Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Rheumatology
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services
  • My Cart
  • Log In
The Journal of Rheumatology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow Jrheum on BlueSky
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
EditorialEditorial

Among the Company That Gout Keeps, Is Cancer on the List?

Allan C. Gelber
The Journal of Rheumatology September 2021, 48 (9) 1358-1360; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.210138
Allan C. Gelber
1A.C. Gelber, MD, MPH, PhD, Professor of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Allan C. Gelber
  • For correspondence: agelber@jhmi.edu
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
PreviousNext
Loading

Over the last 20 years, there has been tremendous growth in understanding the multifaceted aspects of gout. These developments in research span the gamut from elucidating mechanisms by which urate crystals trigger cellular inflammation, to an exciting expansion of available therapeutic modalities to manage gout.1,2,3,4,5 Concomitantly, we have learned a great deal regarding the genetic contribution to gout susceptibility, while simultaneously observing an amplification in the epidemiology of gout, including newly appreciated risk factors for incident and prevalent disease.

Notably, in the 1960s through the 1990s, the approach to treating gout remained quite constant. For decades, acute attacks of gout were managed with either nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, corticosteroid agents, or colchicine, or with a combination thereof.6,7,8 In fact, these approaches remain applicable today. Allopurinol, an inhibitor of xanthine oxidase, and probenecid, a uricosuric agent, both act to lower serum uric acid to prevent gout recurrence. However, in the first 20 years of this century, several new kids have emerged on the block. A second xanthine oxidase inhibitor (febuxostat) is in hand.3 Further, for those with contraindications to frontline acute agents, several interleukin-1 antagonists (canakinumab, rilonacept, and anakinra) have been studied and are seemingly available for off-label use.5,9 For patients refractory to conventional urate-lowering strategies, an entirely new class of therapy was introduced when a mammalian recombinant uricase conjugated to polyethylene glycol (PEG) was brought to market. This PEGylated uricase, or pegloticase, represents an absolute game changer in the management of patients with severe refractory polyarticular tophaceous gout.4 In addition, another novel drug class that directly inhibits the renal epithelial urate transporter (lesinurad) transiently entered the marketplace. Clearly, the range of gout therapy has expanded substantially.

In tandem with major advances in gout pathogenesis and therapeutics, there has been transformational growth addressing the epidemiology of gout. It seems remarkable that from 1960 to 1990—not so long ago—there was a relative paucity of published observational cohorts, so vital to appreciate the burden of gout and to ascertain demographic and health status attributes predictive of incident gout.10,11 Yet in the last 20 years, there has been an explosion of cross-sectional surveys, observational cohorts, and case-control and randomized clinical trials, all of which have added substantially to the epidemiology literature.

From the Framingham Heart Study, a half-century ago, we were apprised about a distinct distribution-by-sex of serum uric acid, with higher average values observed among men than women.10 We were informed that higher serum levels of uric acid during young and mid-adult life were related to the timing of gout. Those with higher levels experienced a younger mean age at disease onset. In both men and women, there was a dose-response association between urate levels and incidence of gout and nephrolithiasis.10 Further, the Normative Aging Study in Boston reinforced the notion of a dose-response association between serum uric acid level and gout incidence.11 BMI, hypertension, and cholesterol were similarly related to incident gout.11 Further, the Johns Hopkins Precursors Study demonstrated that BMI at age 35, as well as BMI change from the early 20s until age 35, predicted gout development.12

Thereafter, we learned from The Health Professionals Follow-up Study and The Nurses’ Health Study how dietary components mediate gout risk.13,14 Intake of meat and seafood was related to incident gout.13 We also discovered how consumption of beer, but not of wine, as well as of fructose-rich beverages (including sugar sweetened soft drinks and orange juice), heightened the risk to develop gout, whereas coffee consumption was associated with a reduction in risk.13,14 We found out how cutaneous psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are both predictive of future gout, and how gout, in turn, is predictive of future hip fracture.15

Data from the cross-sectional National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys in the United States, a definitive resource reflecting the health of the nation, indicate that the metabolic syndrome, and its component parts, including elevated blood pressure, high levels of cholesterol and triglycerides, and diminished levels of renal function, are related to greater prevalence of gout.16,17 Further, obstructive sleep apnea was studied and found to be associated with gout.

