Literature DB >> 33433939

Genital powder use and risk of uterine cancer: A pooled analysis of prospective studies.

Katie M O'Brien1, Shelley S Tworoger2,3, Holly R Harris4,5, Britton Trabert6, Clarice R Weinberg7, Renee T Fortner8, Aimee A D'Aloisio9, Andrew M Kaunitz10, Nicolas Wentzensen11, Dale P Sandler1.   

Abstract

When powder is applied to the genital area, it has the potential to reach internal reproductive organs and promote carcinogenesis by irritating and inflaming exposed tissues. Although many studies have considered the association between genital powder use and ovarian cancer risk, the relationship between genital powder use and uterine cancer is less well-studied. We pooled data from four large, prospective cohorts (the Nurses' Health Study, the Nurses' Health Study II, the Sister Study and the Women's Health Initiative - Observational Study). We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusting for prespecified confounders. In total, 209 185 women were included, with 37% reporting ever genital powder use. Over a mean 14.5 years of follow-up, 3272 invasive uterine cancers were diagnosed. There was no overall association between ever genital powder use and uterine cancer (HR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.94-1.09), with little difference observed for frequent (≥1 times/week) vs never use (HR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.95-1.16; P-for-trend = .46). Long-term use (>20 years; HR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.96-1.31; P-for-trend = 0.14) was associated with a small, but not statistically significant, increase in risk, compared to never use. There were not clear differences by uterine cancer histologic subtypes or across strata of relevant covariates, including race/ethnicity, follow-up time, menopausal status and body mass index. The results of this large, pooled analysis do not support a relationship between the use of genital powder and uterine cancer, although the positive associations observed for long-term use may merit further consideration.
© 2021 UICC. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Entities:  

Keywords:  endometrial cancer; genital powder; talc; uterine cancer

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33433939      PMCID: PMC8106926          DOI: 10.1002/ijc.33470

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.316


  29 in total

1.  Safety Assessment of Talc as Used in Cosmetics.

Authors:  Monice M Fiume; Ivan Boyer; Wilma F Bergfeld; Donald V Belsito; Ronald A Hill; Curtis D Klaassen; Daniel C Liebler; James G Marks; Ronald C Shank; Thomas J Slaga; Paul W Snyder; F Alan Andersen
Journal:  Int J Toxicol       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.032

Review 2.  Inflammation and endometrial cancer: a hypothesis.

Authors:  Francesmary Modugno; Roberta B Ness; Chu Chen; Noel S Weiss
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  Perineal use of talcum powder and endometrial cancer risk.

Authors:  Stalo Karageorgi; Margaret A Gates; Susan E Hankinson; Immaculata De Vivo
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-04-20       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 4.  Perineal Talc Use and Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Ross Penninkilampi; Guy D Eslick
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 4.822

5.  Body Powder and Ovarian Cancer Risk-What Is the Role of Recall Bias?

Authors:  Britton Trabert
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Association between Body Powder Use and Ovarian Cancer: The African American Cancer Epidemiology Study (AACES).

Authors:  Joellen M Schildkraut; Sarah E Abbott; Anthony J Alberg; Elisa V Bandera; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; Melissa L Bondy; Michele L Cote; Ellen Funkhouser; Lauren C Peres; Edward S Peters; Ann G Schwartz; Paul Terry; Sydnee Crankshaw; Fabian Camacho; Frances Wang; Patricia G Moorman
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2016-05-12       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Characteristics of women who use perineal powders.

Authors:  K A Rosenblatt; W A Mathews; J R Daling; L F Voigt; K Malone
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Genital powder use and risk of ovarian cancer: a pooled analysis of 8,525 cases and 9,859 controls.

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

9.  Hormone replacement therapy and endometrial cancer risk: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  D Grady; T Gebretsadik; K Kerlikowske; V Ernster; D Petitti
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  Hysterectomy-Corrected Uterine Corpus Cancer Incidence Trends and Differences in Relative Survival Reveal Racial Disparities and Rising Rates of Nonendometrioid Cancers.

Authors:  Megan A Clarke; Susan S Devesa; Summer V Harvey; Nicolas Wentzensen
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-05-22       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  1 in total

1.  The association between douching, genital talc use, and the risk of prevalent and incident cervical cancer.

Authors:  Katie M O'Brien; Clarice R Weinberg; Aimee A D'Aloisio; Kristen R Moore; Dale P Sandler
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-21       Impact factor: 4.996

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.