Abstract
While human papillomavirus is the primary cause of cervical cancer, other factors may influence susceptibility and response to the virus. Candidates include douching and talcum powder applied in the genital area. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate confounder-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in the Sister Study (2003–2009), a US cohort of women aged 35–74. We considered pre-baseline (n = 523) and incident (n = 31) cervical cancers. Douching at ages 10–13 was positively associated with pre-baseline cervical cancer (HR 1.32, 95% CI 0.86–2.03), though the association was not statistically significant. We did not observe an association between adolescent talc use and pre-baseline cervical cancer (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76–1.19). Douching in the year before enrollment was positively associated with incident cervical cancer (HR 2.56, 95% CI 1.10–5.99). The association between recent genital talc use and incident cervical cancer was positive, but not statistically significant (HR 1.79, 95% CI 0.78–4.11). The observed positive association between douching and incident cervical cancer is consistent with previous retrospective case–control studies. In the first study to examine genital talc use and cervical cancer, we did not see evidence of an association.
Subject terms: Cancer epidemiology, Risk factors, Cervical cancer
Introduction
Cervical cancer is caused by human papillomavirus (HPV)1 and is largely preventable via inoculation2–4. Vaccines have been tied to substantial reductions in genital warts and other HPV-linked cervical abnormalities, though their impact on cervical cancer is not yet realized5. As of 2018, cervical cancer was the fourth most common cancer in women worldwide, representing 7% of all new cancers6.
HPV is a necessary but not sufficient cause of cervical cancer7,8, suggesting that other risk factors influence individuals’ susceptibility and response to the virus9,10. Identifying factors that determine whether cancerous lesions develop in HPV-exposed individuals may improve our understanding of the etiology of cervical cancer and other related conditions, and may lead to strategies for preventing cervical cancer in under-vaccinated regions.
Vaginal douching is one possible contributing factor. Women who douche may choose from a range of possible solutions, including water, homemade vinegar mixtures, or manufactured, chemically-scented products. Some of the solutions contain potentially carcinogenic chemicals, such as phthalates11 and volatile organic compounds12. Douching may also impact cancer risk by physically pushing pathogens up the reproductive tract13 or inhibiting immune response via alterations to the vaginal microbiome14,15.
In previous studies, douching has been positively associated with a range of outcomes, including bacterial vaginosis, increased susceptibility to sexually transmitted infections (STIs), infertility, and ectopic pregnancy13,15–17. Observational studies have documented associations between douching and HPV18–20, cervical lesions21, or progression of cervical lesions from low to high grade22. Additionally, several retrospective case–control studies have reported positive associations between douching and cervical cancer23–28. We did not identify any prospective studies of the relationship between douching and cervical cancer. Such studies are needed to rule out recall bias, which can result when individuals affected by a disease over-report their exposure to an agent of concern.
Genital talc use could also plausibly contribute to cervical cancer risk. Talc applied to underwear, sanitary napkins, diaphragms, or directly to the perineal region can enter the vagina and travel up the reproductive tract29. Talc particles may act as irritants, inciting an inflammatory response and potentially affecting individuals’ susceptibility and response to HPV infection30. Additional or more severe adverse effects could occur if the talc contained asbestos, a known carcinogen sometimes mined in the same locations as talc31–33. The epidemiologic literature supports a possible positive association between genital talc use and ovarian cancer34,35, and to a lesser extent uterine cancer36–40. To our knowledge, no studies have examined the relationship between genital talc use and cervical cancer. Here, we investigated the association of douching and genital talc use with cervical cancer in a large U.S.-based cohort.
Methods
Study sample
The Sister Study was designed to investigate the genetic and environmental causes of breast cancer and other chronic diseases in females from the United States41. Participants were 35–74 years of age at baseline (2003–2009), and had at least one sister with a history of breast cancer, but had never had breast cancer themselves.
Details on personal health, including any previous cancer diagnoses, were collected at baseline. We also collected data on demographic factors, health-related behaviors, and environmental and chemical exposures, including personal care product use. In-home examiners collected biologic samples and made anthropometric measures. Participants are being followed prospectively and are asked to report any major health changes, including cancer diagnoses, on annual follow-up surveys. More detailed health and exposure data are collected every 2–3 years, with response rates remaining around 90%.
The initial cohort included 50,884 women. We excluded women who were missing information on talc use and douching (n = 1365). For analysis of pre-baseline cervical cancer, we excluded women who withdrew (n = 3) or had uncertain cervical cancer diagnosis information (n = 8), leaving us with 49,508 women. An additional 523 women with pre-baseline cervical cancer were excluded from all analyses of incident cervical cancer (n = 48,985; data release 7.0; follow-up through 9/2017).
For the main analyses, we did not exclude person-time for women who had hysterectomies, as our questionnaires did not allow us to determine whether the cervix was also removed. However, we did conduct sensitivity analyses where we censored women at their age of hysterectomy. All participants provided written informed consent. The Sister Study was reviewed and approved by the institutional review boards of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the Copernicus group (IRB00001313).
Exposure and outcome assessment
We asked participants to report douching and talc use at two time points: during early adolescence (ages 10–13) and in the 12 months prior to enrollment. At ages 10–13, participants reported whether they did not, sometimes, or frequently douched or used talc. For use in 12 months prior to enrollment, participants reported whether they douched or used talc: never, < 1 per month, 1–3 times per month, 1–5 times per week, or > 5 times per week. At both time points, genital talc use was specifically defined as the application of “talcum powder to a sanitary napkin, underwear, diaphragm, cervical cap, or directly to your vaginal area”. Though we include mostly time-specific analyses, we considered “ever” use to be use at ages 10–13 or in the year prior to enrollment.
We evaluated the risk of self-reported pre-baseline and incident cervical cancers separately. We did not systematically attempt to medically-confirm pre-baseline cases as they may have occurred many years prior to baseline, but incident cases were asked to provide medical documentation. Participants with medical documentation of a cervical cancer diagnosis or who had cervical cancer as a primary or underlying cause of death in National Death Index records were considered confirmed cases.
Covariates of interest
We identified potential confounders using a direct acyclic graph framework42, selecting covariates that we hypothesized could be causally related to cervical cancer and talc or douching. When evaluating genital talc use or douching at ages 10–13, we considered weight relative to peers at age 10 (lighter, same weight, heavier), race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black/African-American, Hispanic/Latina, other), childhood socioeconomic status (well off, middle income, low income, poor) and age at menarche (< 12, 12–13, > 13). In further-adjusted models, we additionally considered regular drinking before age 14 (yes/ no), smoking before age 14 (yes/no), and in utero diethylstilbestrol exposure (definitely/probably versus probably not/definitely not).
