Association of Powder Use in the Genital Area With Risk of Ovarian Cancer.
Journal
JAMA
ISSN: 1538-3598
Titre abrégé: JAMA
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7501160
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 01 2020
07 01 2020
Historique:
entrez:
8
1
2020
pubmed:
8
1
2020
medline:
6
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The relationship between use of powder in the genital area and ovarian cancer is not established. Positive associations reported in case-control studies have not been confirmed in cohort studies. To estimate the association between use of powder in the genital area and ovarian cancer using prospective observational data. Data were pooled from 4 large, US-based cohorts: Nurses' Health Study (enrollment 1976; follow-up 1982-2016; n = 81 869), Nurses' Health Study II (enrollment 1989; follow-up 2013-2017; n = 61 261), Sister Study (enrollment 2003-2009; follow-up 2003-2017; n = 40 647), and Women's Health Initiative Observational Study (enrollment 1993-1998; follow-up 1993-2017; n = 73 267). Ever, long-term (≥20 years), and frequent (≥1/week) use of powder in the genital area. The primary analysis examined the association between ever use of powder in the genital area and self-reported incident ovarian cancer. Covariate-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. The pooled sample included 252 745 women (median age at baseline, 57 years) with 38% self-reporting use of powder in the genital area. Ten percent reported long-term use, and 22% reported frequent use. During a median of 11.2 years of follow-up (3.8 million person-years at risk), 2168 women developed ovarian cancer (58 cases/100 000 person-years). Ovarian cancer incidence was 61 cases/100 000 person-years among ever users and 55 cases/100 000 person-years among never users (estimated risk difference at age 70 years, 0.09% [95% CI, -0.02% to 0.19%]; estimated HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.99 to 1.17]). The estimated HR for frequent vs never use was 1.09 (95% CI, 0.97 to 1.23) and for long-term vs never use, the HR was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.25). Subgroup analyses were conducted for 10 variables; the tests for heterogeneity were not statistically significant for any of these comparisons. While the estimated HR for the association between ever use of powder in the genital area and ovarian cancer risk among women with a patent reproductive tract was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.26), the P value for interaction comparing women with vs without patent reproductive tracts was .15. In this analysis of pooled data from women in 4 US cohorts, there was not a statistically significant association between use of powder in the genital area and incident ovarian cancer. However, the study may have been underpowered to identify a small increase in risk.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31910280
pii: 2758452
doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.20079
pmc: PMC6990816
mid: NIHMS1550080
doi:
Substances chimiques
Powders
0
Talc
14807-96-6
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, N.I.H., Intramural
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
49-59Subventions
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : HHSN268201600008C
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : HHSN268201600002C
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P01 CA087969
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA067262
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UM1 CA176726
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U01 CA176726
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : K22 CA193860
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : HHSN268201600003C
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UM1 CA186107
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : HHSN268201600001C
Pays : United States
Organisme : Intramural NIH HHS
ID : Z01 ES044005
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIEHS NIH HHS
ID : Z01 ES044005
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : HHSN268201600004C
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Références
Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
pubmed: 3802833
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999 Sep 1;91(17):1459-67
pubmed: 10469746
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019 Feb 1;111(2):137-145
pubmed: 29860330
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Feb 2;92(3):249-52
pubmed: 10655442
Control Clin Trials. 1998 Feb;19(1):61-109
pubmed: 9492970
Epidemiology. 2018 Jan;29(1):41-49
pubmed: 28863045
Environ Health Perspect. 2017 Dec 20;125(12):127003
pubmed: 29373861
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Sep 10;106(9):
pubmed: 25214563
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016 Oct;25(10):1369-1370
pubmed: 27697794
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Nov;209(5):409-14
pubmed: 23583217
Int J Toxicol. 2015 Jul-Aug;34(1 Suppl):66S-129S
pubmed: 26227892
Epidemiology. 1999 Jan;10(1):37-48
pubmed: 9888278
J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1971 Mar;78(3):266-72
pubmed: 5558843
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017 Jan;26(1):104-109
pubmed: 27672055
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Sep 10;106(9):
pubmed: 25214560
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019 Feb 1;111(2):129-136
pubmed: 29790947
Epidemiology. 2016 Nov;27(6):797-802
pubmed: 27327020
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016 Oct;25(10):1411-1417
pubmed: 27197282
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019 Jan 1;111(1):60-68
pubmed: 29718305
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2013 Aug;6(8):811-21
pubmed: 23761272
Am J Public Health. 2016 Sep;106(9):1573-81
pubmed: 27459450
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013 Feb;22(2):275-85
pubmed: 23292084
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1995 Apr;21(2):218-29
pubmed: 7644709