Literature DB >> 18382461

Parity and risk of stomach cancer by sub-site: a national Swedish study.

S Bahmanyar1, M Lambe, K Zendehdel, O Nyrén, P Boffetta, W Ye.   

Abstract

We investigated stomach cancer risk by anatomic sub-site in relation to parity, as a marker for higher exposure to sex hormones, in a case-control study, nested within a cohort of 2,406,439 Swedish women born in 1925 or later and followed from 1970 or age 30 until emigration, death, any cancer diagnosis, or through 2004, whichever occurred first. We identified 286 cardia and 2498 non-cardia stomach cancer cases with five matched controls for each case. Cross-linkage with the Multi-Generation Register provided information about reproductive history. Using conditional logistic regression models for estimating odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for education level and occupation, we found no association between any aspect of parity and non-cardia stomach cancer (OR=1.01, 95% CI 0.89-1.15, comparing parous with nulliparous women). However, a 30% risk reduction for postmenopausal cardia cancer (OR=0.7, 95% CI 0.4-1.0) was noted among parous relative to nulliparous women and the risk for premenopausal cardia cancer fell with increasing number of children (P for trend=0.04). Our results indicate that exposure to female sex hormones does not protect against non-cardia stomach cancer and does not explain male predominance. The observed moderate inverse relationship between parity and cardia cancer may be mediated by non-hormonal factors and warrants further study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18382461      PMCID: PMC2359643          DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604283

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Cancer        ISSN: 0007-0920            Impact factor:   7.640


Despite a decreasing trend in incidence, stomach cancer is the fourth most common cancer in the world (Parkin ). In most areas its incidence is about twofold higher among men than among women, apparently not entirely explained by known risk factors such as, for example, Helicobacter pylori infection and tobacco smoking (Nyren and Adami, 2002). A male preponderance (Furukawa ) and a protective effect of female hormones have been reported for stomach cancer in rat experimental models (Furukawa ). As functional oestrogen receptors alpha (Wu ; Singh ) and beta (Taylor and Al-Azzawi, 2000; Matsuyama ) exist in human stomach mucosa, it has been hypothesised that sex hormones, notably oestrogens, protect women against stomach cancer (Sipponen and Correa, 2002). Pregnant women have markedly elevated serum levels of some hormones, including oestrogens (Cunningham ). The hyper-oestrogenic state increases continually through pregnancy, and finally oestrogen production rises more than 1000-fold. Few studies have investigated stomach cancer risk in relation to reproductive factors and results have been inconsistent (Miller ; Kvale ; La Vecchia ; Palli ; Inoue ; Kaneko ; Frise ). Although risk profiles for cardia and non-cardia stomach cancer differ, only one study (Frise ) has examined risks separately. We used information retrieved from the national Swedish Multi-Generation and Cancer registers to conduct a case–control study nested within a large cohort of Swedish women for any association between parity and stomach cancer risk by anatomic sub-site.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The cohort was based on the Swedish Multi-Generation Register, which includes index persons born in 1932 or later and alive in 1961, with links to their parents. Mothers born in 1925 or later and alive, and registered in the population register in 1947, when National Registration Numbers (NRNs) were introduced, or later, constituted our cohort. NRN, a unique identifier assigned to all Swedish residents at birth or upon immigration, was used for unambiguous linkages with several nationwide registers. The Historic Population, Migration, and Causes of Death Registers were used to obtain information about marital status and dates of emigration and death, respectively. The Swedish Cancer Register, established in 1958 and more than 98% complete (Mattsson and Wallgren, 1984; Ekstrom ), contains individual data on all newly diagnosed malignant tumours in Sweden, coded to the 7th revision of International Classification of Disease (ICD7). Stomach cancer (code 151) was further classified as cardia and non-cardia cancer using a supplementary code introduced in 1970. Therefore, and since stomach cancer rarely occurs at young ages, the follow-up forming the base for the present nested case–control study started on 1 January 1970 or thereafter at age 30 years. After excluding subjects with any cancer diagnosed before start of follow-up, 2 406 439 women were enrolled. Follow-up continued until the date of diagnosis of any cancer, emigration, death, or until 31 December 2004, whichever occurred first. For every observed incident case of stomach cancer, we randomly selected five controls, individually matched on year of birth, alive at diagnosis of their matched cases, and without cancer before selection. The Swedish Multi-Generation Register provided information on parity and age at first birth. We further linked all cases and controls to the Swedish National Censuses and Education Register in order to obtain the highest occupational class and education level before the time of selection, as markers of socioeconomic status.

