4.6 Article

Oral contraceptive use is associated with prostate cancer: an ecological study

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 1, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000311

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Several recent studies have suggested that oestrogen exposure may increase the risk of prostate cancer (PCa). Objectives: To examine associations between PCa incidence and mortality and population-based use of oral contraceptives (OCs). It was hypothesised that OC by-products may cause environmental contamination, leading to an increased low level oestrogen exposure and therefore higher PCa incidence and mortality. Methods: The hypothesis was tested in an ecological study. Data from the International Agency for Research on Cancer were used to retrieve age-standardised rates of prostate cancer in 2007, and data from the United Nations World Contraceptive Use 2007 report were used to retrieve data on contraceptive use. A Pearson correlation and multivariable linear regression were used to associate the percentage of women using OCs, intrauterine devices, condoms or vaginal barriers to the age standardised prostate cancer incidence and mortality. These analyses were performed by individual nations and by continents worldwide. Results: OC use was significantly associated with prostate cancer incidence and mortality in the individual nations worldwide (r=0.61 and r=0.53, respectively; p<0.05 for all). PCa incidence was also associated with OC use in Europe (r=0.545, p<0.05) and by continent (r=0.522, p<0.05). All other forms of contraceptives (ie, intra-uterine devices, condoms or vaginal barriers) were not correlated with prostate cancer incidence or mortality. On multivariable analysis the correlation with OC was independent of a nation's wealth. Conclusion: A significant association between OCs and PCa has been shown. It is hypothesised that the OC effect may be mediated through environmental oestrogen levels; this novel concept is worth further investigation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据