Delgado-Rodriguez M, Sillero-Arenas M, Martin-Moreno J M, Galvez-Vargas R
Department of Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, General Hospital Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1992 Jul;71(5):368-76. doi: 10.3109/00016349209021075.
Because the findings of epidemiologic studies of the relationship between oral contraceptive use and cervical cancer have not been consistent, we reanalyzed the relationship.
Meta-analysis of studies published to date.
Papers were located by searching the MEDLINE data base, supplemented by a hand search of all the references in the articles recovered.
Studies were graded as to quality. Two meta-analyses were performed: one including all the studies gathered and one including methodologically acceptable studies only. The method of Woolf was used to combine relative risks. Heterogeneity of the effect was assessed.
Fifty-one published studies were collected: 21 case-control, 18 cross-sectional, and 12 cohort designs. Twenty-one of these were considered as methodologically acceptable, but only 18 could be pooled. The main results observed were: relative risks was 1.52 (1.3-1.8) for dysplasia, 1.52 (1.3-1.8) for carcinoma in situ, and 1.21 (1.1-1.4) for invasive cancer. A significant linear dose-response effect was observed in dysplasia, carcinoma in situ, and invasive cervical cancer. Heterogeneity of the effect was present in some of the former estimates.
Oral contraceptive use may be a risk factor for all stages of the natural history of cervical cancer, which may imply an initiator effect. Limitations to this research are discussed.
由于关于口服避孕药使用与宫颈癌之间关系的流行病学研究结果并不一致,我们重新分析了这种关系。
对迄今已发表的研究进行荟萃分析。
通过检索MEDLINE数据库查找相关论文,并对检索到的文章中的所有参考文献进行手工检索作为补充。
对研究质量进行分级。进行了两项荟萃分析:一项纳入所有收集到的研究,另一项仅纳入方法上可接受的研究。采用Woolf方法合并相对风险。评估效应的异质性。
收集了51项已发表的研究:21项病例对照研究、18项横断面研究和12项队列研究。其中21项被认为在方法上是可接受的,但只有18项可以合并。观察到的主要结果是:发育异常的相对风险为1.52(1.3 - 1.8),原位癌为1.52(1.3 - 1.8),浸润性癌为1.21(1.1 - 1.4)。在发育异常、原位癌和浸润性宫颈癌中观察到显著的线性剂量反应效应。在一些先前的估计中存在效应的异质性。
口服避孕药的使用可能是宫颈癌自然史各阶段的一个危险因素,这可能意味着启动效应。讨论了本研究的局限性。