• Home
  • About
  • BIO
  • Conferences
  • Contact
  • Follow Gerard on FB & Twitter
  • Speaking

Coming Home

Dr. Gerard M. Nadal: Science in Service of the Pro-Life Movement

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« HOW NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE SCIENTISTS BETRAYED WOMEN
Susan G. Komen Gives Million$ to Planned Parenthood »

The ABC Literature: #12

October 12, 2010 by Gerard M. Nadal

For easing newcomers along , please consult the glossary of terms that I’ve written to make the terminology very understandable. Also, consult the post that explains the essential background

Title: Reproductive risk factors for endometrial cancer among Polish women.

Authors: LA Brinton*,1, LC Sakoda1, J Lissowska2, ME Sherman1, N Chatterjee3, B Peplonska4, N Szeszenia-Dabrowska4, W Zatonski2 and M Garcia-Closas1

1 Hormonal and Reproductive Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 6120 Executive Blvd., Suite 550, Rockville, MD 20852-7234, USA; 2 Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, Cancer Center and M. Sklodowska-Curie Institute of Oncology, W.K. Roentgena 5, Warsaw 02-781, Poland; 3Biostatistics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD 20852, USA; 4Department of Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology, Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Lodz, Poland.

Journal: British Journal of Cancer (2007) 96, 1450 – 1456

In this study, conducted in Poland, the authors consider reproductive risk factors associated with endometrial cancer. It is included as a validation of the biological model associated with breast cancer and the effects of estrogens. It is also included to shed some light on the games Dr. Brinton plays with her characterization of statistics.

The study is a case-control study involving 551 women with endometrial cancer (Cases) and 1925 healthy women (Controls).

Results are reported with 95% CI relative risks are reported as odds ratios (OR’s), which for our purposes are essentially the same.

Risk Factors:

Ever had a Full Term Birth

No OR=1.00 (This is the control/reference value)
Yes OR=0.53 (A 47% reduction is risk)

Number of Full-term births

0 OR=1.00
1 OR=0.63 (37% reduction in risk)
2 OR=0.54 (46% reduction in risk)
3+ OR=0.31 (70% reduction in risk)

Number of Induced Abortions

0 OR=1.00
1 OR=1.34 (34% increased risk)
2 OR=1.32 (32 % increased risk)
3+ OR=1.33 (33% increased risk)

Ever problem with Infertility

No OR=1.00
Yes OR=1.33 (33% increased risk)

Of the results, the authors have the following to say:

“A significantly decreased risk was associated with parity (OR adjusted
for parous vs nulliparous ¼ 0.51, 95% CI 0.4 – 0.7) (Table 2).”

{So a 47% decrease in risk with endometrial cancer associated with parity is a significant reduction in risk (As opposed to increased risks in breast cancer ranging from 30%-90% which are discounted as “statistically insignificant”).}

“Similar to previous investigations (Brinton et al, 1992; Albrektsen et al, 1995; Hinkula et al, 2002), we found a substantially reduced risk of endometrial cancer associated with parity, with women having three or more full-term births being at a 70% lower risk than nulliparous women.”

{Here 70% becomes substantial}

Later in the paper, Brinton et al. dismiss the induced abortion data as being possibly contaminated by recall bias, yet they offer no discussion of the biological effects of estrogens in inducing cancer. They make this omission in spite of estrogen being a WHO group 1 carcinogen.

So in this paper, we see the protective effect of full term pregnancy in preventing endometrial cancer.

We see an associated increased risk with induced abortion as well.

Most importantly, we see that when the discussion involves other cancers, Brinton regards 47% as significant and 70% as substantial.

Important data as we move the discussion along.

Advertisements

Share this:

  • Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Breast Cancer | 2 Comments

2 Responses

  1. on October 12, 2010 at 11:39 PM snaul

    Let me get this right: Brinton reported the correct OR in the body of the report, but then in her conclusion, the OR’s for induced abortions were rendered not significant?
    Where do you get the 30-90% range of increased risk? The highest OR I see is 1.34 for Induced Ab.
    As you know, “statistically insignificant” is a strict criteria based on number of data points, CI, etc. This is different than saying something is substantial based on an opinion. By criteria, are Brinton’s claims to “statistically insignificant” at all valid? IN other words, are they truly statistically insignificant, or just qualitatively “insignificant”?


