Evidence Hub

Endometrial cancer risk factors by 2 main histologic subtypes: the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study

Yang HP, Wentzensen N, Trabert B, Gierach GL, Felix AS, Gunter MJ, Hollenbeck A, Park Y et al.

American journal of epidemiology, 2013

114,409 participants · 89 citations

Abstract

On the basis of clinical and pathologic criteria, endometrial carcinoma has been distinguished as types I (mainly endometrioid) and II (nonendometrioid). Limited data suggest that these subtypes have different risk factor profiles. The authors prospectively evaluated risk factors for types I (n = 1,312) and II (n = 138) incident endometrial carcinoma among 114,409 women in the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-AARP Diet and Health Study (1995-2006). For individual risk factors, relative risks were estimated with Cox regression by subtype, and P(heterogeneity) was assessed in case-case comparisons with type I as the referent. Stronger relations for type I versus Type II tumors were seen for menopausal hormone therapy use (relative risk (RR) of 1.18 vs. 0.84; P(heterogeneity) = 0.01) and body mass index of ≥30 vs. <30 kg/m2 (RR of 2.93 vs. 1.83; P(heterogeneity) = 0.001). Stronger relations for type II versus type I tumors were observed for being black versus white (RR of 2.18 vs. 0.66; P(heterogeneity) = 0.0004) and having a family history of breast cancer (RR of 1.93 vs. 0.80; P(heterogeneity) = 0.002). Other risk factor associations were similar by subtype. In conclusion, the authors noted different risk factor associations for Types I and II endometrial carcinomas, supporting the etiologic heterogeneity of these tumors. Because of the limited number of Type II cancers, additional evaluation of risk factors will benefit from consortial efforts.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 114,409 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free