% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{OBrien:166761,
      author       = {K. M. O'Brien and S. S. Tworoger and H. R. Harris and B.
                      Trabert and C. R. Weinberg and R. T. Fortner$^*$ and A. A.
                      D'Aloisio and A. M. Kaunitz and N. Wentzensen and D. P.
                      Sandler},
      title        = {{G}enital powder use and risk of uterine cancer: {A} pooled
                      analysis of prospective studies.},
      journal      = {International journal of cancer},
      volume       = {148},
      number       = {11},
      issn         = {1097-0215},
      address      = {Bognor Regis},
      publisher    = {Wiley-Liss},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2021-00100},
      pages        = {2692-2701},
      year         = {2021},
      note         = {2021 Jun 1;148(11):2692-2701},
      abstract     = {When powder is applied to the genital area, it has the
                      potential to reach internal reproductive organs and promote
                      carcinogenesis by irritating and inflaming exposed tissues.
                      While many studies have considered the association between
                      genital powder use and ovarian cancer risk, the relationship
                      between genital powder use and uterine cancer is less
                      well-studied. We pooled data from four large, prospective
                      cohorts (the Nurses' Health Study, the Nurses' Health Study
                      II, the Sister Study, and the Women's Health Initiative -
                      Observational Study). We used Cox proportional hazards
                      models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and $95\%$ confidence
                      intervals (CI), adjusting for pre-specified confounders. In
                      total, 209 185 women were included, with $37\%$ reporting
                      ever genital powder use. Over a mean 14.5 years of
                      follow-up, 3272 invasive uterine cancers were diagnosed.
                      There was no overall association between ever genital powder
                      use and uterine cancer (HR = 1.01, $95\%$ CI: 0.94-1.09),
                      with little difference observed for frequent (≥1
                      times/week) vs never use (HR = 1.05, $95\%$ CI: 0.95-1.16;
                      p-for-trend = 0.46). Long-term use (>20 years;
                      HR = 1.12, $95\%$ CI: 0.96-1.31; p-for-trend = 0.14) was
                      associated with a small, but not statistically significant,
                      increase in risk, compared to never use. There were not
                      clear differences by uterine cancer histologic subtypes or
                      across strata of relevant covariates, including
                      race/ethnicity, follow-up time, menopausal status and body
                      mass index. The results of this large, pooled analysis do
                      not support a relationship between use of genital powder and
                      uterine cancer, though the positive associations observed
                      for long-term use may merit further consideration. This
                      article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.},
      keywords     = {Uterine cancer (Other) / endometrial cancer (Other) /
                      genital powder (Other) / talc (Other)},
      cin          = {C020},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)C020-20160331},
      pnm          = {313 - Krebsrisikofaktoren und Prävention (POF4-313)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-313},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:33433939},
      doi          = {10.1002/ijc.33470},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/166761},
}