4.5 Article

Reproductive factors, oral contraceptive use, and human papillomavirus infection:: Pooled analysis of the IARC HPV prevalence surveys

Journal

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
Volume 15, Issue 11, Pages 2148-2153

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0556

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

High parity, early age at first full-term pregnancy (FTP), and long-term oral contraceptive (OC) use increase cervical cancer risk, but it is unclear whether these variables are also associated with increased risk of acquisition and persistence of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, the main cause of cervical cancer. Information on reproductive and menstrual characteristics and OC use were collected from 14 areas worldwide, among population-based, age-stratified random samples of women aged 15 years or older. HPV testing was done using PCR-based enzyme immunoassay. Unconditional logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratios (OR) of being HPV-positive according to reproductive and menstrual factors and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). When more than two groups were compared, floating CIs (FCI) were estimated. A total of 15,145 women (mean age, 40.9 years) were analyzed. Women with >= 5 FTPs (OR, 0.90; 95% FCI, 0.76-1.06) showed a similar risk of being HPV-positive compared with women with only one FTP (OR, 1.00; 95% FCI, 0.86-1.16). However, nulliparous women showed an OR of 1.40 (95% CI, 1.16-1.69) compared with parous women. Early age at first FTP was not significantly related to HPV positivity. HPV positivity was similar for women who reported >= 10 years of use of OCs (OR, 1.16; 95% FCI, 0.85-1.58) and never users of OCs (OR, 1.00; 95% FCI, 0.90-1.12). Our study suggests, therefore, that high parity, early age at first FTP, and long-term OC use are not associated with HPV prevalence, but rather these factors might be involved in the transition from HPV infection to neoplastic cervical lesions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available