4.6 Article

Hormonal and reproductive factors and the risk of bladder cancer in women

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 163, Issue 3, Pages 236-244

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwj028

Keywords

bladder neoplasms; estrogens; female; hormones; menopause

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [T32 CA 09001-28, CA55075, CA87969] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Gender and cigarette smoking are among the most consistent predictors of bladder cancer risk. After adjustment for known risk factors, an excess risk remains for males, suggesting that other factors may be responsible for the gender differences. Given limited data on hormonal or reproductive factors and bladder cancer risk, the authors examined these factors among women in the US Nurses' Health Study cohort. During 26 years of follow-up (1976-2002), 336 incident cases of bladder cancer were diagnosed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate incidence rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals between hormonal and reproductive factors and bladder cancer risk. Postmenopausal women, compared with premenopausal women, were at increased risk (incidence rate ratio = 1.93, 95% confidence interval: 0.99, 3.78). For postmenopausal women, early age at menopause (<= 45 years) compared with late age at menopause (>= 50 years) was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of bladder cancer (incidence rate ratio = 1.63, 95% confidence interval: 1.20, 2.23). The association between age at menopause and bladder cancer risk was modified by cigarette smoking status (p for interaction = 0.01). The authors observed no significant associations of age at menarche, parity, age at first birth, and exogenous hormone use with bladder cancer risk. Findings suggest that menopausal status and age at menopause may play a role in modifying bladder cancer risk among women.

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