4.6 Article

Endometrial Cancer Risk Factors by 2 Main Histologic Subtypes The NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 177, Issue 2, Pages 142-151

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kws200

Keywords

endometrial cancer; endometrioid; histology; nonendometrioid; prospective study

Funding

  1. NIH, National Cancer Institute
  2. Medical Research Council [G0801056B] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

On the basis of clinical and pathologic criteria, endometrial carcinoma has been distinguished as Types I (mainly endometrioid) and II (nonendometrioid). Limited data suggest that these subtypes have different risk factor profiles. The authors prospectively evaluated risk factors for Types I (n 1,312) and II (n 138) incident endometrial carcinoma among 114,409 women in the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-AARP Diet and Health Study (19952006). For individual risk factors, relative risks were estimated with Cox regression by subtype, and P-heterogeneity was assessed in case-case comparisons with Type I as the referent. Stronger relations for Type I versus Type II tumors were seen for menopausal hormone therapy use (relative risk (RR) of 1.18 vs. 0.84; P-heterogeneity 0.01) and body mass index of epsilon 30 vs. 30 kg/m(2) (RR of 2.93 vs. 1.83; P-heterogeneity 0.001). Stronger relations for Type II versus Type I tumors were observed for being black versus white (RR of 2.18 vs. 0.66; P-heterogeneity 0.0004) and having a family history of breast cancer (RR of 1.93 vs. 0.80; P-heterogeneity 0.002). Other risk factor associations were similar by subtype. In conclusion, the authors noted different risk factor associations for Types I and II endometrial carcinomas, supporting the etiologic heterogeneity of these tumors. Because of the limited number of Type II cancers, additional evaluation of risk factors will benefit from consortial efforts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available