When estimating the potential effects of using douche or genital talc ever or in the year prior to enrollment, we adjusted for the following covariates, assessed at enrollment: race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White/other), education (did/did not complete college), body mass index (BMI; continuous), and age at menarche (continuous). In further adjusted models we also considered marital status (ever/never married), age at first pregnancy (nulligravid, < 20, ≥ 20), ever induced abortion (yes/no), hormonal birth control use (< 2 years, ≥ 2 years), alcohol use (current/non-current drinker), smoking status (ever/never), ever diagnosed with genital warts, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), or non-HPV STIs (gonorrhea, herpes, or chlamydia; yes/no). We did not have data on HPV infection or vaccination status, history of abnormal Pap smear or previous cervical treatments, or details about sexual history (e.g., age at sexual debut or number of sexual partners).
Statistical analysis
We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between history of douching or genital talc use and cervical cancer. Because the proportion of missing data was low (< 1%), we limited analyses to those with complete data for all covariates. We estimated variance using robust estimators to account for within-family clustering. We used the Breslow method43 to estimate the cumulative risk of cervical cancer and covariate-adjusted risk differences.
When assessing the association between douching or genital talc use and pre-baseline cervical cancer, we only considered use at ages 10–13 to ensure that exposure occurred prior to diagnosis. We started the time scale at age 13 and followed women until age at cervical cancer diagnosis, censoring at age at enrollment. Our use of retrospective data to reconstruct each woman’s pre-enrollment experience requires an assumption that a woman’s cervical cancer status did not influence her participation in the Sister Study.
We estimated the effects of ever use, frequency of use, and combined use. When examining frequency, we tested for trends by calculating p-values for the association between cervical cancer and an ordinal form of the exposure variable. For this and all other analyses, we tested the proportional hazards assumption by conducting a Wald test of the exposure-by-age interaction term.
We additionally examined whether the associations between pre-baseline cervical cancer and adolescent douching or genital talc use may be modified by certain covariates, including the following: race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White versus other), follow-up time (≤ 20 years versus > 20 years), self-reported average BMI ages 30–39 (< 25 kg/m2 versus ≥ 25 kg/m2), history of any STI (yes versus no previous diagnosis of genital warts, gonorrhea, herpes, chlamydia, or PID), age at first pregnancy (nulligravid, age < 20, or age ≥ 20), and childhood socioeconomic status (well-off/middle income or low income/poor).
For our prospective analysis of genital talc use, douching and risk of incident cervical cancer, we started the age-time scale at age of study enrollment, censoring women at death, loss to follow-up, or end of follow-up. This analysis is statistically independent from the analysis of pre-baseline cervical cancer. We assessed douching and genital talc use ever and use in the year preceding enrollment, but did not examine adolescent use alone due to the rarity of this exposure and the small number of incident cases. Similarly, we did not consider analyses restricted to medically-confirmed incident cases or frequency of use.
To examine the potential impact of cervical cancer status misclassification, we conducted bias analyses where we selected a random sample of either 40% or 20% of the unconfirmed cases to be re-coded as non-events. All pre-baseline cases were considered unconfirmed. We conducted such analyses for the following associations: (1) douching ages 10–13 and pre-baseline cervical cancer; (2) genital talc use ages 10–13 and pre-baseline cervical cancer; (3) douching in the year before enrollment and incident cervical cancer; and (4) genital talc use in the year before enrollment and incident cervical cancer. This re-sampling and re-analysis process was repeated 20 times for each association of interest, then summarized using imputation software (PROC MIANALYZE; SAS 9.4). All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This analysis made use of data collected previously as part of the Sister Study and is covered by the ethics review conducted by the Institutional Review Board of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health and the Copernicus Group Institutional Review Board (IRB00001313). Data access was approved by Dr. Dale Sandler, Principal Investigator of the Sister Study. All participants provided written informed consent.
Consent for publication
All participants signed an informed consent term for data publication.
Results
After excluding participants with missing covariates, our main analysis included 49,302 women, 523 of whom reported a cervical cancer diagnosis prior to enrollment. Forty-one women self-reported incident cervical cancer. Twenty-six of those provided medical documentation, of which 16 were confirmed (positive predictive value = 62%). Fifteen others who did not provide documentation were assumed to be true cases, including one confirmed via the National Death Index. As such, there were 31 incident cervical cancer cases, including 17 medically-confirmed. The 10 falsely-reported cases were re-assigned to be non-cases; 6 had other cancers (5 endometrial/uterine, 1 in situ vulva and vaginal) and 4 had non-cancerous cervical conditions (3 dysplasia, 1 high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion).
Compared to non-cases, women with pre-baseline cervical cancer tended to be less educated (Table 1; 39% with at least a college degree, versus 51% of non-cases), more likely to have had an abortion (21% versus 15%), more likely to be ever smokers (65% versus 44%), and more likely to have been diagnosed with genital warts, an STI, or PID (16%, 17%, 7%, respectively, in pre-baseline cases, versus 6%, 12% and 4% in non-cases).
Table 1.
Covariate distributions according to cervical cancer diagnosis status among 49,508 women participating in the Sister Study cohort (2003–2009) [Excluded if: withdrawn from study (n = 3), cervical cancer status unknown (n = 3), age at diagnosis unknown (n = 4 cases), diagnosed before age 13 (n = 1) or did not fill out questionnaire on use of genital talc or douching products (n = 1365)].
