approved the NLCS. The NLCS was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. By completing and returning the baseline questionnaire, participants agreed to participate in the NLCS.

Note

This work is published under the standard license to publish agreement. After 12 months the work will become freely available and the license terms will switch to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).

Correspondence to Jeroen A. A. van de Pol.

Rights and permissions

To obtain permission to re-use content from this article visit RightsLink.

About this article

Further reading

Fig. 1