4.6 Article

High cumulative incidence of uterine leiomyoma in black and white women: Ultrasound evidence

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
Volume 188, Issue 1, Pages 100-107

Publisher

MOSBY, INC
DOI: 10.1067/mob.2003.99

Keywords

uterine leiomyoma; uterine fibroid tumors; ultrasonography

Funding

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES [Z01ES040013, Z01ES049013, Z01ES100490, ZIAES049013] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: Uterine leiomyoma, or fibroid tumors, are the leading indication for hysterectomy in the United States, but the proportion of women in whom fibroid tumors develop is not known. This study screened for fibroid tumors, independently of clinical symptoms, to estimate the age-specific proportion of black and white women in whom fibroid tumors develop. STUDY DESIGN: Randomly selected members of an urban health plan who were 35 to 49 years old participated (n = 1364 women). Medical records and self-report were used to assess fibroid status for those women who were no longer menstruating (most of whom had had hysterectomies). Premenopausal women were screened by,ultrasonography. We estimated the age-specific cumulative incidence of fibroid tumors for black and white women. RESULTS: Thirty-five percent of premenopausal women had a previous diagnosis of fibroid tumors. Fifty-one percent of the premenopausal women who had no previous diagnosis had ultrasound evidence of fibroid tumors. The estimated cumulative incidence of tumors by age 50 was >80% for black women and nearly 70% for white women. The difference between the age-specific cumulative incidence curves for black and white women was highly significant (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 2.5-3.4; P < .001). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that most black and white women in the United States develop uterine fibroid tumors before menopause and that uterine fibroid tumors develop in black women at earlier ages than in white 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