Though perhaps not widely recognized, and distinct from the aforementioned gout comorbidities, a putative association between malignant disorders and gout has been the focus of medical reports for decades. Notably, in the clinical realm, this relationship has been well known to medical students and house officers alike, and not merely the purview of rheumatologists and oncologists. This likely stems from the tight linkage of induction chemotherapy for lymphoma and its propensity to induce tumor lysis. In this disorder, hyperuricemia, hyperkalemia, and hyperphosphatemia precipitate azotemia and uric acid nephropathy.18 These clinical features may also follow induction therapy for acute leukemia and may even precede the initiation of chemotherapy when faced with a large tumor burden, as when intraabdominal tumors contribute to extrinsic ureteral compression, thereby impairing renal function. The latter mechanism is distinct from uric acid deposition in the renal parenchyma.

However, in the absence of the mediating effect of chemotherapy, are cancer and gout associated with each other? Moreover, if the relationship exists, what is the directionality of the association? Does gout induce future cancer, or does malignancy (with its proliferation of the malignant clone) induce hyperuricemia and subsequent gout? This concept has engendered scientific inquiry for quite some time. It turns out that even in the first half of the 20th century, an astute clinician at Charing Cross Hospital focused on the intersection of gout, splenomegaly, and immature circulating blood cells: 5 patients had definite polycythemia.19 Dr. Hickling observed in London that among 9 informative patients, 4 developed gout prior to the overt onset of their hematologic disorder, whereas the other 5 first experienced attacks of gout only 1–11 years after detection of splenomegaly.19

Thereafter, in the mid-20th century, Dr. Yü at Mt. Sinai Hospital elaborated in this area by highlighting his experience with 42 secondary cases of gout, attributed to either underlying polycythemia vera or myeloid metaplasia.20 In this New York City series, gout was reported to have “followed in the wake of active polycythemia,” and “developed during the transition from active polycythemia to the myelofibrotic stage” or “during the stage of advanced myeloid metaplasia”.20 However, this report did not inform whether gout can precede the clinical expression or manifest concurrently with the onset of these myeloproliferative disorders. To truly elucidate this relationship, the field would benefit from large population-based cohorts in which the incidence of cancer among those with, compared to those without, gout was compared.

It is within this framework that we read in this issue of The Journal of Rheumatology how Lee, et al delved further into the gout-malignancy connection.21 Utilizing the Korean Health Insurance Service database, persons newly diagnosed with gout between 2003 and 2007, aged 41 to 55 years, were followed prospectively, as were age- and sex-matched controls. The authors sought to ascertain whether antecedent gout was related to a heightened risk to develop cancer in Korea. Further, the comparison group was selected from the same calendar year as those diagnosed with gout, with a 1:2 ratio of cases to controls, corresponding to 4176 persons with gout and 8352 controls. The mean age of the participants was 48.8 years, with a full decade of average follow-up time in both groups.

Interestingly, there were 3 major outcomes which differed, in a clinically meaningful and statistically significant fashion, between patients with and without gout. These outcomes—incident cancer, all-cause mortality, and cancer-specific mortality—were each appreciably greater among those with an established diagnosis of gout. Notably, cancer risk was 20% higher, whereas both all-cause and cancer-specific mortality rates were almost 50% higher, among those with antecedent gout. These are impressive and meaningful elevations in risk.21

Given the size of the database, the investigators were next able to perform subgroup analyses by cancer type and determined that cancer risk was not uniformly elevated across all cancer types. Specifically, the risk of gastric cancer was 70% higher, and that of head and neck cancer were 85% higher among those with prior gout. In contrast, there was a null association between gout and risk to develop cancer of the esophagus, liver, genitourinary tract, prostate, breast, and female reproductive tract.21 For completeness, there were other cancer types with apparent associations with gout, yet lacking statistical significance, such as for pancreatic, lung, and thyroid tumors; an estimated 30% reduction in risk was noted for colon cancer but was of borderline statistical significance. Moreover, the cancer type with the highest risk estimate in relation to antecedent gout was hematologic or lymphoid malignancy, with an almost 3-fold elevation among those with gout.

Biologically speaking, it is of conceptual and practical interest to determine the directionality of this association. By nature of the prospective cohort study design, one would presume that gout does in fact predict the development of future malignancy, such as a hematologic malignancy. Moreover, the longer the interval between the diagnosis of gout and the future detection of a tumor, the more one might embrace true causality. Alternatively, however, could a preclinical, asymptomatic background of an evolving hematologic malignancy, not yet clinically manifest, be the reason why gout occurred in the first place? In such a scenario, gout might have declared itself first, only later to be followed by an overt, clinically apparent, and histologically proven malignancy. This scenario might be biologically feasible and most applicable with shorter intervals in time between the onsets of gout and cancer. The biologic basis for this consideration seems plausible given the known predilection for evolving myeloproliferative disorders (with high levels of cellular turnover and accelerated purine metabolism) to induce gout.20 Unfortunately, in the study by Lee, et al,21 we are not informed about the time interval between the new diagnosis of gout and the later development of cancer, either in aggregate or by specific tumor type.