| Non-cases (n = 48,954) |
Pre-baseline cases (n = 523) | Incident cases (n = 31) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age at Baseline (years); mean (sd) | 55.7 (9.0) | 55.6 (8.5) | 54.0 (8.8) |
| Baseline BMI (kg/m2); mean (sd) | 27.8 (6.2) | 28.4 (7.2) | 28.3 (6.7) |
| BMI ages 30–39 (kg/m2); mean (sd) | 23.3 (4.0) | 23.1 (3.7) | 23.6 (4.3) |
| Age at menarche (years); mean (sd) | 12.6 (1.5) | 12.5 (1.6) | 13.2 (1.2) |
| Age at diagnosis (years); mean (sd) | 34.0 (9.2) | 59.1 (9.1) | |
| Race; N (%) | |||
| Non-Hispanic White | 41,177 (84) | 447 (85) | 26 (84) |
| Non-Hispanic Black/African-American | 4140 (8) | 30 (6) | 5 (16) |
| Hispanic/Latina | 2361 (5) | 17 (3) | 0 (0) |
| Other | 1264 (3) | 29 (6) | 0 (0) |
| Childhood socioeconomic statusa; N (%) | |||
| Well off | 3107 (6) | 31 (6) | 2 (6) |
| Middle income | 29,175 (60) | 288 (55) | 20 (65) |
| Low income | 12,682 (26) | 151 (29) | 6 (19) |
| Poor | 3873 (8) | 53 (10) | 3 (10) |
| Education; N (%) | |||
| High school or less | 7542 (15) | 91 (17) | 5 (16) |
| Some college | 16,464 (34) | 226 (43) | 11 (35) |
| College graduate | 13,211 (27) | 110 (21) | 8 (26) |
| Graduate degree | 11,728 (24) | 96 (18) | 7 (23) |
| Marital status; N (%) | |||
| Never married | 2624 (5) | 31 (6) | 3 (10) |
| Married/living as married | 36,691 (75) | 362 (69) | 20 (65) |
| Divorced/widowed/separated | 9628 (20) | 130 (25) | 9 (26) |
| Pap smear in the year prior to enrollment; N (%) | 37,427 (77) | 398 (76) | 23 (74) |
| Age at menarche; N (%) | |||
| < 12 | 9992 (20) | 132 (25) | 4 (13) |
| 12–13 | 27,487 (56) | 269 (51) | 16 (52) |
| ≥ 14 | 11,432 (23) | 122 (23) | 11 (35) |
| Parity; N (%) | |||
| Nulliparous | 8867 (18) | 84 (16) | 3 (10) |
| 1 child | 7047 (14) | 94 (18) | 2 (6) |
| 2 children | 18,011 (37) | 185 (35) | 14 (45) |
| > 2 children | 14,999 (31) | 159 (30) | 12 (39) |
| Age at first pregnancy; N (%) | |||
| Nulligravid | 6145 (13) | 54 (10) | 1 (3) |
| < 20 | 9180 (19) | 157 (30) | 9 (29) |
| 20–24 | 17,049 (35) | 176 (34) | 13 (42) |
| 25–29 | 10,559 (22) | 86 (16) | 6 (19) |
| ≥ 30 | 5932 (12) | 49 (9) | 2 (6) |
| Induced abortion | 7533 (15) | 107 (21) | 10 (32) |
| Duration of hormonal birth control use; N (%) | |||
| Never user | 7431 (15) | 68 (13) | 2 (6) |
| 0–< 2 years | 7446 (15) | 73 (14) | 8 (26) |
| 2–< 10 years | 20,926 (43) | 238 (46) | 12 (39) |
| ≥ 10 years | 13,102 (27) | 144 (28) | 9 (29) |
| Alcohol use; N (%) | |||
| Never or former drinker | 9,320 (19) | 90 (17) | 4 (13) |
| Current drinker, < 1 drink/day | 32,999 (67) | 348 (67) | 22 (71) |
| Current drinker, ≥ 1 drink/day | 6616 (14) | 85 (16) | 5 (16) |
| Drinking regularly ≤ age 13 | 1988 (4) | 32 (6) | 5 (16) |
| Smoking; N (%) | |||
| Never | 27,575 (56) | 182 (35) | 10 (32) |
| Former | 17,449 (36) | 241 (46) | 16 (52) |
| Current | 3917 (8) | 100 (19) | 5 (16) |
| Started smoking ≤ age 13 | 1443 (3) | 45 (9) | 5 (16) |
| Weight relative to peers, age 10; N (%) | |||
| Lighter | 17,136 (35) | 183 (35) | 10 (32) |
| Same weight | 22,914 (47) | 226 (43) | 13 (42) |
| Heavier | 8873 (18) | 114 (22) | 8 (26) |
| Ever diagnosed with genital warts; N (%) | 2863 (6) | 82 (16) | 2 (6) |
| Age at diagnosis; mean (sd) | 28.9 (9.6) | 29.4 (10.3) | 42.0 (9.9) |
| Ever diagnosed with an STIb; N (%) | 5651 (12) | 88 (17) | 5 (16) |
| Age at diagnosis; mean (sd) | 29.2 (9.9) | 29.5 (11.7) | 29.2 (8.8) |
| Ever had PID; N (%) | 1742 (4) | 39 (7) | 1 (3) |
| Age at diagnosis; mean (sd) | 27.8 (8.0) | 27.9 (8.6) | 31.0 (0) |
| Postmenopausal; N (%) | 32,588 (67) | 352 (67) | 20 (65) |
| Hysterectomy; N (%) | 15,282 (31) | 348 (67) | 1 (3) |
| Oophorectomy; N (%) | 8842 (18) | 126 (24) | 2 (6) |
| Exposed to diethylstilbestrol in uteroc; N (%) | 1115 (2) | 32 (6) | 0 (0) |
| Family history of cervical cancerd; N (%) | 1854 (4) | 47 (9) | 3 (10) |
BMI body mass index, PID pelvic inflammatory disease.
Missing values: BMI (15 non-cases), BMI ages 30–39 (399 non-cases, 2 pre-baseline cases, 1 incident case), age at menarche (43 non-cases), race/ethnicity (12 non-cases), childhood socioeconomic status (117 non-cases), education (9 non-cases), marital status (11 non-cases), Pap smear in the year prior to enrollment (37 non-cases, 2 pre-baseline cases), parity (30 non-cases, 1 pre-baseline case), age at first pregnancy (89 non-cases, 1 pre-baseline case), induced abortion (30 non-cases), duration of hormonal contraceptive use (49 non-cases), alcohol use (19 non-cases), started drinking alcohol regularly, age 13 (16 non-cases), smoking status (13 non-cases), started smoking ≤ age 13 (16 non-cases), weight relative to peers (31 non-cases), ever had genital warts (34 non-cases, 2 pre-baseline cases), ever had an STI (119 non-cases, 1 pre-baseline case), ever had PID (77 non-cases, 1 pre-baseline case), hysterectomy (23 non-cases), oophorectomy (75 non-cases, 2 pre-baseline cases).
aDefined as family’s income level during the majority of time growing up.
bSTI = sexually transmitted infection, here defined as self-reported gonorrhea, herpes, chlamydia.
cIf responded that mother “definitely” or “probably” took diethylstilbestrol; all others assumed to be unexposed.
dHad at least one first degree relative with cervical cancer (sister, mother, daughter).
