|
 Overall, the study did not find a significantly increased risk of
ovarian cancer, but there appeared to be a heightened risk among
certain women who used the products.
The data found that women with an intact reproductive tract - those
who never had a hysterectomy or their tubes tied - who reported
using baby powder had a 13% higher risk of developing ovarian cancer
compared to women who never used the product. That risk rose to 19%
among women who used baby powders at least once a week.
The U.S.-funded study published in the medical journal JAMA on
Tuesday pooled data on 252,745 women from four government studies
that asked women whether they had ever used powder on their
genitals. The study did not consider individual brands.
The data, compiled by a team at the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), set out to provide a clear
answer to whether use of such powders could cause ovarian cancer
when applied near the genitals.
Instead, "we got an ambiguous answer," said Katie O'Brien, an NIEHS
epidemiologist who led the study.
"This was the largest study ever done, but because ovarian cancer is
such a rare disease, it was still not big enough to detect a very
small change in risk," O'Brien said.
Prior studies have largely relied on asking women who had already
developed ovarian cancer if they remember ever using baby powder on
their genitals.
Such retrospective studies "can sometimes find links that do not
exist," Susan Gapstur, senior vice president of Behavioral and
Epidemiology Research at the American Cancer Society, said in an
email.
"The analysis by O'Brien and colleagues provides incremental insight
into the link between genital powder use and ovarian cancer risk but
does not provide the definitive evidence," Gapstur said.
About 40% of the women overall said they used baby powder. A total
of 2,168 in the studies developed ovarian cancer, which has a
lifetime risk of 1.3%.
Overall, the team found that women who had ever used talc for
feminine hygiene during their lifetimes had an 8% increased risk of
developing ovarian cancer compared with those who were not exposed.
That difference was deemed to be not statistically significant.
Given that ovarian cancer is rare, O'Brien said, "that amounts to an
additional nine ovarian cancer cases per 10,000 women. That's pretty
small."
[to top of second column] |
The prevailing theory of how powder could cause ovarian cancer is
that it would travel up the vagina, through the cervix, uterus and
fallopian tubes and come into contact with the ovaries, where it
causes inflammation that leads to cancer.
To examine this more closely, O'Brien and colleagues looked
specifically at women with intact reproductive tracts. Among this
group the higher risk among powder users was statistically
significant, they found.
In an editorial accompanying the paper, Dr. Dana Gossett of the
University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues, cautioned
that women who had their tubes tied or hysterectomies might have
used talc before these procedures, so stratifying women this way
does not clearly translate into whether a woman has been exposed or
not.
Gossett, who was not involved with the study, said the finding of
higher risk of ovarian cancer in women with intact reproductive
tracts is below the size that most epidemiologists consider
important.
The team could not determine what type of powder was used, and
information on frequency of powder use differed by study group.
J&J, which faces more than 16,000 lawsuits claiming its baby powder
and talc products cause cancer, said the finding of no statistically
significant association between powder use and ovarian cancer
affirms the safety of its products.
"The facts are that Johnson's Baby Powder is safe, does not contain
asbestos, and does not cause cancer,” the company said in a
statement.
The study did not address the possibility of exposure by breathing
powder into the lungs. Some consultants hired by plaintiff attorneys
who blame their client's ovarian cancer on asbestos contamination in
talc say inhaled powder can be a cause of ovarian cancer.
O'Brien said the study specifically focused on application to the
genital or perineal area.
"We did not attempt to estimate exposure due to inhalation. That
would be extremely difficult, given the information we had to work
with."
(Reporting by Julie Steenhuysen; Editing by Bill Berkrot)
[© 2020 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2020 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |
