Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Sep 10;106(9). pii: dju208. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju208. Print 2014 Sep.

Perineal powder use and risk of ovarian cancer.

Author information

1
Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA (SCH, KWR, SEH, LC, SRS); Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (SEH); Department of Preventive Medicine, Stony Brook University School of Medicine, New York, NY (DL); Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, NY (JWW); Health Promotion Sciences Division, College of Public Health and University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ (CAT); Division of Preventive and Behavioral Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA (JKO).
2
Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA (SCH, KWR, SEH, LC, SRS); Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (SEH); Department of Preventive Medicine, Stony Brook University School of Medicine, New York, NY (DL); Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, NY (JWW); Health Promotion Sciences Division, College of Public Health and University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ (CAT); Division of Preventive and Behavioral Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA (JKO). ssturgeon@schoolph.umass.edu.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Case-control studies have reported an increased risk of ovarian cancer among talc users; however, the only cohort study to date found no association except for an increase in serous invasive ovarian cancers. The purpose of this analysis was to assess perineal powder use and risk of ovarian cancer prospectively in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study cohort.

METHODS:

Perineal powder use was assessed at baseline by self-report regarding application to genitals, sanitary napkins, or diaphragms and duration of use. The primary outcome was self-reported ovarian cancer centrally adjudicated by physicians. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to estimate risk, adjusting for covariates, including person-time until diagnosis of ovarian cancer (n = 429), death, loss to follow-up, or September 17, 2012. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS:

Among 61576 postmenopausal women, followed for a mean of 12.4 years without a history of cancer or bilateral oophorectomy, 52.6% reported ever using perineal powder. Ever use of perineal powder (hazard ratio [HR]adj = 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.87 to 1.28) was not associated with risk of ovarian cancer compared with never use. Individually, ever use of powder on the genitals (HRadj = 1.12, 95% CI = 0.92 to 1.36), sanitary napkins (HRadj = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.20), or diaphragms (HRadj = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.68 to 1.23) was not associated with risk of ovarian cancer compared with never use, nor were there associations with increasing durations of use. Estimates did not differ when stratified by age or tubal ligation status.

CONCLUSION:

Based on our results, perineal powder use does not appear to influence ovarian cancer risk.

PMID:
25214560
PMCID:
PMC4200058
DOI:
10.1093/jnci/dju208
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Silverchair Information Systems Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center