The most striking differences between incident cases and either pre-baseline cases or non-cases were the proportion of Black/African-American women (16% of incident cases, 6% of pre-baseline cases, 8% of non-cases), nulligravid women (3% of incident cases, 10% of pre-baseline cases, 13% of non-cases) and women who had had an induced abortion (32% of incident cases, 21% of pre-baseline cases, 15% of non-cases).
Three percent of women reported douching in early adolescence, and 19% reported using genital talc at that time. In the year prior to enrollment, 14% douched and 15% used genital talc. Overall, 16% had ever douched and 28% had ever used genital talc.
Compared to those who neither douched nor used genital talc, women who douched were younger, had higher BMIs, were more likely to be Black/African-American, and were more likely to have had an induced abortion, smoked, or had an STI (Supplementary Tables 1 and 2). Women who douched or used genital talc had, on average, younger ages at menarche, compared to non-users. Genital talc users were more likely to be Black/African-American than non-users.
The estimated cumulative risk of developing cervical cancer by age 70 was 1.2%. For analyses of douching or genital talc use at ages 10–13 and pre-baseline cervical cancer, we included a mean of 42.5 years of follow-up (range 3.2–63.5). For incident cervical cancer, we followed women for a mean of 9.6 years (range 0.1–13.9).
In fully-adjusted models, we observed a positive but not statistically significant association between douching at ages 10–13 and pre-baseline cervical cancer (Table 2; HR 1.32, 95% CI 0.86–2.03), with a corresponding estimated adjusted risk difference of 0.36% (95% CI − 0.28% to 0.99%) at age 60. The effect estimates from the fully-adjusted models were attenuated compared to the more minimally-adjusted models, suggesting that there was some confounding by regular drinking before age 14, smoking before age 14, or in utero diethylstilbestrol exposure. When we censored women at age of hysterectomy, the effect estimates for douching were slightly stronger than those estimated in the main analysis, though still not statistically significant (e.g., ever versus never HR 1.49, 95% CI 0.97–2.29; Supplementary Table 3).
Table 2.
Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations between douching and genital talc use at ages 10–13 and cervical cancers diagnosed prior to enrollment [n = 49,302 (Participants with complete confounder information)].
| Person-time at risk (years)a | Non-cases; N(%) N = 48,779b |
Cervical cancer cases, N(%) N = 523b |
Age-adjusted hazard ratio (95% CI) |
Adjusted hazard ratioc (95% CI) |
Fully adjusted hazard ratioc,d (95% CI) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Douching, ages 10–13 | ||||||
| Ever use | ||||||
| No | 2,003,222 | 46,552 (97) | 496 (96) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 60,934 | 1525 (3) | 22 (4) | 1.40 (0.91, 2.14) | 1.45 (0.94, 2.22) | 1.32 (0.86, 2.03) |
| Frequency of use | ||||||
| None | 2,003,222 | 46,552 (97) | 496 (96) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Sometimes | 55,036 | 1378 (3) | 19 (4) | 1.34 (0.84, 2.11) | 1.38 (0.87, 2.18) | 1.26 (0.80, 2.00) |
| Frequently | 5898 | 147 (0) | 3 (1) | 1.99 (0.64, 6.24) | 2.16 (0.68, 6.82) | 1.88 (0.59, 5.95) |
| p-trend = 0.10 | p-trend = 0.07 | p-trend = 0.16 | ||||
| Genital talc use, ages 10–13 | ||||||
| Ever use | ||||||
| No | 1,580,656 | 36,905 (80) | 399 (81) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 393,069 | 9,131 (20) | 96 (19) | 0.97 (0.77, 1.21) | 0.97 (0.77, 1.21) | 0.95 (0.76, 1.19) |
| Frequency of use | ||||||
| None | 1,580,656 | 36,905 (80) | 399 (81) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Sometimes | 332,832 | 7,751 (17) | 81 (16) | 0.96 (0.76, 1.22) | 0.96 (0.75, 1.22) | 0.94 (0.74, 1.20) |
| Frequently | 60,237 | 1,380 (3) | 15 (3) | 1.00 (0.59, 1.67) | 1.00 (0.59, 1.69) | 0.98 (0.58, 1.66) |
| p-trend = 0.82 | p-trend = 0.81 | p-trend = 0.71 | ||||
| Combined ever use, ages 10–13 | ||||||
| Neither | 1,543,967 | 36,006 (79) | 389 (79) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Both | 27,891 | 688 (2) | 8 (2) | 1.10 (0.55, 2.22) | 1.15 (0.57, 2.31) | 1.04 (0.52, 2.10) |
| Talc/no douching | 356,534 | 8,238 (18) | 87 (18) | 0.97 (0.77, 1.23) | 0.97 (0.76, 1.22) | 0.95 (0.75, 1.21) |
| Douching/no talc | 21,739 | 552 (1) | 9 (2) | 1.56 (0.81, 3.03) | 1.62 (0.83, 3.16) | 1.41 (0.72, 2.75) |
Missing: douching (n = 702 non-cases, 5 cases), genital talc use (n = 2,743 non-cases, 28 cases), both (n = 3,295 non-cases, 30 cases).
aParticipants with complete confounder information.
bWith age as the primary time scale, adjusting for weight relative to peers at age 10 (ordinal), race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black/African-American, Hispanic/Latina, or other), childhood socioeconomic status (well off, middle income, low income, poor), and age at menarche (< 12, 12–13 ≥ 14).
cAdditionally adjusted for in utero diethylstilbestrol exposure (yes or no), regular drinking before age 14 (yes/no), and smoking before age 14 (yes/no).
The association between genital talc use and pre-baseline cervical cancer was null (Table 2; HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76–1.19). Adjustment made minimal difference. Similarly, censoring women at their age of hysterectomy did not modify estimates (Supplementary Table 3). There was no evidence of a combined effect of douching and genital talc use on cervical cancer (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.52–2.10).
We observed a violation of the proportional hazards assumption when assessing the relationship between adolescent douching and pre-baseline cervical cancer (p < 0.001). When we stratified by follow-up time, we observed a positive association during the first 20 years (Table 3; HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.07–2.87), but not after (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.29–1.76, p-for-heterogeneity = 0.09). For the parallel assessment of adolescent genital talc use (p-for-proportional-hazards = 0.26), we saw a similar pattern (HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.89–1.59 for the first 20 years versus HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.48–1.01 for follow-up years ≥ 20, p-for-heterogeneity = 0.03). We did not observe heterogeneity in the estimated effects of douching or genital talc use by strata of race/ethnicity, BMI ages 30–39, STI status, age at first pregnancy, or childhood SES.
Table 3.