  2. on October 13, 2010 at 10:49 AM Gerard M. Nadal

    snaul,

    I am using this study in juxtaposition to Brinton’s characterization of what 30%-90% means in relation to risks associated with breast cancer and induced abortion in the other studies. I thought I was clear about this, but perhaps was not. Sorry for the confusion.



Comments are closed.

    Advertisements
  • Archives

    • February 2019 (1)
    • April 2018 (2)
    • January 2017 (1)
    • December 2016 (1)
    • November 2016 (1)
    • October 2016 (10)
    • July 2016 (2)
    • June 2016 (1)
    • May 2016 (1)
    • April 2016 (1)
    • March 2016 (1)
    • February 2016 (3)
    • December 2015 (1)
    • November 2015 (2)
    • October 2015 (1)
    • September 2015 (1)
    • August 2015 (3)
    • April 2015 (1)
    • February 2015 (1)
    • December 2014 (3)
    • November 2014 (1)
    • October 2014 (4)
    • September 2014 (15)
    • August 2014 (6)
    • June 2014 (5)
    • May 2014 (1)
    • April 2014 (2)
    • March 2014 (2)
    • February 2014 (1)
    • January 2014 (3)
    • December 2013 (17)
    • November 2013 (9)
    • October 2013 (12)
    • September 2013 (4)
    • July 2013 (2)
    • June 2013 (5)
    • May 2013 (2)
    • April 2013 (3)
    • March 2013 (6)
    • February 2013 (2)
    • January 2013 (1)
    • December 2012 (18)
    • November 2012 (6)
    • October 2012 (13)
    • September 2012 (1)
    • July 2012 (10)
    • June 2012 (13)
    • May 2012 (8)
    • April 2012 (1)
    • March 2012 (11)
    • February 2012 (21)
    • January 2012 (5)
    • December 2011 (18)
    • November 2011 (3)
    • October 2011 (23)
    • September 2011 (24)
    • August 2011 (22)
    • July 2011 (22)
    • June 2011 (29)
    • May 2011 (8)
    • April 2011 (11)
    • March 2011 (18)
    • February 2011 (42)
    • January 2011 (26)
    • December 2010 (30)
    • November 2010 (34)
    • October 2010 (33)
    • September 2010 (16)
    • August 2010 (15)
    • July 2010 (7)
    • June 2010 (21)
    • May 2010 (33)
    • April 2010 (14)
    • March 2010 (41)
    • February 2010 (36)
    • January 2010 (59)
    • December 2009 (59)
  • Categories

    • Abortion (258)
    • Advent (26)
    • Biomedical Ethics (82)
    • Birth Control (51)
    • Bishops (87)
    • Black History Month (10)
    • Breast Cancer (65)
    • Christmas (26)
    • Cloning (4)
    • Condoms (16)
    • Darwin (2)
    • Development (6)
    • Dignity (119)
    • Divine Mercy Novenas (10)
    • DNA (3)
    • Embryo Adoption (2)
    • Embryonic Stem Cell Research (6)
    • Eugenics (29)
    • Euthanasia (8)
    • Family (44)
    • Fathers of the Church (11)
    • Fortnight for Freedom (1)
    • Golden Coconut Award (3)
    • Health Care (14)
    • HIV/AIDS (5)
    • Infant Mortality (2)
    • IVF (4)
    • Joseph (6)
    • Lent (17)
    • Margaret Sanger (19)
    • Marriage (6)
    • Maternal Mortality (2)
    • Motherhood (12)
    • Neonates (1)
    • Personhood (20)
    • Physician Assisted Suicide (4)
    • Planned Parenthood (64)
    • Priests (50)
    • Pro-Life Academy (23)
    • Quotes (10)
    • Radio Interviews (3)
    • Right to Life (34)
    • Roots (1)
    • Sex Education (25)
    • Sexually Transmitted Disease (12)
    • Stem Cell Therapy (7)
    • Transgender (1)
    • Uncategorized (192)
  • Pages

    • About
    • BIO
    • Conferences
    • Contact
    • Follow Gerard on FB & Twitter
    • Speaking

Blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


Cancel
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: