4.7 Article

Differences in the risk of cervical cancer and human papillomavirus infection by education level

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 101, 期 5, 页码 865-870

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605224

关键词

cervical cancer; human papillomavirus; education; age at first sexual intercourse; age at first pregnancy

类别

资金

  1. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [35537]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer risk is associated with low education even in an unscreened population, but it is not clear whether human papillomavirus (HPV) infection follows the same pattern. METHODS: Two large multicentric studies (case-control studies of cervical cancer and HPV prevalence survey) including nearly 20 000 women. GP5+/GP6+ PCR was used to detect HPV. RESULTS: Education level was consistently associated with cervical cancer risk (odds ratio (OR) for 0 and 45 years vs 1-5 years 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.25-1.80 and 0.69, 95% CI: 0.57-0.82, respectively, P for trend <0.0001). In contrast, no association emerged between education level and HPV infection in either of the two IARC studies. A majority of the women studied had never had a Pap smear. The association between low education level and cervical cancer was most strongly attenuated by adjustment for age at first sexual intercourse and first pregnancy. Parity and screening history (but not lifetime number of sexual partners, husband's extramarital sexual relationships, and smoking) also seemed to be important confounding factors. CONCLUSION: The excess of cervical cancer found in women with a low socio-economic status seems, therefore, not to be explained by a concomitant excess of HPV prevalence, but rather by early events in a woman's sexually active life that may modify the cancer-causing potential of HPV infection. British Journal of Cancer (2009) 101, 865-870. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605224 www.bjcancer.com Published online 4 August 2009 (C) 2009 Cancer Research UK

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