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 1 7, 2012. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Among 61 576 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]<inf>adj</inf> = 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 (HR<inf>adj</inf> = 1.12, 95% CI = 0.92 to 1.36), sanitary napkins (HR<inf>adj</inf> = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.20), or diaphragms (HR<inf>adj</inf> = 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.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Article number | 19 |
| Journal | Journal of the National Cancer Institute |
| Volume | 106 |
| Issue number | 9 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Sep 1 2014 |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Cancer Research
- Oncology
Cite this
Perineal powder use and risk of ovarian cancer. / Houghton, Serena C.; Reeves, Katherine W.; Hankinson, Susan E.; Crawford, Lori; Lane, Dorothy; Wactawski-Wende, Jean; Thomson, Cynthia; Ockene, Judith K.; Sturgeon, Susan R.
In: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 106, No. 9, 19, 01.09.2014.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Perineal powder use and risk of ovarian cancer
AU - Houghton, Serena C.
AU - Reeves, Katherine W.
AU - Hankinson, Susan E.
AU - Crawford, Lori
AU - Lane, Dorothy
AU - Wactawski-Wende, Jean
AU - Thomson, Cynthia
AU - Ockene, Judith K.
AU - Sturgeon, Susan R.
PY - 2014/9/1
Y1 - 2014/9/1
N2 - 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 1 7, 2012. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Among 61 576 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.
AB - 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 1 7, 2012. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Among 61 576 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84910006075&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84910006075&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/jnci/dju208
DO - 10.1093/jnci/dju208
M3 - Article
C2 - 25214560
AN - SCOPUS:84910006075
VL - 106
JO - Journal of the National Cancer Institute
JF - Journal of the National Cancer Institute
SN - 0027-8874
IS - 9
M1 - 19
ER -