Statistical analyses

We used conditional logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (ORs) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the measure of association between parity or age at first birth and risk. We first estimated crude ORs (inherently adjusted for year of birth) and then multivariately with additional adjustment for highest attained education (in three groups, viz. 9 years comprehensive school or less, upper secondary school (10–12 years), university education (>12 years)) and occupational class (in six groups, viz. manual, non-manual workers, professionals, farmers, self employed, and others). We also considered place of residence (in three regions, south, middle, and north of Sweden) as a possible confounder, but as this did not materially affect our estimates, it was not included in the final models. We further studied the effect of number of children (1, 2, 3, and >3). Age at first birth was categorised based on the quartile values derived from the entire cohort (<21, 21–24, 25–27, and ⩾28 years). Dose–response relationships were studied only among parous women, and multivariate models mutually adjusted for parity and age at first birth. We used median values of age at first birth for each stratum and also parity as a continuous variable for trend analyses. Women were categorised as pre- or postmenopausal by using age 50 as the cut-off point, based on the approximate median value in several studies (Luoto ; Gold ; Rodstrom ). As the Swedish Multi-Generation Register only includes offsprings born in 1932 or later, and who were alive in 1961, information about deceased children born around between 1940 (when the mothers in the cohort become sexually mature) and 1961 may be missing. As this could lead to some misclassification, we performed an additional analysis restricted to women born in 1946 or later and thus unlikely to have given birth to children before 1961. It is well known that unmarried status and living as a single are associated with poorer general health among both men and women, including higher risks for lifestyle-related cancers such as stomach cancer. We therefore reanalyzed data restricted to those who were married at cancer diagnosis (applied also to their corresponding controls) to check if our results were affected by marital status. The P-value of the interaction term in the conditional logistic regression model was used as a test of homogeneity to compare ORs between pre- and postmenopausal women. All statistical analyses were performed using the SAS software version 9.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). This study was approved by the Regional Ethics Committee at the Karolinska Institutet.

RESULTS

We identified 2498 women with non-cardia stomach and 286 women with cardia cancer between 1970 and 2004, and selected 12 490 and 1430 matched controls, respectively. The mean age of the non-cardia cases was slightly lower (57.0) than that of cardia cancer cases (59.4) (Table 1).
Table 1

Characteristics of the study population

  Non-cardia stomach cancer
Cardia cancer
 Cases, n (%) Controls, n (%) Cases, n (%) Controls, n (%)
Age (years)
 30–39188 (7.5)940 (7.5)10 (3.5)50 (3.5)
 40–49540 (21.6)2700 (21.6)50 (17.5)250 (17.5)
 50–59728 (29.1)3640 (29.1)79 (27.6)395 (27.6)
 60–69677 (27.1)3385 (27.1)98 (34.3)490 (34.3)
 ⩾70365 (14.6)1825 (14.6)49 (17.1)245 (17.1)
 Median57.557.560.560.5
     
Highest achieved education level
 9 years comprehensive school or less1457 (58.3)5916 (47.4)165 (57.7)621 (43.4)
 Upper secondary school (10–12 years)756 (30.3)4316 (34.6)76 (26.6)542 (37.9)
 University education (>12 years)254 (10.2)2111 (16.9)42 (14.7)246 (17.2)
 Missing31 (1.2)147 (1.2)3 (1.1)21 (1.5)
     
Highest achieved occupational class
 Manual workers697 (27.9)2952 (23.6)90 (31.5)350 (24.5)
 Non-manual workers1136 (45.5)6224 (49.8)125 (43.7)697 (48.7)
 Professionals104 (4.2)900 (7.2)14 (4.9)98 (6.9)
 Farmers99 (4.0)570 (4.6)17 (5.9)60 (4.2)
 Self-employed142 (5.7)845 (6.8)18 (6.3)105 (7.3)
 Other320 (12.8)999 (8.0)22 (7.7)120 (8.4)
 Total2498 (100)12 490 (100)286 (100)1430 (100)

