Serena C Houghton1, Katherine W Reeves1, Susan E Hankinson1, Lori Crawford1, Dorothy Lane1, Jean Wactawski-Wende1, Cynthia A Thomson1, Judith K Ockene1, Susan R Sturgeon2. 1. Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA (SCH, KWR, SEH, LC, SRS); Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (SEH); Department of Preventive Medicine, Stony Brook University School of Medicine, New York, NY (DL); Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, NY (JWW); Health Promotion Sciences Division, College of Public Health and University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ (CAT); Division of Preventive and Behavioral Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA (JKO). 2. Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA (SCH, KWR, SEH, LC, SRS); Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (SEH); Department of Preventive Medicine, Stony Brook University School of Medicine, New York, NY (DL); Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, NY (JWW); Health Promotion Sciences Division, College of Public Health and University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ (CAT); Division of Preventive and Behavioral Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA (JKO). ssturgeon@schoolph.umass.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Case-control studies have reported an increased risk of ovarian cancer among talc users; however, the only cohort study to date found no association except for an increase in serous invasive ovarian cancers. The purpose of this analysis was to assess perineal powder use and risk of ovarian cancer prospectively in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study cohort. METHODS: Perineal powder use was assessed at baseline by self-report regarding application to genitals, sanitary napkins, or diaphragms and duration of use. The primary outcome was self-reported ovarian cancer centrally adjudicated by physicians. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to estimate risk, adjusting for covariates, including person-time until diagnosis of ovarian cancer (n = 429), death, loss to follow-up, or September 17, 2012. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Among 61576 postmenopausal women, followed for a mean of 12.4 years without a history of cancer or bilateral oophorectomy, 52.6% reported ever using perineal powder. Ever use of perineal powder (hazard ratio [HR]adj = 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.87 to 1.28) was not associated with risk of ovarian cancer compared with never use. Individually, ever use of powder on the genitals (HRadj = 1.12, 95% CI = 0.92 to 1.36), sanitary napkins (HRadj = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.20), or diaphragms (HRadj = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.68 to 1.23) was not associated with risk of ovarian cancer compared with never use, nor were there associations with increasing durations of use. Estimates did not differ when stratified by age or tubal ligation status. CONCLUSION: Based on our results, perineal powder use does not appear to influence ovarian cancer risk.
BACKGROUND: Case-control studies have reported an increased risk of ovarian cancer among talc users; however, the only cohort study to date found no association except for an increase in serous invasive ovarian cancers. The purpose of this analysis was to assess perineal powder use and risk of ovarian cancer prospectively in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study cohort. METHODS: Perineal powder use was assessed at baseline by self-report regarding application to genitals, sanitary napkins, or diaphragms and duration of use. The primary outcome was self-reported ovarian cancer centrally adjudicated by physicians. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to estimate risk, adjusting for covariates, including person-time until diagnosis of ovarian cancer (n = 429), death, loss to follow-up, or September 17, 2012. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Among 61576 postmenopausal women, followed for a mean of 12.4 years without a history of cancer or bilateral oophorectomy, 52.6% reported ever using perineal powder. Ever use of perineal powder (hazard ratio [HR]adj = 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.87 to 1.28) was not associated with risk of ovarian cancer compared with never use. Individually, ever use of powder on the genitals (HRadj = 1.12, 95% CI = 0.92 to 1.36), sanitary napkins (HRadj = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.20), or diaphragms (HRadj = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.68 to 1.23) was not associated with risk of ovarian cancer compared with never use, nor were there associations with increasing durations of use. Estimates did not differ when stratified by age or tubal ligation status. CONCLUSION: Based on our results, perineal powder use does not appear to influence ovarian cancer risk.
Authors: D M Gertig; D J Hunter; D W Cramer; G A Colditz; F E Speizer; W C Willett; S E Hankinson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: D W Cramer; R F Liberman; L Titus-Ernstoff; W R Welch; E R Greenberg; J A Baron; B L Harlow Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 1999-05-05 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Robert D Langer; Emily White; Cora E Lewis; Jane M Kotchen; Susan L Hendrix; Maurizio Trevisan Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.797
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: Nicole L Gonzalez; Katie M O'Brien; Aimee A D'Aloisio; Dale P Sandler; Clarice R Weinberg Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Katie M O'Brien; Shelley S Tworoger; Holly R Harris; Garnet L Anderson; Clarice R Weinberg; Britton Trabert; Andrew M Kaunitz; Aimee A D'Aloisio; Dale P Sandler; Nicolas Wentzensen Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Iwona M Gabriel; Allison F Vitonis; William R Welch; Linda Titus; Daniel W Cramer Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-08-27 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Sandra A McDonald; Yuwei Fan; William R Welch; Daniel W Cramer; John J Godleski Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2019-10-07 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Katie M O'Brien; Aimee A D'Aloisio; Min Shi; John D Murphy; Dale P Sandler; Clarice R Weinberg Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Xiaoyun Liang; Holly R Harris; Michael Hendryx; Aladdin H Shadyab; Lauren Hale; Yueyao Li; Tracy E Crane; Elizabeth M Cespedes Feliciano; Marcia L Stefanick; Juhua Luo Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2020-09-11
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