4.3 Article

Hormone replacement therapy, reproductive history, and colorectal adenomas: Data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial (United states)

期刊

CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL
卷 16, 期 8, 页码 965-973

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10552-005-4500-3

关键词

adenoma; colorectal neoplasms; hormone replacement therapy; mass screening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Findings from some epidemiologic studies of colorectal cancer and adenoma suggest that the protective effect of post-menopausal hormone replacement therapy (HRT) may differ across categories of age and body mass index (BMI). We conducted an analysis of women participating in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial to investigate the relationship between HRT use and prevalent adenoma, both overall and across different population subgroups. Methods: Women aged 55-74 were randomized to screening by flexible sigmoidoscopy at ten PLCO screening centers between September 1993 and September 2001. We identified 1468 women with at least one left-sided adenoma and 19,203 without adenoma or colorectal cancer. Information about HRT and reproductive factors was obtained from a self-administered questionnaire. Results: Compared to never use of HRT, current use was associated with a decreased prevalence of left-sided adenoma (odds ratio (OR) 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-0.97). We found no evidence of dose-response with increasing duration of use for current or former users. The association with current HRT use was stronger among women aged 65+ (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.56-0.84), with a BMI < 30 (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.71-0.95) and who regularly use aspirin or ibuprofen (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.65-0.91). Other reproductive factors were not significantly associated with adenoma prevalence. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that current HRT use may protect against colorectal adenoma, and that this protective effect is short-lived following cessation of use.

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

4.3
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