OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between prenatal diethylstilbestrol (DES) exposure and risk of benign gynecologic tumors. METHODS: We conducted a collaborative follow-up study of women with and without documented intrauterine exposure to DES. We compared the incidence of self-reported ovarian cysts, paraovarian cysts, and uterine leiomyomata confirmed by medical record in DES-exposed and unexposed women. RESULTS: A total of 85 cases of uterine leiomyomata and 168 cases of ovarian or paraovarian cysts were confirmed histologically. After adjustment for age, no association was found between prenatal DES exposure and ovarian cysts or uterine leiomyomata. Prenatal DES exposure was positively associated with paraovarian cysts. CONCLUSION: The present results do not support the hypothesis that prenatal DES exposure increases risk of uterine leiomyomata or ovarian cysts. Prenatal DES exposure was associated with an increased risk of paraovarian cysts, but detection bias cannot be ruled out as an explanation of this finding.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between prenatal diethylstilbestrol (DES) exposure and risk of benign gynecologic tumors. METHODS: We conducted a collaborative follow-up study of women with and without documented intrauterine exposure to DES. We compared the incidence of self-reported ovarian cysts, paraovarian cysts, and uterine leiomyomata confirmed by medical record in DES-exposed and unexposed women. RESULTS: A total of 85 cases of uterine leiomyomata and 168 cases of ovarian or paraovarian cysts were confirmed histologically. After adjustment for age, no association was found between prenatal DES exposure and ovarian cysts or uterine leiomyomata. Prenatal DES exposure was positively associated with paraovarian cysts. CONCLUSION: The present results do not support the hypothesis that prenatal DES exposure increases risk of uterine leiomyomata or ovarian cysts. Prenatal DES exposure was associated with an increased risk of paraovarian cysts, but detection bias cannot be ruled out as an explanation of this finding.
Authors: Tomoko Kaneko-Tarui; Arno E Commandeur; Amanda L Patterson; Justin L DeKuiper; David Petillo; Aaron K Styer; Jose M Teixeira Journal: Mol Hum Reprod Date: 2014-09-04 Impact factor: 4.025
Authors: K Leigh Greathouse; Tiffany Bredfeldt; Jeffrey I Everitt; Kevin Lin; Tia Berry; Kurunthachalam Kannan; Megan L Mittelstadt; Shuk-mei Ho; Cheryl L Walker Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 5.852
Authors: Jorge E Chavarro; Janet W Rich-Edwards; Audrey J Gaskins; Leslie V Farland; Kathryn L Terry; Cuilin Zhang; Stacey A Missmer Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: D Andrew Crain; Sarah J Janssen; Thea M Edwards; Jerrold Heindel; Shuk-mei Ho; Patricia Hunt; Taisen Iguchi; Anders Juul; John A McLachlan; Jackie Schwartz; Niels Skakkebaek; Ana M Soto; Shanna Swan; Cheryl Walker; Teresa K Woodruff; Tracey J Woodruff; Linda C Giudice; Louis J Guillette Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: A B Moore; L Castro; L Yu; X Zheng; X Di; M I Sifre; G E Kissling; R R Newbold; C D Bortner; D Dixon Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2007-08-27 Impact factor: 6.918