Exogenous hormones and colorectal cancer risk in Canada: associations stratified by clinically defined familial risk of cancer
- 110 Downloads
This work assessed associations between colorectal cancer risk and postmenopausal/contraceptive hormones; subgroup analyses included women with a clinically defined family history of cancer.
A population based case–control study of incident colorectal cancer was conducted among women aged 20–74 years in Ontario and Newfoundland & Labrador, Canada. Incident cases (n = 1,404) were selected from provincial cancer registries and controls (n = 1,203) were identified through property records, and other means, between January 1997 and April 2006. Family history of cancer, exogenous hormone-use, and other risk factors were collected via self-administered questionnaires. Multivariate unconditional logistic regression analyses were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Decreased risks of colorectal cancer were observed with ever-users of: hormonal contraceptives (OR: 0.77; CI: 0.65–0.91), estrogen-only postmenopausal hormones (OR: 0.60; CI: 0.47–0.75), and estrogen–progestin postmenopausal hormones (OR: 0.70; CI: 0.52–0.95). Risk estimates were similar between women with and without a strong familial history of cancer. Age at initiation of hormonal contraceptives was associated with colorectal cancer risk; women who initiated use at younger ages (age <22 years: OR: 0.60; CI: 0.47–0.77) experienced a greater reduced risk of disease than women who initiated use at later ages (age 30+: OR: 0.92; CI: 0.68–1.24; ptrend: 0.0026).
These results indicate that exogenous hormone-use is linked with reduced risk of colorectal cancer among women with a strong familial risk of cancer, consistent with observations on population samples of sporadic colorectal cancer cases. A potential age-effect for use of hormonal contraceptives warrants further attention.
KeywordsPostmenopausal hormones HRT Contraceptives Colorectal cancer Family history of cancer Amsterdam criteria Bethesda criteria
- 37.Kelsey JL, Whittemore AS, Evans AS, Douglas Thompson W (1996) Case–control studies: II. Further design considerations and analysis. In: Kelsey JL, Marmot M, Stolley PD, Vessey MP (eds) Methods in observational epidemiology, 2nd ed., vol 26. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 214–243Google Scholar
- 52.Hulley S, Grady D, Bush T, Furberg C, Herrington D, Riggs B et al (1998) Randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. Heart and estrogen/progestin replacement study (HERS) research group. JAMA 280:605–613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 57.McLaughlin JR, Sloan MR (1995) Cancer survival in Ontario. The Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
- 64.Smirnoff P, Liel Y, Gnainsky J, Shany S, Schwartz B (1999) The protective effect of estrogen against chemically induced murine colon carcinogenesis is associated with decreased CpG island methylation and increased mRNA and protein expression of the colonic vitamin D receptor. Oncol Res 11:255–264PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 70.North American Menopause Society (2004) Recommendations for estrogen and progestogen use in peri- and postmenopausal women: October 2004 position statement of The North American Menopause Society. Menopause 11:589–600Google Scholar