4.7 Article

Postmenopausal hormone use and cutaneous melanoma risk: A French prospective cohort study

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 145, 期 7, 页码 1754-1767

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.32150

关键词

cohort studies; cutaneous melanoma; epidemiology; menopausal hormone therapy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cutaneous melanoma has been suspected to be influenced by female hormones. Several studies reported a positive association between menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) use and melanoma risk; however, previous findings were conflicting. We sought to explore the associations between MHT use and melanoma risk in a prospective cohort of women in France, where a particularly wide variety of MHT formulations are available. E3N is a prospective cohort of 98,995 French women aged 40-65 years in 1990. MHT use was assessed through biennial self-administered questionnaires. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for age and skin cancer risk factors. Over 1990-2008, 444 melanoma cases were ascertained among 75,523 postmenopausal women. Ever use of MHT was associated with a higher melanoma risk (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.35, 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 1.07-1.71). The association was strongest among past users (HR = 1.55, CI = 1.17-2.07, homogeneity for past vs. recent use: p = 0.11), and users of MHT containing norpregnane derivatives (HR = 1.59, CI = 1.11-2.27), although with no heterogeneity across types of MHT (p = 0.13). Among MHT users, the association was similar across durations of use. However, a higher risk was observed when treatment onset occurred shortly after menopause (<6 months: HR = 1.55, CI = 1.16-2.07 vs. >= 2 years). Associations between MHT use and melanoma risk were similar after adjustment for UV exposure, although MHT users were more likely to report sunscreen use than nonusers. Our data do not support a strong association between MHT use and melanoma risk. Further investigation is needed to explore potential effect modification by UV exposure on this relationship.

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

4.7
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