» Articles » PMID: 25664022

Age at First Birth and Melanoma Risk: a Meta-analysis

Overview
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2015 Feb 10
PMID 25664022
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Age at first birth has been shown to be correlated with melanoma risk, but the results were inconsistent. Thus, a meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate the relationship between age at first birth and melanoma risk. Studies published up to September 6, 2014 were identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE databases. Random-effect model was used to pool the study-specific risk estimates (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Three case-control, three nested case-control, and five cohort studies were found to be eligible. In a comparison of the oldest versus youngest age at first birth, the pooled RR for melanoma risk was 1.47 (95% CI: 1.07-2.02) in all studies, 1.37 (95% CI: 0.47-4.02) in population-based case-control studies, 2.69 (95% CI: 1.56-4.64) in hospital case-control studies, 1.38 (95% CI: 0.66-2.88) in nested case-control studies, and 1.39 (95% CI: 0.89-2.17) in cohort studies. In the subgroup analysis according to sites where studies were performed, the pooled RR was 1.44 (95% CI: 0.99-2.08), 1.18 (95% CI: 0.30-4.60), and 2.36 (95% CI: 1.42-3.93) for Europe, Americas, and Australia, respectively. In the subgroup stratified by whether the included study provided adjustment for specific potential confounders or important risk factors, the relationship between age at first birth and melanoma risk was significantly modified by age, naevi/pigmentation, sunlight exposure, and hair colour. This meta-analysis based on available observational data reveals that age at first birth is positively associated with melanoma risk. However, this finding should be interpreted cautiously, as residual confounding cannot be excluded. More investigations with well-designed are warranted to extend this finding.

Citing Articles

Age at first birth, age at menopause, and risk of ovarian cyst: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study.

Su Q, Yang Z Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2024; 14:1279493.

PMID: 38239975 PMC: 10794498. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1279493.

References
1.
Bain C, Hennekens C, Speizer F, Rosner B, Willett W, Belanger C . Oral contraceptive use and malignant melanoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1982; 68(4):537-9. View

2.
Karagas M, Zens M, Stukel T, Swerdlow A, Rosso S, Osterlind A . Pregnancy history and incidence of melanoma in women: a pooled analysis. Cancer Causes Control. 2006; 17(1):11-9. DOI: 10.1007/s10552-005-0281-y. View

3.
Higgins J, Thompson S . Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002; 21(11):1539-58. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1186. View

4.
Gupta A, Driscoll M . Do hormones influence melanoma? Facts and controversies. Clin Dermatol. 2010; 28(3):287-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2010.04.003. View

5.
Fernandez E, Gallus S, Bosetti C, Franceschi S, Negri E, La Vecchia C . Hormone replacement therapy and cancer risk: a systematic analysis from a network of case-control studies. Int J Cancer. 2003; 105(3):408-12. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.11083. View