Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2008
Descriptive evidence that risk profiles for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1, 2, and 3 are unique.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Belinson Suzanne, Smith Jennifer S, Myers Evan, Olshan Andrew, Belinson Jerome, Pretorius Robert, Qiao You-lin, Hartmann Katherine
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate if risk factor profiles for histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 lesions differ from those for CIN 1 or 3.
METHODS: A total of 2,055 women positive for high-risk human papillomavirus, with a minimum of five cervical biopsies, were enrolled in the Shanxi Province Cervical Cancer Screening Study II. We evaluated risk factor profiles for CIN 2 in comparison with CIN 1 and 3. Polytomous logistic regression was used to generate odds ratios and corresponding 95% confidence intervals and to test for differences in odds ratios across histologic grades.
RESULTS: The risk for CIN 3 associated with three or more pregnancies and sexual intercourse within 4 months of childbirth was higher than that for CIN 2 (P(difference) = 0.02 and 0.0007, respectively). Significant differences in the associations of age groups with CIN 1 and 2 were observed, such that there were positive associations with CIN 2 but none for CIN 1. There was no difference in the association of number of sexual partners or reported number of abortions between CIN 1 and 2 or between CIN 3 and 2.
CONCLUSIONS: In our study, the patterns of risk factor profiles for CIN 1, 2, and 3 were unique. Conventional grouping of CIN 2 with 3 for analysis of risk factors may need revisiting.
METHODS: A total of 2,055 women positive for high-risk human papillomavirus, with a minimum of five cervical biopsies, were enrolled in the Shanxi Province Cervical Cancer Screening Study II. We evaluated risk factor profiles for CIN 2 in comparison with CIN 1 and 3. Polytomous logistic regression was used to generate odds ratios and corresponding 95% confidence intervals and to test for differences in odds ratios across histologic grades.
RESULTS: The risk for CIN 3 associated with three or more pregnancies and sexual intercourse within 4 months of childbirth was higher than that for CIN 2 (P(difference) = 0.02 and 0.0007, respectively). Significant differences in the associations of age groups with CIN 1 and 2 were observed, such that there were positive associations with CIN 2 but none for CIN 1. There was no difference in the association of number of sexual partners or reported number of abortions between CIN 1 and 2 or between CIN 3 and 2.
CONCLUSIONS: In our study, the patterns of risk factor profiles for CIN 1, 2, and 3 were unique. Conventional grouping of CIN 2 with 3 for analysis of risk factors may need revisiting.