Non-cardia stomach cancer

Parous women had the same risk for non-cardia stomach cancer as nulliparous women (OR=1.01, 95% CI 0.89–1.15) (Table 2). However, using premenopausal non-cardia stomach cancer as the outcome, parity was associated with reduced OR of borderline significance (OR=0.82, 95% CI 0.65–1.03). The P-value of the test of homogeneity of results of pre- and postmenopausal cancers was 0.02. Analyses by parity or age at first pregnancy among parous women did not show any significant variation in ORs. Restriction to married women or to those born in 1946 or later produced no important departure from overall results.
Table 2

Association of parity with risk of non-cardia stomach cancer among Swedish womena

  All non-cardia stomach cancer
Premenopausal cancerb
Postmenopausal cancerb
Reproductive variables Cases/controls Odds ratio (95% CI) Cases/controls Odds ratio (95% CI) Cases/controls Odds ratio (95% CI)
All women
 Nulliparous335/1720Reference117/512Reference218/1208Reference
 Parous2163/10 7701.01 (0.89–1.15)611/31280.82 (0.65–1.03)1552/76421.11 (0.94–1.30)
       
Ever-parous women
Number of childrenc
  1 child481/2199Reference114/566Reference367/1633Reference
  >1 child1682/85710.90 (0.80–1.02)497/25620.96 (0.75–1.23)1185/60090.88 (0.76–1.01)
   2 children905/47340.91 (0.80–1.03)268/14440.95 (0.73–1.23)637/32900.88 (0.76–1.02)
   3 children484/25490.87 (0.75–1.01)160/7860.97 (0.73–1.30)324/17630.81 (0.68–0.96)
   ⩾4 children293/12880.96 (0.81–1.15)69/3320.90 (0.62–1.29)224/9560.95 (0.77–1.16)
P for trend 0.40 0.74 0.34
       
Age at first birthd
  <21 years648/2776Reference174/810Reference474/1966Reference
  21–24 years731/36280.95 (0.84–1.07)207/10521.09 (0.86–1.39)524/25760.90 (0.78–1.04)
  25–27 years383/21250.91 (0.78–1.05)123/5931.29 (0.97–1.72)260/15320.79 (0.67–0.95)
  ⩾28 years401/22410.93 (0.80–1.09)107/6731.09 (0.81–1.48)294/15680.88 (0.74–1.06)
P for trend 0.35 0.46 0.11
       
Married women
All married women
  Nulliparous53/430Reference19/153Reference34/295Reference
  Parous772/48491.11 (0.78–1.59)198/14280.75 (0.38–1.45)574/34211.27 (0.83–1.95)
       
Parous married women
  1 Child148/880Reference26/198Reference122/682Reference
  >1 Child624/39690.94 (0.73–1.20)172/12301.07 (0.59–1.94)452/27390.90 (0.69–1.18)

CI=confidence interval.

Adjusted for occupational class and education level.

Attained age ⩾50 years was used to define postmenopausal women.

Adjusted for occupational class, education level, and age at first birth.

Adjusted for occupational class, education level, and the number of children.

Cardia cancer

We found a 30% decreased risk of cardia cancer among parous compared with nulliparous women (OR=0.7, 95% CI 0.5–1.1) (Table 3). This inverse association was observed only for postmenopausal cardia cancer (OR=0.7, 95% CI 0.5–1.0), but the trend with parity was significant (P=0.04) also for premenopausal cardia cancer (although based on small numbers). No conspicuous variation was observed in relation to age at first pregnancy. Restriction to cases and controls who were married at cancer diagnosis revealed stronger association (OR for cardia cancer overall=0.4, 95% CI 0.2–0.9; for postmenopausal cardia cancer=0.3, 95% CI 0.1–0.9), whereas restriction to women born in 1946 or later produced no noteworthy change, albeit based on very small numbers (data not shown).
Table 3