Covariate-stratified hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations between douching and genital talc use at ages 10–13, and cervical cancer diagnosed prior to enrollment [n = 49,302 (Participants with complete confounder information)].
| Non-cases N = 48,779; N (%) |
Cervical cancer cases N = 523a; N (%) |
Douching adjusted hazard ratiob (95% CI) |
Genital talc use adjusted hazard ratiob (95% CI) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race | ||||
| Non-Hispanic White | 41,069 (84) | 447 (15) | 1.32 (0.80, 2.19) | 0.87 (0.67, 1.13) |
| Other | 7,710 (16) | 76 (85) | 1.17 (0.51, 2.66) | 1.23 (0.75, 2.02) |
| p-for-heterogeneity | 0.81 | 0.22 | ||
| Follow-up time (starting age 13) | ||||
| ≤ 20 years | 0 (0) | 275 (53) | 1.75 (1.07, 2.87) | 1.19 (0.89, 1.59) |
| > 20 years | 48,779 (100) | 248 (47) | 0.72 (0.29, 1.76) | 0.70 (0.48, 1.01) |
| p-for-heterogeneity | 0.09 | 0.03 | ||
| Body mass index at ages 30–39 | ||||
| < 30 kg/m2 | 37,981 (78) | 420 (81) | 1.25 (0.73, 2.12) | 0.87 (0.66, 1.14) |
| ≥ 30 kg/m2 | 10,420 (22) | 101 (19) | 1.55 (0.74, 3.26) | 1.27 (0.82, 1.96) |
| p-for-heterogeneity | 0.67 | 0.18 | ||
| STI statusc | ||||
| None | 39,995 (82) | 343 (66) | 1.26 (0.72, 2.19) | 0.86 (0.65, 1.14) |
| Any | 8,780 (18) | 180 (34) | 1.27 (0.65, 2.51) | 1.12 (0.77, 1.64) |
| p-for-heterogeneity | 0.90 | 0.15 | ||
| Age at first pregnancy | ||||
| Nulligravid | 6,107 (13) | 54 (10) | 1.31 (0.29, 5.87) | 1.16 (0.60, 2.27) |
| Gravid, < 20 | 9,138 (19) | 157 (30) | 1.04 (0.50, 2.17) | 1.23 (0.84, 1.80) |
| Gravid, ≥ 20 | 33,448 (69) | 311 (60) | 1.50 (0.85, 2.65) | 0.78 (0.57, 1.07) |
| p-for-heterogeneity | 0.76 | 0.15 | ||
| Childhood SES | ||||
| Well off or middle income | 32,253 (66) | 319 (61) | 1.07 (0.58, 1.95) | 0.98 (0.74, 1.31) |
| Low income or poor | 16,526 (34) | 204 (39) | 1.73 (0.93, 3.22) | 0.90 (0.61, 1.29) |
| p-for-heterogeneity | 0.27 | 0.69 | ||
STI sexually transmitted infection, SES socioeconomic status.
Missing: douching (n = 702 non-cases, 5 cases), genital talc use (n = 2,743 non-cases, 28 cases), both (n = 3,295 non-cases, 30 cases), body mass index ages 30–39 (378 non-cases, 2 cases), STI status (4 non-cases), age at first pregnancy (86 non-cases, 1 case).
aParticipants with complete confounder information.
bWith age as the primary time scale, starting everyone at age 13 and censoring at age at baseline. Adjusted for weight relative to peers at age 10 (ordinal), age at menarche (< 12, 12–13, ≥ 14), race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black/African-American, Hispanic/Latina, or other), childhood socioeconomic status (well off, middle income, low income, poor), regular drinking before age 14 (yes/no), smoking before age 14 (yes/no), and in utero diethylstilbestrol exposure (yes or no). If covariate is stratified on, it is not included in the model.
cAny sexually transmitted infection, including self-reported genital warts, gonorrhea, herpes, chlamydia, or pelvic inflammatory disease.
Ever douching (Table 4; HR 2.45, 95% CI 1.06–5.69) and douching in the year before enrollment (HR 2.56, 95% CI 1.10–5.99) were both positively associated with incident cervical cancer in fully-adjusted models. Again, the associations between douching and cervical cancer were stronger when we excluded post-hysterectomy person-time (Supplementary Table 4). The observed associations between genital talc use and cervical cancer were slightly positive, but imprecise and not statistically significant (HR 1.38, 95% CI 0.66–2.86 for ever use and HR 1.79, 95% CI 0.78–4.11 for use in year before enrollment).
Table 4.
Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between douching and genital talc use and incident cervical cancer (n = 48,509).
| Person-time (years)a | Non-cases; N(%) N = 48,478b | Incident cervical cancer cases, N(%) N = 31b | Age-adjusted hazard ratio (95% CI) | Adjusted hazard ratioc (95% CI) | Fully-adjusted hazard ratioc,d (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ever douchede | ||||||
| No | 378,771 | 40,495 (84) | 20 (67) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 70,421 | 7612 (16) | 10 (33) | 2.66 (1.25, 5.65) | 2.64 (1.15, 6.09) | 2.45 (1.06, 5.69) |
| Douched in year prior to enrollment | ||||||
| No | 389,309 | 41,547 (86) | 21 (67) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 59,628 | 6534 (14) | 9 (33) | 2.76 (1.28, 5.98) | 2.72 (1.16, 6.35) | 2.56 (1.10, 5.99) |
| Ever genital talc usee | ||||||
| No | 316,215 | 34,139 (72) | 19 (66) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 125,045 | 13,306 (28) | 10 (34) | 1.34 (0.62, 2.88) | 1.39 (0.67, 2.89) | 1.38 (0.66, 2.86) |
| Genital talc use in year prior to enrollment | ||||||
| No | 375,282 | 40,394 (85) | 22 (76) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 65,804 | 7031 (15) | 7 (24) | 1.81 (0.78, 4.24) | 1.80 (0.78, 4.16) | 1.79 (0.78, 4.11) |
Missing: ever douched (n = 371 non-cases, 1 case), douched in the year prior to enrollment (397 non-cases, 1 case), ever genital talc use (n = 1,033 non-cases, 2 cases), genital talc use in the year prior to enrollment (1,053 non-cases, 2 cases).
aStarting at baseline (i.e. enrollment into Sister Study).
bParticipants with complete confounder information. Pre-baseline cases excluded from the analysis (n = 518).
cWith age as the primary time scale, starting at age at baseline, with censoring at age at end of follow-up, loss to follow-up or death, whichever occurred first. Adjusted for race/ethnicity (Non-Hispanic White, other), education (yes/no completed college), body mass index (continuous), and age at menarche (continuous).
dAdditionally adjusted for marital status (ever/never married), age at first pregnancy (nulligravid, < 20, ≥ 20), ever induced abortion, hormonal birth control use (< 2 years, ≥ 2 years), alcohol use (never/former drinker, current drinker), smoking status (ever, never), ever diagnosed with genital warts, another sexually transmitted infection (gonorrhea, herpes, or chlamydia) or pelvic inflammatory disease (yes or no).
eSelf-reported using douche or genital talc during ages 10–13 or in the year prior to baseline.
