4.3 Article

Timing of births and endometrial cancer risk in Swedish women

期刊

CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL
卷 20, 期 8, 页码 1441-1449

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10552-009-9370-7

关键词

Endometrial carcinoma; Parity; Registry; Reproductive factors

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [Z01 CP010182-05] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While a protective long-term effect of parity on endometrial cancer risk is well established, the impact of timing of births is not fully understood. We examined the relationship between endometrial cancer risk and reproductive characteristics in a population-based cohort of 2,674,465 Swedish women, 20-72 years of age. During follow-up from 1973 to 2004, 7,386 endometrial cancers were observed. Compared to uniparous women, nulliparous women had a significantly elevated endometrial cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22-1.42). Endometrial cancer risk decreased with increasing parity; compared to uniparous women, women with >= 4 births had a HR = 0.66 (95% CI, 0.59-0.74); p-trend <0.001. Among multiparous women, we observed no relationship of risk with age at first birth after adjustment for other reproductive factors. While we initially observed a decreased risk with later ages at last birth, this appeared to reflect a stronger relationship with time since last birth, with women with shorter times being at lowest risk. In models for multiparous women that included number of births, age at first and last birth, and time since last birth, age at last birth was not associated with endometrial cancer risk, while shorter time since last birth and increased parity were associated with statistically significantly reduced endometrial cancer risks. The HR was 3.95 (95% CI; 2.17-7.20; p-trend = <0.0001) for women with >= 25 years since a last birth compared to women having given birth within 4 years. Our findings support that clearance of initiated cells during delivery may be important in endometrial carcinogenesis.

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