Bradley J Van Voorhis1, Paul A Romitti, Michael P Jones. 1. Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA. brad-van-voorhis@uiowa.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine (1) the association between maternal history of leiomyomas and those in women under the age of 50, and (2) the ability of subjects to report a family history of leiomyomas. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a hospital-based, case-control study. The cases were women with pathologically confirmed leiomyomas, and the controls were women with no leiomyomas after pathologic examination of the uterus or by transvaginal ultrasonography. All women were sent a questionnaire regarding potential risk factors for the development of leiomyomas. RESULTS: Eighty-one of 169 (47.9%) cases and 103 of 214 (48.1%) of controls completed the questionnaire. By multiple logistic regression, significant risk factors for the presence of leiomyomas were maternal history (odds ratio = 2.85, confidence intervals 1.25-6.52) and reduced parity (odds ratio = 0.75, confidence intervals .57-.98). Increasing age was nearly significant as a risk factor (odds ratio = 1.07, confidence intervals 1.00-1.15). Of the subjects, 24% did not know the maternal history of leiomyomas, while 29% and > 50% were not aware of this history in a sister or grandmother, respectively. Extended family histories of leiomyomas could not be ascertained by this questionnaire-based study. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that a maternal history of leiomyomas might be the largest risk factor for development of leiomyomas in a largely Caucasian population of women. Further studies are needed to better understand the possible genetic contribution to the development of uterine leiomyomas. Given the ascertainment bias inherent in second-hand maternal histories, future studies should assess maternal leiomyoma presence by ultrasonographic or pathologic evaluation.
OBJECTIVE: To determine (1) the association between maternal history of leiomyomas and those in women under the age of 50, and (2) the ability of subjects to report a family history of leiomyomas. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a hospital-based, case-control study. The cases were women with pathologically confirmed leiomyomas, and the controls were women with no leiomyomas after pathologic examination of the uterus or by transvaginal ultrasonography. All women were sent a questionnaire regarding potential risk factors for the development of leiomyomas. RESULTS: Eighty-one of 169 (47.9%) cases and 103 of 214 (48.1%) of controls completed the questionnaire. By multiple logistic regression, significant risk factors for the presence of leiomyomas were maternal history (odds ratio = 2.85, confidence intervals 1.25-6.52) and reduced parity (odds ratio = 0.75, confidence intervals .57-.98). Increasing age was nearly significant as a risk factor (odds ratio = 1.07, confidence intervals 1.00-1.15). Of the subjects, 24% did not know the maternal history of leiomyomas, while 29% and > 50% were not aware of this history in a sister or grandmother, respectively. Extended family histories of leiomyomas could not be ascertained by this questionnaire-based study. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that a maternal history of leiomyomas might be the largest risk factor for development of leiomyomas in a largely Caucasian population of women. Further studies are needed to better understand the possible genetic contribution to the development of uterine leiomyomas. Given the ascertainment bias inherent in second-hand maternal histories, future studies should assess maternal leiomyoma presence by ultrasonographic or pathologic evaluation.
Authors: Lauren A Wise; Edward A Ruiz-Narvaez; Julie R Palmer; Yvette C Cozier; Arti Tandon; Nick Patterson; Rose G Radin; Lynn Rosenberg; David Reich Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Brahim Aissani; Kui Zhang; Arjen R Mensenkamp; Fred H Menko; Howard W Wiener Journal: Endocr Relat Cancer Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 5.678