Kristen R Moore1, Jennifer S Smith2, Shannon K Laughlin-Tommaso3, Donna D Baird4. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 3. Center for Uterine Fibroids, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 4. Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Electronic address: baird@niehs.nih.gov.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the previously reported inverse association between cervical neoplasia and uterine fibroids is corroborated. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of enrollment data from an ongoing prospective study of fibroid development. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Self-reported data on abnormal Pap smear, colposcopy, and cervical treatment were obtained from 1,008 African American women ages 23-34 with no previous fibroid diagnosis and no reported history of human papillomavirus vaccination. Presence of fibroids was assessed at a standardized ultrasound examination. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The association between the three cervical neoplasia-related variables and the presence of fibroids was evaluated with logistic regression to estimate age-adjusted and multivariable-adjusted odds ratios (aORs). RESULT(S): Of the analysis sample, 46%, 29%, and 14% reported a prior abnormal Pap smear, colposcopy, and cervical treatment, respectively. Twenty-five percent had fibroids at ultrasound. Those reporting cervical treatment had a 39% (aOR, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.38-0.96]) reduction in fibroid risk. Weak nonsignificant associations were found for abnormal Pap smear and colposcopy. CONCLUSION(S): Although a protective-type association of cervical neoplasia with uterine fibroids seems counterintuitive, a causal pathway is possible, and the findings are consistent with two prior studies. Further investigation is needed on the relationship between fibroids and cervical neoplasia and human papillomavirus-related mechanisms. Published by Elsevier Inc.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the previously reported inverse association between cervical neoplasia and uterine fibroids is corroborated. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of enrollment data from an ongoing prospective study of fibroid development. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Self-reported data on abnormal Pap smear, colposcopy, and cervical treatment were obtained from 1,008 African American women ages 23-34 with no previous fibroid diagnosis and no reported history of humanpapillomavirus vaccination. Presence of fibroids was assessed at a standardized ultrasound examination. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The association between the three cervical neoplasia-related variables and the presence of fibroids was evaluated with logistic regression to estimate age-adjusted and multivariable-adjusted odds ratios (aORs). RESULT(S): Of the analysis sample, 46%, 29%, and 14% reported a prior abnormal Pap smear, colposcopy, and cervical treatment, respectively. Twenty-five percent had fibroids at ultrasound. Those reporting cervical treatment had a 39% (aOR, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.38-0.96]) reduction in fibroid risk. Weak nonsignificant associations were found for abnormal Pap smear and colposcopy. CONCLUSION(S): Although a protective-type association of cervical neoplasia with uterine fibroids seems counterintuitive, a causal pathway is possible, and the findings are consistent with two prior studies. Further investigation is needed on the relationship between fibroids and cervical neoplasia and human papillomavirus-related mechanisms. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Donna Day Baird; David B Dunson; Michael C Hill; Deborah Cousins; Joel M Schectman Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Lauren A Wise; Julie R Palmer; Bernard L Harlow; Donna Spiegelman; Elizabeth A Stewart; Lucile L Adams-Campbell; Lynn Rosenberg Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2004-01-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Shalini L Kulasingam; James P Hughes; Nancy B Kiviat; Constance Mao; Noel S Weiss; Jane M Kuypers; Laura A Koutsky Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-10-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lauren A Wise; Julie R Palmer; Bernard L Harlow; Donna Spiegelman; Elizabeth A Stewart; Lucile L Adams-Campbell; Lynn Rosenberg Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2004-06-24 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Kristen R Moore; Jennifer S Smith; Stephen R Cole; Dirk P Dittmer; Victor J Schoenbach; Donna D Baird Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Kristen R Moore; Stephen R Cole; Dirk P Dittmer; Victor J Schoenbach; Jennifer S Smith; Donna D Baird Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Kristen Upson; Quaker E Harmon; Shannon K Laughlin-Tommaso; David M Umbach; Donna D Baird Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Kristen R Moore; Jennifer S Smith; Stephen R Cole; Victor J Schoenbach; Katherine Schlusser; Charlotte A Gaydos; Donna D Baird Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2016-05-08 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Lisa M Abegglen; Tara M Harrison; Anneke Moresco; Jared S Fowles; Brigid V Troan; Wendy K Kiso; Dennis Schmitt; Amy M Boddy; Joshua D Schiffman Journal: Animals (Basel) Date: 2022-08-08 Impact factor: 3.231