Abstract
Findings of epidemiologic studies indicate an increased risk of ovarian cancer among women who use powders applied to perineal areas. Although African American (AA) women have a high prevalence of powder use, this relationship has not been thoroughly investigated in this group of women. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the relationship between use of genital and non-genital powder in invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Subjects are women enrolled in the African American Epidemiology Cancer Study (AACES), an ongoing, population-based case-control study of EOC in AA women in 11 geographic locations in the U.S. Newly diagnosed EOC cases were identified by SEER and state cancer registries, gynecologic oncology departments or hospitals, and were between the ages of 20-79 years. AA controls were identified through random digit dialing and frequency matched to cases on state of residence and five year age groups. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between genital powder and non-genital powder exposure and risk of EOC, while controlling for several confounders, including age at diagnosis/interview, study site, education, tubal ligation, parity, BMI, duration of oral contraceptive use, first degree family history of breast or ovarian cancer, and interview year. Due to experimental models suggesting a relationship with inert particulates and estrogen, we also examined potential effect modification of this relationship by hormone therapy use among postmenopausal women. Body powder use was common in this study population (62.8% of cases and 52.9% of controls). Any genital powder use was associated with a 44% increased risk of EOC (OR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.11-1.86) and a dose-response relationship was present for duration of body powder use applied to genital areas, p<0.05. A 31% increased EOC risk was observed for non-genital powder use (OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 0.95-1.79), and this relationship was strongest among non-serous cases (OR = 2.28, 95% CI = 1.39-3.74). Although not statistically significant, hormone therapy may be a potential modifier of the effect of body powder use on EOC risk. Among ever users of hormone therapy, any genital powder use was associated with over a 2-fold increase in risk (OR = 2.68, 95% CI = 1.33-5.40), while an OR of 1.24 (95% CI = 0.87-1.79) was present for never users of hormone therapy. Having an upper respiratory condition was associated with both genital and non-genital powder use suggesting a systemic inflammatory response may explain the associations we observed with EOC for non-genital powder use. In conclusion, body powder use was prevalent among AA women and strongly associated with EOC risk.
Citation Format: Lauren C. Peres, Sarah E. Abbott, Anthony J. Alberg, Elisa V. Bandera, Jill Barnholtz-Sloan, Melissa Bondy, Michele L. Cote, Ellen Funkhouser, Edward S. Peters, Ann G. Schwartz, Paul D. Terry, Sydnee Crankshaw, Fabian Camacho, Frances Wang, Patricia G. Moorman, Joellen M. Schildkraut. Body powder use and ovarian cancer: the African American Cancer Epidemiology Study. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr 1754.