Association of parity with risk of cardia cancer among Swedish womena

  All cardia stomach cancer
Premenopausal cancerb
Postmenopausal cancerb
Reproductive variables Cases/controls Odds ratio (95% CI) Cases/controls Odds ratio (95% CI) Cases/controls Odds ratio (95% CI)
All women
 Nulliparous46/192Reference7/38Reference39/154Reference
 Parous240/12380.7 (0.5–1.1)53/2620.9 (0.4–2.3)187/9760.7 (0.5–1.0)
       
Ever-parous women
Number of childrenc
  1 child53/227Reference15/49Reference38/178Reference
  >1 child187/10110.7 (0.5–0.95)38/2130.5 (0.3–1.1)149/7980.7 (0.5–1.1)
   2 children87/5700.6 (0.4–0.9)25/1180.7 (0.3–1.5)62/4520.6 (0.4–0.9)
   3 children62/2920.8 (0.5–1.2)9/590.3 (0.1–0.9)53/2330.9 (0.6–1.5)
   ⩾4 children38/1490.9 (0.5–1.5)4/360.4 (0.1–1.6)34/1131.1 (0.6–2.0)
P for trend 0.97 0.04 0.31
       
Age at first birthd
  <21 years72/317Reference11/67Reference61/250Reference
  21–24 years77/4110.9 (0.6–1.4)23/811.9 (0.7–4.7)54/3300.8 (0.5–1.2)
  25–27 years54/2481.2 (0.8–1.9)11/531.5 (0.5–4.3)43/1951.2 (0.7–2.0)
  ⩾28 years37/2620.8 (0.5–1.4)8/610.9 (0.3–3.0)29/2010.8 (0.5–1.5)
P for trend 0.71 0.72 0.94
       
Married women
All married women
  Nulliparous12/53Reference0/5Reference12/48Reference
  Parous89/5970.4 (0.2–0.9)18/136Not applicable71/4610.3 (0.1–0.9)
       
Parous married women
  1 child14/87Reference2/13Reference12/74Reference
  >1 child75/5100.8 (0.3–1.8)16/1230.6 (0.1–4.2)59/3870.8 (0.3–2.0)

CI=confidence interval.

Adjusted for occupational class and education level.

Attained age ⩾50 years was used to define postmenopausal women.

Adjusted for occupational class, education level, and age at first birth.

Adjusted for occupational class, education level, and the number of children.

Socioeconomic status in our investigation was rather crude, since it combined two different classifications used in, respectively, the 1970 and 1990 censuses. We also repeated the analyses using only 1990 census information because this classification was finer (in eight groups, viz. unskilled manual, skilled manual workers, assistant non-manual, intermediate non-manual employees, professionals, other higher non-manual employees and upper-level executives, self-employed, farmers, and others). The point estimates thus obtained were almost identical to those in the main analyses (data not shown). However, as a considerable number of cases and controls who emigrated or died before 1990 were excluded in these supplementary analyses, we only present the results of analyses using the crude socioeconomic classification.

