OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of talcum powder use as a risk factor for the development of epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: In a case-control study, 499 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer were frequency matched for age at diagnosis (-5 years) with a control population of 755 patients. The odds ratio (OR) for the development of epithelial ovarian cancer was estimated using logistic regression analysis with adjustment for age at diagnosis, parity, oral contraceptive use, smoking history, family history of epithelial ovarian cancer, age at menarche, menopausal status, income, education, geographic location, history of tubal ligation, and previous hysterectomy. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-one of 462 patients (47.8%) in the study population and 311 of 693 patients (44.9%) in the control population had ever used talcum powder (OR 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24, 3.62). A significant association between duration of talc use and development of epithelial ovarian cancer was not demonstrable for 1-9 years (OR 0.9; 95% CI 0.6, 1.5), for 10-19 years (OR 1.4; 95% CI 0.9, 2.2), or for more than 20 years (OR 0.9; 95% CI 0.6, 1.2). To eliminate the possible confounding variable of surgery for the management of ovarian cancer, we omitted 135 patients in the study population who underwent hysterectomy within 5 years of the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Within this subgroup of patients, tubal ligation or hysterectomy among talc users still failed to demonstrate an increased risk for the development of ovarian cancer (OR 0.9; 95% CI 0.4, 2.2). CONCLUSION: A significant association between the use of talcum powder and the risk of developing epithelial ovarian cancer is not demonstrable, even with prolonged exposure.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of talcum powder use as a risk factor for the development of epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: In a case-control study, 499 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer were frequency matched for age at diagnosis (-5 years) with a control population of 755 patients. The odds ratio (OR) for the development of epithelial ovarian cancer was estimated using logistic regression analysis with adjustment for age at diagnosis, parity, oral contraceptive use, smoking history, family history of epithelial ovarian cancer, age at menarche, menopausal status, income, education, geographic location, history of tubal ligation, and previous hysterectomy. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-one of 462 patients (47.8%) in the study population and 311 of 693 patients (44.9%) in the control population had ever used talcum powder (OR 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24, 3.62). A significant association between duration of talc use and development of epithelial ovarian cancer was not demonstrable for 1-9 years (OR 0.9; 95% CI 0.6, 1.5), for 10-19 years (OR 1.4; 95% CI 0.9, 2.2), or for more than 20 years (OR 0.9; 95% CI 0.6, 1.2). To eliminate the possible confounding variable of surgery for the management of ovarian cancer, we omitted 135 patients in the study population who underwent hysterectomy within 5 years of the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Within this subgroup of patients, tubal ligation or hysterectomy among talc users still failed to demonstrate an increased risk for the development of ovarian cancer (OR 0.9; 95% CI 0.4, 2.2). CONCLUSION: A significant association between the use of talcum powder and the risk of developing epithelial ovarian cancer is not demonstrable, even with prolonged exposure.
Authors: Stalo Karageorgi; Margaret A Gates; Susan E Hankinson; Immaculata De Vivo Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-04-20 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Joellen M Schildkraut; Sarah E Abbott; Anthony J Alberg; Elisa V Bandera; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; Melissa L Bondy; Michele L Cote; Ellen Funkhouser; Lauren C Peres; Edward S Peters; Ann G Schwartz; Paul Terry; Sydnee Crankshaw; Fabian Camacho; Frances Wang; Patricia G Moorman Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Kathryn L Terry; Stalo Karageorgi; Yurii B Shvetsov; Melissa A Merritt; Galina Lurie; Pamela J Thompson; Michael E Carney; Rachel Palmieri Weber; Lucy Akushevich; Wei-Hsuan Lo-Ciganic; Kara Cushing-Haugen; Weiva Sieh; Kirsten Moysich; Jennifer A Doherty; Christina M Nagle; Andrew Berchuck; Celeste L Pearce; Malcolm Pike; Roberta B Ness; Penelope M Webb; Mary Anne Rossing; Joellen Schildkraut; Harvey Risch; Marc T Goodman Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2013-06-12
Authors: Angelo Mandarino; David J Gregory; Connor C McGuire; Brian W Leblanc; Hadley Witt; Loreilys Mejias Rivera; John J Godleski; Alexey V Fedulov Journal: Environ Res Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Colette P Davis; Elisa V Bandera; Traci N Bethea; Fabian Camacho; Charlotte E Joslin; Anna H Wu; Alicia Beeghly-Fadiel; Patricia G Moorman; Evan R Myers; Heather M Ochs-Balcom; Lauren C Peres; Will T Rosenow; Veronica W Setiawan; Lynn Rosenberg; Joellen M Schildkraut; Holly R Harris Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-06-21 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Luigi Vimercati; Domenica Cavone; Maria Celeste Delfino; Biagio Bruni; Luigi De Maria; Antonio Caputi; Stefania Sponselli; Roberta Rossi; Leonardo Resta; Francesco Fortarezza; Federica Pezzuto; Gabriella Serio Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-10 Impact factor: 6.639