In quantitative bias analyses (Supplementary Table 5), we observed that misclassification of cervical cancer would likely bias the observed associations up and away from the null, with substantial loss of precision. For example, when 40% of the cases were re-assigned to be non-cases, the estimated HR for the association between douching in the year prior to enrollment and incident cervical cancer was 2.05 (95% CI 0.64–6.59) rather than HR 2.56 (95% CI 1.10–5.99). The associations between douching at ages 10–13 and pre-baseline cervical cancer were also potentially biased upwards, as were the associations between talc use in the year before baseline and incident cervical cancer, but the HR for talc use at ages 10–13 and pre-baseline cervical cancer was unaffected.
Discussion
In this large US-based cohort, we observed a positive and statistically significant association between douching and incident cervical cancer, despite a small number of cases. The association between adolescent douching and prior cervical cancer was also positive, though the effect estimate was not statistically significant. We did not see evidence of an association between genital talc use and cervical cancer.
The observed positive association between douching and incident cervical cancer is consistent with previous retrospective case–control studies23–28 and prospective studies of the relationship between douching and intermediate outcomes such as HPV infection and cervical lesions18–22. Given the known causal role of HPV in cervical cancer development, these results support the hypothesis that douching may alter individuals’ susceptibility or response to the virus. This could occur through the dispersal of foreign pathogens or chemical disruptions to the vaginal microbiome, both of which could alter immune response and thereby facilitate tumor development11–15.
We additionally hypothesized that genital talc use could incite an inflammatory response and promote carcinogenesis. However, we saw no evidence of an association between talc use and cervical cancer. As ours is the first study of this topic, additional research, including retrospective case–control comparisons, studies of intermediate outcomes (e.g., HPV infection, cervical lesions), or possibly in vivo or in vitro work, could provide further clarity.
One major limitation of this study is that we are missing data on several potentially important covariates. Specifically, we did not have HPV status, sexual histories, or information about abnormal Pap smears or history of cervical treatments. We adjusted for related variables such as age at first pregnancy, history of induced abortions, marital status, and self-reported history of genital warts or other STIs, but residual confounding may remain. We had no explicit data on use of the HPV vaccine, but our participants (aged 35–74 in 2003–2009) are unlikely to have received it, as Gardasil was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in June 2006 for females aged 9–2644.
With 31 incident events, we did not have a sufficient sample size to conduct detailed dose–response analyses or to limit to medically-confirmed cases. Other potential weaknesses include exposure and outcome misclassification, lack of detailed hysterectomy information, and lack of generalizability.
In terms of exposure misclassification, we asked participants about their talc and douching use at ages 10–13 and in the year before study enrollment, and therefore would miss anyone who only used products in the interim. Additionally, women may not be able to accurately remember their use at ages 10–13, which occurred at least 22 years prior to enrollment. Further, because both douching and genital talc use often coincide with menstruation, and earlier menarche may be a risk factor for cervical cancer, this misclassification could be differential with respect to the outcome. More specifically, if women with late menarche (age > 13) were less likely to douche or use talc at ages 10–13 and were less likely to get cervical cancer, our HRs would be attenuated towards the null.
We do not have details on the specific types of products women used. If carcinogenic agents were only present in some products, our effect estimates would be further attenuated. Outcome misclassification is also a concern, especially given our low estimated positive predictive value of 62%. We assessed the potential impact of outcome misclassification using quantitative bias analysis45, finding that our reported HRs may be biased up and away from the null. Though this did not change our overall interpretations, the estimates from the bias analysis were less precise.
On the other hand, we observed that some of the women who misreported having cervical cancer actually had precancerous cervical lesions, some of which may have progressed to cancers had they not been treated. This suggests that even if the effects estimated here are not representative of the associations between douching or talc use and cervical cancer, specifically, they may still be capturing information about relationships between health conditions on the same causal pathway. We additionally note that because women with pre-baseline cervical cancer had to survive and be healthy enough to enroll in the Sister Study, women with advanced stage cancers may be under-represented. It is unclear what impact this would have on our estimates.
By including all women who had a hysterectomy, we likely overestimated the number of women at risk for cervical cancer. We showed in sensitivity analyses that not censoring women who had hysterectomies may have attenuated effect estimates. However, as some proportion of these women likely had cervix-sparing subtotal hysterectomies46,47, the most accurate effect estimate is likely somewhere in between the two sets of results.
All women in our sample had a sister with breast cancer and therefore the observed associations may not be generalizable to all women or to women in resource poor settings where cervical cancer is a larger public health concern. Though family history of breast cancer is not thought to be related to cervical cancer risk48, Sister Study participants are predominantly non-Hispanic White and highly educated, meaning they are likely a low risk group for cervical cancer49.
A major strength of the study was our inclusion of both incident and prevalent cervical cancers. The prospective analysis of incident cancer is important to preclude recall bias, which would result if women with cervical cancer were more likely to report exposure. While this type of bias has been observed in at least one retrospective study of genital talc use and ovarian cancer50,51, it did not seem to play a role here, as demonstrated by the slightly inverse association we observed between genital talc use and pre-baseline disease. As the possible health consequences of douching are not widely publicized, recall bias seems less likely for that exposure, but it is nevertheless reassuring that the results from the retrospective and prospective analyses are in the same direction.
Conclusions
In the first prospective study of the relationship between douching and cervical cancer, we observed a positive association between ever or recent douching and incident cervical cancer. These findings were consistent with existing literature on douching and cervical cancer or other related outcomes. In the first epidemiologic study of genital talc use and cervical cancer we did not see evidence of an association, though additional epidemiologic studies may still be warranted.
Supplementary Information
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Drs. Srishti Shrestha and Mary Diaz Santana for their critical feedback on an early draft of the manuscript.