What prior data exist to support the notion that gout is a risk factor for cancer? Is there evidence beyond the current observational cohort in Korea to support the notion that gout may be in the causal pathway of carcinogenesis? The answer lies in part with 2 comparable epidemiologic reports in other populations that similarly examined cancer incidence in relation to antecedent gout status. Specifically, in the Swedish nationwide hospital discharge system, there was a 25% higher risk to develop cancer among 16,857 hospitalized patients with gout, during the follow-up period, compared to the Swedish population as a whole.22 This elevated risk to develop cancer pertained to malignancies of the oropharynx, colon, liver, pancreas, lung, endometrium, kidney, and skin (melanoma). Further, using a comparable approach in Taiwan, an analysis of the National Health Insurance Database identified a modestly elevated risk to develop cancer among those with gout.23 Yet, whereas a 2-fold increase in risk was observed in univariate analysis, after further adjustment for age and sex, the multivariate HR was markedly reduced to a modest level of 1.15. Further, in site-specific cancers, gout among men was particularly related to prostate cancer (HR 1.71).23 However, when the analysis was restricted to the subset with highest utilization of emergency room visits, the overall association was, seemingly unexpectedly, nullified.

What might be the pathophysiologic pathway by which gout mediates cancer risk? Some immediate considerations include dietary exposure to alcohol, which is a well-recognized risk factor for gout and a known risk factor for certain cancers (e.g., hepatocellular carcinoma). Are there elements of the metabolic syndrome, including obesity, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, in the causal pathway to gout development that may in turn mediate cancer risk?24 These are putative intervening mechanisms to be addressed further in ongoing laboratory and epidemiologic reports.

As the investigative lens continues to focus on uric acid and gout, it is incumbent upon the primary care physician, rheumatologist, cancer biologist, and epidemiologist alike to be educated about the gout comorbidity profile as well as the strength and biologic plausibility of the gout-malignancy connection. In this context, the pages of this issue of The Journal inform us clearly and compellingly how the cumulative incidence of cancer differs, and is elevated, among those with gout compared to the general population.21 Moreover, those with gout experienced a higher rate of cancer-related mortality. This instructive paper illuminates the gout community as to why cancer belongs on the list of comorbidities that gout keeps.

Footnotes

  • The author declares no conflicts of interest.

