4.2 Article

Impact of known risk factors on endometrial cancer burden in Chinese women

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION
卷 25, 期 4, 页码 329-334

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000178

关键词

case-control study; endometrial cancer; partial population-attributable risk; prevention; risk factors

类别

资金

  1. Shanghai Health Bureau of Key Disciplines and Specialties Foundation
  2. United States National Institute of Health [R01 CA92585]
  3. Fogarty International Clinical Research Scholars and Fellows Support Center at the Vanderbilt Institute for Global Health
  4. Fogarty International Center, the National Institute of Health [D43 TW008313]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to provide data on the impact of known risk factors on endometrial cancer burden. Using data on 1199 endometrial cancer cases and 1212 frequency matched controls from a population-based case-control study carried out in urban Shanghai, China from 1997 to 2003, multivariable adjusted odds ratios were obtained from unconditional logistic regression analyses. Partial population-attributable risks were calculated and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were estimated using a bootstrap method. An estimated 16.94% of endometrial cancer cases were attributed to overweight or obesity; 8.39% to meat intake; 5.45% to nonregular tea drinking; 5.23% to physical inactivity; and 1.77% to family history of endometrial, breast, or colorectal cancers. Overall, these risk factors accounted for 36.01% (95% confidence interval: 28.55-43.11%) of total endometrial cancer cases. Similar results were observed when analysis was restricted to postmenopausal women. Among modifiable lifestyle factors, overweight and obesity accounted for the largest proportion of endometrial cancer in the study population. Lifestyle alterations, such as maintenance of healthy weight, regular exercise, consumption of less meat, and tea drinking, could potentially reduce endometrial cancer by more than one-third.

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

4.2
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