DISCUSSION

This nested case–control study gave no indication that pregnancies confer protection against non-cardia stomach cancer, whereas some support for an inverse association between parity and cardia cancer risk emerged. The large sample size and the population-based design constitute the strengths of this study. Case ascertainment through the nationwide Swedish Cancer Register was virtually complete. There was possible misclassification of exposure due to missed offsprings who died before 1961, but additional analyses restricted to women born in 1946 or later suggested that this is unlikely to have importantly affected the results. However, abortions, miscarriages, and stillbirths were not recorded. This non-differential misclassification may have slightly shifted ORs towards the null value. However, small numbers limit the interpretation of our results for cardia cancer. An important limitation, as in most register-based studies, is the lack of information on some potential confounding factors such as smoking, a risk factor for stomach cancer, and it is conceivable that mothers smoke less than childless women. However, available data on smoking from other large cohorts of Swedish women do not support this (Gram ). In corroboration, within our cohort lung cancer incidence among parous compared with nulliparous women gave an age-adjusted relative risk close to unity (1.04, 95% CI 0.97–1.11). Confounding by smoking, therefore, represents an unlikely explanation for the lower risk of cardia cancer among parous women. High body mass index (BMI) and gastroesophageal reflux disease are other risk factors for cardia cancer, and pregnancy is associated with overweight, obesity (Linne ), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (Cunningham ). However, any confounding by high BMI and reflux disease should have increased cardia cancer risk among parous women, and so it does not explain the inverse association. Since obesity and gastroesophageal reflux are essentially unrelated to non-cardia stomach cancer, it is unlikely that they have greatly confounded its association with parity. With adjustment for socioeconomic status, it is improbable that parity is associated with H. pylori infection status unless the latter is related to fertility. If a relationship between infection and fertility did exist, the observed inverse association between parity and cardia cancer would be expected only if H. pylori infection was linked to increased fertility, a less likely, albeit not totally inconceivable, possibility. However, if infected women were more fertile, parity would be positively associated with risk of non-cardia cancer, contrary to our finding. As we also lacked information about hereditary predisposition, diet, occupational exposures, and use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, factors that are linked to risk of stomach cancer and whose relationship to parity is difficult to predict, we cannot exclude all confounding, nor can we confidently rule out chance as the explanation for the cardia cancer finding given the limited number of cases observed and the multiple testing. Our categorisation of women as pre- or postmenopausal by using age 50 as the cut-off point is subject to misclassification. Among previous studies of reproductive factors, only one recent Canadian case–control study separately considered cardia and non-cardia stomach cancers (Frise and Table 4); a decreased risk was found for both types among women with over three children compared with nulliparous women. However, the number of exposed cases (>3 pregnancies) was small (14 cardia and 57 non-cardia stomach cancers) and only overall OR estimate was statistically significant.
Table 4

Summary of previous studies on the association between reproductive factors and stomach cancer risk

Authors (year) Study design Study population Study period (country) Exposure (reference group) Estimate of relative risk for stomach cancer
Frise et al (2006) Population-based case–control study326 cases and 326 age-matched controls1995–1997 (Canada)>3 pregnancies (nulliparity)Overall, 0.56 (0.32–0.99) Cardia, 0.51 (0.18–1.43) Non-cardia, 0.71 (0.37–1.36)
(Kaneko et al (2003)Prospective cohort study40 535 postmenopausal women, 156 deaths due to stomach cancer1988–1997 (Japan)Ever pregnant (never)Overall, 0.62 (0.27–1.41)
Inoue et al (2002) Hospital-based case–control study365 postmenopausal cases and 1825 age-matched controls1988–1998 (Japan)Ever pregnant (never)Overall, 1.13 (0.75–1.70)
Palli et al (1994) Population-based case–control study339 postmenopausal cases and 515 age-matched controls1985–1987 (Italy)Ever pregnant (never)Overall, 1.0 (0.6–1.5)
La Vecchia et al (1994) Hospital-based case–control study229 postmenopausal cases and 614 controls1985–1993 (Italy)>3 pregnancies (nulliparity)Overall, 1.9 (1.0–3.5)
Kvale et al (1994) Prospective cohort study61 774 women, 492 cases1961–1980 (Norway)>4 pregnancies among women <50 years old at the start of follow-up (nulliparity)Overall, 1.12 (P for trend=0.71)
Plesko et al (1985) Population-based case–control study3613 deaths due to stomach cancer, 182 415 deaths due to all causes1968–1977 (Slovakia)>5 pregnancies (nulliparity)Overall, 1.34 (P for trend <0.001)
    >5 pregnancies (one pregnancy)Overall, 1.21 (P for trend <0.01)
Miller et al (1980) Population-based case–control study260 stomach cancer cases1969–1971 (Canada)>3 pregnancies (nulliparity)Overall, 1.59 (P for trend=0.05)
Other studies of parity and risk of postmenopausal stomach cancer, not considering the anatomical subtypes, found relative risks close to unity among parous compared with nulliparous women (Palli ; Inoue ). However, one cohort study (Kaneko ), using Death Registry data, reported a non-significant inverse association with postmenopausal stomach cancer. There are inconsistent results regarding parity and stomach cancer risk. Two studies (Kaneko ; Frise ) found a suggestive inverse relationship but no significant dose–risk trend, whereas others found either no association (Kvale ; Palli ; Inoue ) or a positive association (one hospital-based case–control study (Miller ); Plesko ; La Vecchia , the latest two studies including no adjustment for socioeconomic status). We found women with more than one child showing borderline significant 30% risk deficit for postmenopausal cardia cancer compared with those with one child. However, the absence of a significant dose–response trend weighs against a causal inference. On the other hand, there was a significant dose–risk trend for premenopausal cancer, although only one OR estimate among single exposure categories was significant. Findings on stomach cancer risk and age at first birth have been inconsistent, with previous studies reporting both increased (Palli ; Kaneko ) and decreased (La Vecchia ; Inoue ) risks among women with higher age at first birth. We found no significant variation in risk of cardia or non-cardia cancer linked to age at first birth. We knew of no biological rationale why the inverse parity-risk relationship should be limited to cardia cancer. Chance should be the explanation. But if true, the risk reduction seems to be mediated by factor(s) – not necessarily hormonal – that affect cancer development in the cardia and in the rest of the stomach differently. The hypothesis, therefore, that oestrogens play a role in stomach cancer aetiology is given no real support. On the other hand, parity may be an imperfect marker of the sex hormone exposure that is potentially relevant; women are continuously exposed to oestrogen during their fertile life, for up to 40 years, and the pregnancy boosts, although impressive in terms of dose, may be too short-lived or inadequately timed for an appreciable effect on gastric carcinogenesis. In conclusion, our results point fairly persuasively against a significant inhibitory role of oestrogen in non-cardia stomach cancer. Previous evidence of an inverse association with stomach cancer risk was, at best, only suggestive and with our study weighs towards no association. However, our finding of a significantly decreased risk of cardia cancer among parous, particularly postmenopausal women, warrants further study.
  23 in total