Abbreviations
- BMI
Body mass index
- CI
Confidence interval
- HPV
Human papillomavirus
- HR
Hazard ratio
- PID
Pelvic inflammatory disease
- STI
Sexually transmitted infection
Author contributions
K.M.O. analyzed and interpreted the data and drafted the manuscript. C.R.W. and D.P.S. contributed to study design, participated in interpretation of data, and critically revised the manuscript. A.A.D. and K.R.M. assisted in interpretation of the data and in drafting the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
Open Access funding provided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The Sister Study is funded by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Z01-ES044005 to DPS; Z01-ES102245 to CRW).
Data availability
De-identified data is made available upon request as described on the Study Website (https://sisterstudy.niehs.nih.gov/English/data-requests.htm).
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-021-94447-3.
References
- 1.Schiffman M, Castle PE, Jeronimo J, Rodriguez AC, Wacholder S. Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Lancet. 2007;370:890–907. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61416-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Harper DM, Franco EL, Wheeler C, Ferris DG, Jenkins D, Schuind A, Zahaf T, Innis B, Naud P, De Carvalho NS, Roteli-Martins CM, Teixeira J, et al. Efficacy of a bivalent L1 virus-like particle vaccine in prevention of infection with human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in young women: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;364:1757–1765. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17398-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Kjaer SK, Sigurdsson K, Iversen OE, Hernandez-Avila M, Wheeler CM, Perez G, Brown DR, Koutsky LA, Eng HT, García P, Ault KA, Garland SM, et al. A pooled analysis of continued prophylactic efficacy of quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6/11/16/18) vaccine against high-grade cervical and external genital lesions. Cancer Prev. Res. 2009;2:868–878. doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-09-0031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Arbyn M, Xu L, Simoens C, Martin-Hirsch PPL. Prophylactic vaccination against human papillomaviruses to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018;2018:3. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009069.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Garland SM, Kjaer SK, Muñoz N, Block SL, Brown DR, Dinubile MJ, Lindsay BR, Kuter BJ, Perez G, Dominiak-Felden G, Saah AJ, Drury R, et al. Impact and effectiveness of the quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine: A systematic review of 10 years of real-world experience. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2016;63:519–527. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw354. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel R, Torre L, Jemal A. Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incident and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 contries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018;68:394–424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Walboomers J, Jacobs M, Manos M, Bosch F, Kummer J, Shah K, Snijders PJF, Peto J, Meijer CJL, Munoz N. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause. J. Pathol. 1999;189:12–19. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9896(199909)189:1<12::AID-PATH431>3.0.CO;2-F. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.De Freitas AC, Gurgel APAD, Chagas BS, Coimbra EC, Do Amaral CMM. Susceptibility to cervical cancer: An overview. Gynecol. Oncol. 2012;126:304–311. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.03.047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.De González AB, Green J. Comparison of risk factors for invasive squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the cervix: Collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 8097 women with squamous cell carcinoma and 1374 women with adenocarcinoma from 12 epidemiological studies. Int. J. Cancer. 2007;120:885–891. doi: 10.1002/ijc.22357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Appleby P, Beral V, De González AB, Colin D, Franceschi S, Goodhill A, Green J, Peto J, Plummer M, Sweetland S. Cervical cancer and hormonal contraceptives: Collaborative reanalysis of individual data for 16,573 women with cervical cancer and 35 509 women without cervical cancer from 24 epidemiological studies. Lancet. 2007;370:1609–1621. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61684-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Branch F, Woodruff TJ, Mitro SD, Zota AR. Vaginal douching and racial/ethnic disparities in phthalates exposures among reproductive-aged women: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001–2004. Environ. Health. 2015;14:1. doi: 10.1186/s12940-015-0043-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Ding, N., Batterman, S., & Park, S. K. Exposure to volatile organic compounds and use of feminine hygeine products among reproductive-aged women in the United States. J. Women Health (Larchmt)29(1), 65–73 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 13.Martino JL, Vermund SH. Vaginal douching: Evidence for risks or benefits to women’s health. Epidemiol. Rev. 2002;24:109–124. doi: 10.1093/epirev/mxf004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Aslan E, Bechelaghem N. To ‘douche’ or not to ‘douche’: Hygiene habits may have detrimental effects on vaginal microbiota. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2018;38:678–681. doi: 10.1080/01443615.2017.1395398. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Brotman RM, Klebanoff MA, Nansel TR, Andrews WW, Schwebke JR, Zhang J, Yu KF, Zenilman JM, Scharfstein DO. A longitudinal study of vaginal douching and bacterial vaginosis: A marginal structural modeling analysis. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2008;168:188–196. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwn103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Zhang J, Thomas AG, Leybovich E. Vaginal douching and adverse health effects: A meta-analysis. Am. J. Public Health. 1997;87:1207–1211. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.87.7.1207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Baird DD, Weinberg CR, Voigt LF, Dating JR. Vaginal douching and reduced fertility. Am. J. Public Health. 1996;86:844–850. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.86.6.844. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Bui TC, Thai TN, Tran LTH, Shete SS, Ramondetta LM, Basen-Engquist KM. Association between vaginal douching and genital human papillomavirus infection among women in the United States. J. Infect. Dis. 2016;214:1370–1375. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiw388. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Seay JS, Mandigo M, Kish J, Menard J, Marsh S, Kobetz E. Intravaginal practices are associated with greater odds of high-risk HPV infection in Haitian women. Ethn. Health. 2017;22:257–265. doi: 10.1080/13557858.2016.1246423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Sun CA, Hsiung CA, Lai CH, Chen CA, Chou CY, Ho CM, Twu NF, Feng WL, Chuang MH, Hsieh CY, Chu TY. Epidemiologic correlates of cervical human papillomavirus prevalence in women with abnormal pap smear tests: A Taiwan Cooperative Oncology Group (TCOG) study. J. Med. Virol. 2005;77:273–281. doi: 10.1002/jmv.20447. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Hamoonga TE, Olowski P, Musonda P. Vaginal douching in Zambia: A risk or benefit to women in the fight against cervical cancer: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Womens Health. 2019;19:135. doi: 10.1186/s12905-019-0834-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Chu TY, Hsiung CA, Chen CA, Chou HH, Ho CM, Chien TY, Chang HJ, Chou CY, Der LJ, Kan YY, Hsieh CY. Post-coital vaginal douching is risky for non-regression of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion of the cervix. Gynecol. Oncol. 2011;120:449–453. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.11.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Brinton LA, Hamman RF, Huggins GR, Lehman HF, Levine RS, Mallin K, Fraumeni JF. Sexual and reproductive risk factors for invasive squamous cell cervical cancer. JNCI J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1987;79:23–30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Graham S, Schotz W. Epidemiology of cancer of the cervix in Buffalo, New York. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1979;63:23–27. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Herrero R, Brinton LA, Reeves WC, Brenes MM, Tenorio F, de Britton RC, Gaitan E, Garcia M, Rawls WE. Sexual behavior, venereal diseases, hygiene practices, and invasive cervical cancer in a high-risk population. Cancer. 1990;65:380–386. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19900115)65:2<380::AID-CNCR2820650234>3.0.CO;2-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Peters RK, Thomas D, Hagan DG, Mack TM, Henderson BE. Risk factors for invasive cervical cancer among Latinas and Non-Latinas in Los Angeles County. JNCI J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1986;77:1–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Stone KM, Zaidi A, Rosero-Bixby L, Oberle MW, Reynolds G, Larsen S, Nahmais AJ, Lee FK, Schachter J, Guinan ME. Sexual behavior, sexually transmitted diseases, and risk of cervical cancer. Epidemiology. 1995;6:409–414. doi: 10.1097/00001648-199507000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Bayo S, Bosch FX, de Sanjose S, Munoz N, Combita AL, Coursaget P, Diaz M, Dolo A, van den Brule AJ, Meijer CJ. Risk factors of invasive cervical cancer in Mali. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2002;31:202–209. doi: 10.1093/ije/31.1.202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Henderson WJ, Joslin CAF, Turnbull AC, Griffiths K, Joslin AF, Griffiths K. Talc and carcinoma of the ovary and cervix. J. Obs. Gynaecol. Br. Common. 1971;78:266–272. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1971.tb00267.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Boccardo E, Lepique AP, Villa LL. The role of inflammation in HPV carcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis. 2010;31:1905–1912. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgq176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monographs: Arsenic, Metals, Fibres, and Dustshttps://publications.iarc.fr/_publications/media/download/6143/ef2dcba35d394362f6f5346d042bd48e5792ded3.pdf (2012).