  • See Gout and cancer risk, page 1465

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Martinon F,
    2. Pétrilli V,
    3. Mayor A,
    4. Tardivel A,
    5. Tschopp J, et al.
    Gout-associated uric acid crystals activate the NALP3 inflammasome. Nature 2006;440:237-41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Dehghan A,
    2. Köttgen A,
    3. Yang Q,
    4. Hwang SJ,
    5. Kao WL,
    6. Rivadeneira F, et al.
    Association of three genetic loci with uric acid concentration and risk of gout: a genome-wide association study. Lancet 2008;372:1953-61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Becker MA,
    2. Schumacher HR Jr,
    3. Wortmann RL,
    4. MacDonald PA,
    5. Eustace D,
    6. Palo WA, et al.
    Febuxostat compared with allopurinol in patients with hyperuricemia and gout. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2450-61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Sundy JS,
    2. Baraf HS,
    3. Yood RA,
    4. Edwards NL,
    5. Gutierrez-Urena SR,
    6. Treadwell EL, et al.
    Efficacy and tolerability of pegloticase for the treatment of chronic gout in patients refractory to conventional treatment: two randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2011; 306:711-20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Terkeltaub R,
    2. Sundy JS,
    3. Schumacher HR,
    4. Murphy F,
    5. Bookbinder S,
    6. Biedermann S, et al.
    The interleukin 1 inhibitor rilonacept in treatment of chronic gouty arthritis: results of a placebo-controlled, monosequence crossover, non-randomised, single-blind pilot study. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:1613-7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Goldfinger SE
    . Treatment of gout. N Engl J Med 1971;285:1303-6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Emmerson BT
    . The management of gout. N Engl J Med 1996;334:445-51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Neogi T
    . Clinical practice. Gout. N Engl J Med 2011;364:443-52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. So A,
    2. De Meulemeester M,
    3. Pikhlak A,
    4. Yücel AE,
    5. Richard D,
    6. Murphy V, et al.
    Canakinumab for the treatment of acute flares in difficult-to-treat gouty arthritis: results of a multicenter, phase II, dose-ranging study. Arthritis Rheum 2010;62:3064-76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Hall AP,
    2. Barry PE,
    3. Dawber TR,
    4. McNamara PM
    . Epidemiology of gout and hyperuricemia. A long-term population study. Am J Med 1967;42:27-37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Campion EW,
    2. Glynn RJ,
    3. DeLabry LO
    . Asymptomatic hyperuricemia. Risks and consequences in the Normative Aging Study. Am J Med 1987;82:421-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Roubenoff R,
    2. Klag MJ,
    3. Mead LA,
    4. Liang KY,
    5. Seidler AJ,
    6. Hochberg MC
    . Incidence and risk factors for gout in White men. JAMA. 1991;266:3004-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Choi HK,
    2. Atkinson K,
    3. Karlson EW,
    4. Willett W,
    5. Curhan G
    . Purine-rich foods, dairy and protein intake, and the risk of gout in men. N Engl J Med 2004 Mar 11;350:1093-103.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Curhan GC,
    2. Forman JP
    . Sugar-sweetened beverages and chronic disease. Kidney Int 2010;77:569-70.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Merola JF,
    2. Wu S,
    3. Han J,
    4. Choi HK,
    5. Qureshi AA
    . Psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis and risk of gout in US men and women. Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74:1495-500.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Juraschek SP,
    2. Kovell LC,
    3. Miller ER , 3rd,
    4. Gelber AC
    . Association of kidney disease with prevalent gout in the United States in 1988-1994 and 2007-2010. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2013;42:551-61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Juraschek SP,
    2. Kovell LC,
    3. Miller ER,
    4. Gelber AC
    . Dose-response association of uncontrolled blood pressure and cardiovascular disease risk factors with hyperuricemia and gout. PLoS One 2013;8:e56546.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Cohen LF,
    2. Balow JE,
    3. Magrath IT,
    4. Poplack DG,
    5. Ziegler JL
    . Acute tumor lysis syndrome. A review of 37 patients with Burkitt’s lymphoma. Am J Med 1980;68:486-91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Hickling RA
    . Gout, leukaemia, and polycythaemia. Lancet 1953 Jan 10;1:57-9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Yü TF
    . Secondary gout associated with myeloproliferative diseases. Arthritis Rheum 1965;8:765-71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Lee JS,
    2. Myung J,
    3. Lee HA,
    4. Hong S,
    5. Lee CK,
    6. Yoo B, et al.
    Risk of cancer in middle-aged patients with gout: a nationwide population-based study in Korea. J Rheumatol 2021;48:1465-71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Boffetta P,
    2. Nordenvall C,
    3. Nyren O,
    4. Ye W
    . A prospective study of gout and cancer. Eur J Cancer Prev 2009;18:127-32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Kuo CF,
    2. Luo SF,
    3. See LC,
    4. Chou IJ,
    5. Fang YF,
    6. Yu KH
    . Increased risk of cancer among gout patients: a nationwide population study. Joint Bone Spine 2012 Jul;79:375-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Dalbeth N,
    2. Merriman TR,
    3. Stamp LK
    . Gout. Lancet 2016;388:2039-52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 48, Issue 9
1 Sep 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Rheumatology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Among the Company That Gout Keeps, Is Cancer on the List?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Rheumatology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Rheumatology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Among the Company That Gout Keeps, Is Cancer on the List?
Allan C. Gelber
The Journal of Rheumatology Sep 2021, 48 (9) 1358-1360; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.210138

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

 Request Permissions

Share
Among the Company That Gout Keeps, Is Cancer on the List?
Allan C. Gelber
The Journal of Rheumatology Sep 2021, 48 (9) 1358-1360; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.210138
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo  logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  •  logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Reversing the Tide of the Growing Burden of Avoidable Musculoskeletal Pain and Disability
  • Interferon Response Gene Score in Juvenile Dermatomyositis
  • Revisiting Magnetic Resonance Imaging Structural Lesions in the Sacroiliac Joints
Show more Editorial

Similar Articles

Content

  • First Release
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Audiovisual Rheum
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatology

Resources

  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Author Payment
  • Reviewers
  • Advertisers
  • Classified Ads
  • Reprints and Translations
  • Permissions
  • Meetings
  • FAQ
  • Policies

Subscribers

  • Subscription Information
  • Purchase Subscription
  • Your Account
  • Terms and Conditions

More

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • My Alerts
  • My Folders
  • Privacy/GDPR Policy
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2025 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire