Evidence Hub

Effects of Exogenous Hormones and Reproductive Factors on Female Melanoma: A Meta-Analysis

Qian Sun, Hongyan Sun, Lele Cong, Yang Zheng, Nan Wu, Xianling Cong

Clinical Epidemiology, 2020

3,571,910 participants · 19 citations

Abstract

Abstract: Epidemiological findings on the effects of hormones on melanoma risk have been inconsistent. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis to examine the relationship between exogenous hormonal and reproductive factors and the risk of melanoma in women. We performed a search of PubMed, Web of Science, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database through April 2020 for relevant studies. Based on heterogeneity, we performed the meta-analysis of the risk estimates using either fixed effect or random effect models. We identified 38 studies that met the analytical criteria, involving 3,571,910 participants. The results showed that long-term use of oral contraceptives (OC) may increase the risk of melanoma in women (≥ 5 years [pooled RR=1.18; 95% CI: 1.07– 1.31; I 2 =0%] and ≥ 10 years [pooled RR=1.25; 95% CI: 1.06– 1.48; I 2 =0%]). Women who first used OC 15– 19 years previously were more likely to develop melanoma (pooled RR=1.52; 95% CI: 1.03– 2.24; I 2 =0%), while the years since the last use and the age at first use were not associated with the development of melanoma in women. Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increased the incidence of melanoma in women (pooled RR=1.12, 95% CI: 1.02– 1.24; I 2 =50%) and was especially associated with an increased risk of superficial spreading melanoma (SSM) (pooled RR=1.26; 95% CI: 1.17– 1.37; I 2 =0%), and estrogen and estradiol may be the main active agents that contribute to the increased risk of melanoma, but these…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 3,571,910 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