1.  Immunolocalisation of oestrogen receptor beta in human tissues.

Authors:  A H Taylor; F Al-Azzawi
Journal:  J Mol Endocrinol       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 5.098

2.  Factors associated with age at natural menopause in a multiethnic sample of midlife women.

Authors:  E B Gold; J Bromberger; S Crawford; S Samuels; G A Greendale; S D Harlow; J Skurnick
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2001-05-01       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Global cancer statistics, 2002.

Authors:  D Max Parkin; Freddie Bray; J Ferlay; Paola Pisani
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2005 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 508.702

4.  Breast cancer risk among women who start smoking as teenagers.

Authors:  Inger T Gram; Tonje Braaten; Paul D Terry; Annie J Sasco; Hans-Olov Adami; Eiliv Lund; Elisabete Weiderpass
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Evaluating gastric cancer misclassification: a potential explanation for the rise in cardia cancer incidence.

Authors:  A M Ekström; L B Signorello; L E Hansson; R Bergström; A Lindgren; O Nyrén
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1999-05-05       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Height, weight, menstrual and reproductive factors and risk of gastric cancer among Japanese postmenopausal women: analysis by subsite and histologic subtype.

Authors:  Manami Inoue; Lucy S Ito; Kazuo Tajima; Yoshitaka Yamamura; Yasuhiro Kodera; Toshiro Takezaki; Nobuyuki Hamajima; Kaoru Hirose; Tetsuo Kuroishi; Suketami Tominaga
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2002-02-20       Impact factor: 7.396

7.  Menstrual and reproductive risk factors and risk for gastric adenocarcinoma in women: findings from the canadian national enhanced cancer surveillance system.

Authors:  Sarah Frise; Nancy Kreiger; Steven Gallinger; George Tomlinson; Michelle Cotterchio
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2006-07-13       Impact factor: 3.797

8.  Estrogen receptor beta is expressed in human stomach adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Satoru Matsuyama; Yasuo Ohkura; Hidetaka Eguchi; Yasuhito Kobayashi; Kiwamu Akagi; Kenji Uchida; Kei Nakachi; Jan-Ake Gustafsson; Shin-Ichi Hayashi
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-04-11       Impact factor: 4.553