- 32.World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Carbon Black, Titanium Dioxide, and Talc, 277–412. https://publications.iarc.fr/_publications/media/download/2856/bf06ffe99ebb4b29b5feebe09604a6e5920d2927.pdf (2010). [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 33.Tran T, Steffen JE, Clancy KM, Bird T, Egilman DS. Talc, asbestos, and epidemiology: Corporate influence and scientific incognizance. Epidemiology. 2019;30:783–788. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001091. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Terry KL, Karageorgi S, Shvetsov YB, Merritt MA, Lurie G, Thompson PJ, Carney ME, Weber RP, Akushevich L, Lo-Ciganic WH, Cushing-Haugen K, Sieh W, et al. Genital powder use and risk of ovarian cancer: A pooled analysis of 8,525 cases and 9,859 controls. Cancer Prev. Res. 2013;6:811–821. doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.O’Brien KM, Tworoger SS, Harris HR, Anderson GL, Weinberg CR, Trabert B, Kaunitz AM, D’Aloisio AA, Sandler DP, Wentzensen N. Association of powder use in the genital area with risk of ovarian cancer. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2020;323:49–59. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.20079. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Neill AS, Nagle CM, Spurdle AB, Webb PM. Use of talcum powder and endometrial cancer risk. Cancer Causes Control. 2012;23:513–519. doi: 10.1007/s10552-011-9894-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.O’Brien KM, D’Aloisio AA, Shi M, Murphy JD, Sandler DP, Weinberg CR. Perineal talc use, douching, and the risk of uterine cancer. Epidemiology. 2019;30:845–852. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001078. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Crawford L, Reeves KW, Luisi N, Balasubramanian R, Sturgeon SR. Perineal powder use and risk of endometrial cancer in postmenopausal women. Cancer Causes Control. 2012;23:1673–1680. doi: 10.1007/s10552-012-0046-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Karageorgi S, Gates MA, Hankinson SE, De Vivo I. Perineal use of talcum powder and endometrial cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19:1269–1275. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-1221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.O’Brien KM, Tworoger SS, Harris HR, Trabert B, Weinberg CR, Fortner RT, D’Aloisio AA, Kaunitz AM, Wentzensen N, Sandler DP. Genital powder use and risk of uterine cancer: A pooled analysis of prospective studies. Int. J. Cancer. 2021;1:1–10. doi: 10.1002/ijc.33470. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Sandler DP, Hodgson ME, Deming-Halverson SL, Juras PJ, D’Aloisio AD, Suarez L, Kleeberger C, Shore DL, DeRoo LA, Taylor JA, Weinberg CR. The Sister Study: Baseline methods and participant characteristics. Environ. Health Perspect. 2017;125:127003. doi: 10.1289/EHP1923. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Greenland S, Pearl J, Robins JM. Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology. 1999;10:37–48. doi: 10.1097/00001648-199901000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Breslow NE. Discussion of Professor Cox’s paper. J. R. Stat. Soc. A. 1972;34:216. [Google Scholar]
- 44.Gardasil Vaccine Safety. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availability-biologics/gardasil-vaccine-safety. Accessed 12 Nov 2019.
- 45.Lash TL, Fox MP, Maclehose RF, Maldonado G, Mccandless LC, Greenland S. Good practices for quantitative bias analysis. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2014;43:1969–1985. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyu149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Moawad G, Liu E, Song C, Fu AZ. Movement to outpatient hysterectomy for benign indications in the United States, 2008–2014. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:2008–2014. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188812. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Merrill RM. Hysterectomy surveillance in the United States, 1997 through 2005. Med. Sci. Monit. 2008;14:1–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Negri E, La Vecchia C, Bosetti C, Franceschi S, Parazzini F. Risk of cervical cancer in women with a family history of breast and female genital tract neoplasms. Int. J. Cancer. 2005;117:880–881. doi: 10.1002/ijc.21211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Singh GK, Miller BA, Hankey BF, Edwards BK. Persistent area socioeconomic disparities in US incidence of cervical cancer, mortality, stage, and survival, 1975–2000. Cancer. 2004;101:1051–1057. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20467. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Schildkraut JM, Abbott SE, Alberg AJ, Bandera EV, Barnholtz-Sloan JS, Bondy ML, Cote ML, Funkhouser E, Peres LC, Peters ES, et al. Association between body powder use and ovarian cancer: The African American Cancer Epidemiology Study (AACES) Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2016;25:1411–1417. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-1281. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Trabert B. Body power and ovarian cancer risk: What is the role of recall bias? Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2016;25:1369–1370. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0476. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
De-identified data is made available upon request as described on the Study Website (https://sisterstudy.niehs.nih.gov/English/data-requests.htm).