ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There are few studies of the effects of nasal snuff and environmental factors on the risk of nasal cancer. This study aimed to investigate the impact of using nasal snuff and of other risk factors on the risk of nasal cancer in German men. METHODS: A population-based case-control study was conducted in the German Federal States of Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg. Tumor registries and ear, nose and throat departments provided access to patients born in 1926 or later. RESULTS: Telephone interviews were conducted with 427 cases (mean age 62.1 years) and 2.401 population-based controls (mean age 60.8 years). Ever-use of nasal snuff was associated with an odds ratio (OR) for nasal cancer of 1.45 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-2.38) in the total study population, whereas OR in smokers was 2.01 (95% CI 1.00-4.02) and in never smokers was 1.10 (95% CI 0.43-2.80). The OR in ever-smokers vs. never-smokers was 1.60 (95% CI 1.24-2.07), with an OR of 1.06 (95% CI 1.05-1.07) per pack-year smoked, and the risk was significantly decreased after quitting smoking. Exposure to hardwood dust for at least 1 year resulted in an OR of 2.33 (95% CI 1.40-3.91) in the total population, which was further increased in never-smokers (OR 4.89, 95% CI 1.92-12.49) in analyses stratified by smoking status. The OR for nasal cancer after exposure to organic solvents for at least 1 year was 1.53 (1.17-2.01). Ever-use of nasal sprays/nasal lavage for at least 1 month rendered an OR of 1.59 (1.04-2.44). The OR after use of insecticides in homes was 1.48 (95% CI 1.04-2.11). CONCLUSIONS: Smoking and exposure to hardwood dust were confirmed as risk factors for nasal carcinoma. There is evidence that exposure to organic solvents, and in-house use of insecticides could represent novel risk factors. Exposure to asbestos and use of nasal snuff were risk factors in smokers only.
Subject(s)
Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms/etiology , Nose Neoplasms/etiology , Paranasal Sinus Neoplasms/etiology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Case-Control Studies , Dust , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Insecticides/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Nose Neoplasms/epidemiology , Paranasal Sinus Neoplasms/epidemiology , Risk Factors , Smoking/adverse effects , Solvents/adverse effects , Tobacco, Smokeless/adverse effects , Wood/adverse effectsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer rates increase among women in many regions of the world. To explore whether menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) plays a role. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the literature and performed meta-analyses of cohort studies (C), case-control studies (CC), randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and cancer registry studies (CR) to analyse the impact of estrogen therapy (ET), estrogen/progestin therapy (EPT) and any hormone therapy (HT) on lung cancer risks. We explored associations between ever-use of therapies and risks, analysed annual changes of risk, and the impact of therapies on histological subtypes. We calculated summary odds ratios, relative risks, 95% confidence intervals (CI; fixed-effects model), and assessed heterogeneity across studies. Eighteen studies were eligible (9 CC, 4 C, 3 RCT, 2 CR). RESULTS: We found a significant increase of risk - 76.2% - in non-smoking women with adenocarcinoma (CI 1.072-2.898) reporting ever-use of HT. Estrogen plus progestin therapy does not change the risk; however, the pooled analysis of 2 RCTs points at an increased risk (RR 1.359; CI 1.031-1.791). Our further results should be interpreted with caution as significances were found in analyses only when smoking and non-smoking women, various hormone regimens, or histological subtypes, respectively, were pooled. CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated studies designed to more adequately delineate the role of MHT are necessary to substantiate whether use of MHT is a risk factor for this or other types of lung cancer.
Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma/chemically induced , Estrogen Replacement Therapy/adverse effects , Lung Neoplasms/chemically induced , Female , Humans , Menopause , Odds Ratio , Risk Factors , SmokingSubject(s)
Estrogen Replacement Therapy , Evidence-Based Medicine , Women's Health , Adult , Aged , Breast Neoplasms/etiology , Breast Neoplasms/prevention & control , Cardiovascular Diseases/etiology , Cardiovascular Diseases/prevention & control , Estrogen Replacement Therapy/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Risk Factors , Stroke/etiology , Stroke/prevention & control , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & controlABSTRACT
Knowledge about the impact of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) on the risk of ovarian cancer (OvC) is insufficient, and studies are inconsistent. Mortality from OvC ranks highest among cancer sites in female reproductive organs. We performed meta-analyses to assess the impact of specified types of MHT on the risk of OvC in cohort studies (CS), case-control studies (CCS), randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cancer registry studies (CRS). We used data published 1966-2006 on estrogen therapy (ET), estrogen/progestin therapy (EPT) or MHT (unspecified regimen) identified by a structured, computerized and manual literature search. We identified 42 studies (30CCS, 7CS, 1 RCT and 4 CRS) with 12 238 cases. The risk of OvC (ever-use, annual risk) is increased 1.28-fold by ET [confidence interval (CI) 1.18-1.40] and 1.11-fold by EPT (CI 1.02-1.21) with a suggestion of greater risks with ET. There appears to be no differential impact of any therapy on histological subtypes. Risks were greater in European than North American studies for both ET and EPT. In conclusion, ET as well as EPT, are risk factors for OvC. Given the widespread use of MHT, known benefits should be weighed against the increased risk of OvC, and more studies are warranted, particularly on factors with the greatest apparent risks.
Subject(s)
Hormone Replacement Therapy/adverse effects , Menopause , Ovarian Neoplasms/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
We conducted meta-analyses to assess the impact of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) on the risk of incident invasive breast cancer (BC) in cohort studies (CS), case-control studies (CCS) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published 1989-2004. We used published data providing information upon unopposed estrogen therapy (ET), estrogen-progestin therapy (EPT) or all MHT combined. Major outcomes were MHT-associated overall risk of BC and change of risk per year used. There is a linear increase of overall risk by midterm year of case ascertainment based upon data of all study types for MHT and to a larger extent for EPT, not for ET. Effects are larger in CS than in CCS. Meta-analyses stratified by <1992 versus > or =1992 as midterm year of case ascertainment indicate larger summary risks for the latter period for all MHT analysed, in particular for EPT. Annual increases in BC risk for EPT across study types are 0-9%, for ET 0-3%. In conclusion, there is evidence that relative risks for BC risks by MHT, in particular EPT, have been increasing in recent years. Given the widespread use of MHT, and often long duration, more detailed knowledge about differential BC risks of both estrogens and progestins are necessary to minimize BC risk in symptomatic women who consider MHT.