9.  Menstrual and reproductive factors and gastric-cancer risk in women.

Authors:  C La Vecchia; B D'Avanzo; S Franceschi; E Negri; F Parazzini; A Decarli
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  1994-12-15       Impact factor: 7.396

10.  Parity in relation to mortality and cancer incidence: a prospective study of Norwegian women.

Authors:  G Kvåle; I Heuch; S Nilssen
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 7.196

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  Sex hormones, hormonal interventions, and gastric cancer risk: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  M Constanza Camargo; Yasuyuki Goto; Jovanny Zabaleta; Douglas R Morgan; Pelayo Correa; Charles S Rabkin
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-10-25       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  Higher parity associated with higher risk of death from gastric cancer.

Authors:  Chih-Ching Chang; Chih-Cheng Chen; Hui-Fen Chiu; Chun-Yuh Yang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-02-14       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Reproductive factors and risk of oesophageal and gastric cancer in the Million Women Study cohort.

Authors:  J Green; A Roddam; K Pirie; O Kirichek; G Reeves; V Beral
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 7.640

4.  Parity and risk of death from lung cancer among a cohort of premenopausal parous women in Taiwan.

Authors:  Meng-Hsuan Cheng; Shang-Shyue Tsai; Chih-Cheng Chen; Shu-Chen Ho; Hui-Fen Chiu; Trong-Neng Wu; Chun-Yuh Yang
Journal:  J Epidemiol       Date:  2012-04-21       Impact factor: 3.211

5.  Mortality from cancers of the digestive system among grand multiparous women in Taiwan.

Authors:  Brian K Chen; Chun-Yuh Yang
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2014-04-22       Impact factor: 3.390

Review 6.  Parity and gastric cancer risk: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.

Authors:  Jing Chen; Ting-Ting Gong; Qi-Jun Wu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-01-04       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Menstrual and Reproductive Factors and Risk of Gastric and Colorectal Cancer in Spain.

Authors:  Virginia Lope; Nerea Fernández de Larrea; Beatriz Pérez-Gómez; Vicente Martín; Victor Moreno; Laura Costas; Federico Longo; José Juan Jiménez-Moleón; Javier Llorca; Nieves Ascunce; Rosana Peiró-Pérez; Jone M Altzibar; Adonina Tardón; Juan Alguacil; Carmen Navarro; Ángeles Sierra; Ana Belén Vega; Amaya Villafañe; Gemma Castaño-Vinyals; Manolis Kogevinas; Marina Pollán; Nuria Aragonés
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-10-24       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Dietary glycemic load and gastric cancer risk in Italy.

Authors:  P Bertuccio; D Praud; L Chatenoud; E Lucenteforte; C Bosetti; C Pelucchi; M Rossi; E Negri; C La Vecchia
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-02-10       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Anthropometric and reproductive factors and risk of esophageal and gastric cancer by subtype and subsite: Results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort.

Authors:  Harinakshi Sanikini; David C Muller; Marisa Sophiea; Sabina Rinaldi; Antonio Agudo; Eric J Duell; Elisabete Weiderpass; Kim Overvad; Anne Tjønneland; Jytte Halkjaer; Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault; Franck Carbonnel; Iris Cervenka; Heiner Boeing; Rudolf Kaaks; Tilman Kühn; Antonia Trichopoulou; Georgia Martimianaki; Anna Karakatsani; Valeria Pala; Domenico Palli; Amalia Mattiello; Rosario Tumino; Carlotta Sacerdote; Guri Skeie; Charlotta Rylander; María-Dolores Chirlaque López; Maria-Jose Sánchez; Eva Ardanaz; Sara Regnér; Tanja Stocks; Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita; Roel C H Vermeulen; Dagfinn Aune; Tammy Y N Tong; Nathalie Kliemann; Neil Murphy; Marc Chadeau-Hyam; Marc J Gunter; Amanda J Cross
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 7.396

10.  Anthropometry, body fat composition and reproductive factors and risk of oesophageal and gastric cancer by subtype and subsite in the UK Biobank cohort.

Authors:  Harinakshi Sanikini; David C Muller; Marc Chadeau-Hyam; Neil Murphy; Marc J Gunter; Amanda J Cross
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 3.752

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.