Study Finds Talcum Powder Not Likely A Risk For Ovarian Cancer

[appalachiablue]

Study Finds Talcum Powder Not Likely A Risk For Ovarian Cancer, NPR, Jan. 7, 2020.

In recent years, women have taken talcum powder manufacturers to court over concerns that the use of the product in the genital area could cause ovarian cancer. Now, a new study finds no meaningful association between using talc-based or other powders and ovarian cancer.
Researchers from NIH's National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Cancer Institute conducted the largest study to date of genital powder use and ovarian cancer. The study, published Tuesday in JAMA, used data from 252,745 women who answered questions about whether they used powder on their genitals. This was a pooled analysis of four large studies gathering data about the frequency and length of time women used the powder.

According to epidemiologist Katie O'Brien who headed the study, women report applying the powder either directly on their genital area or on sanitary napkins, tampons, underwear or diaphragms. O'Brien doesn't know exactly which type of powder women used. It could have been talcum powder alone, cornstarch alone or a combination of both.

The research finds that women who had ever used powder had an 8% increased risk of ovarian cancer compared to those who never used it. "That is not a statistically significant increase" says O'Brien. And she adds that this increase needs to be understood in context. Ovarian cancer is very rare and the lifetime risk of getting it is 1.3% so an increase of 8% to that is "small." O'Brien says it represents an estimated 0.09% increase in risk by age 70. But among the subset of women who had their uterus and fallopian tubes intact, their increased risk of ovarian cancer from using powder in their genital area was 13% — which is an estimated 0.15% increase in risk by age 70 and is still considered a very small increase.

Unlike most other studies of talc and ovarian cancer, which focused on women already diagnosed with cancer, this study was prospective, and asked about powder use before study subjects had developed ovarian cancer. This means the study is free from recall bias, says O'Brien. It removes the likelihood that study subjects "search for reasons why they have ovarian cancer, and may over-report certain things they have heard may be associated with it."...

More, https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/01/07/794386909/study-finds-talcum-powder-not-likely-a-risk-for-ovarian-cancer

[hlthe2b]

1. I'm going to have to pull that study, but if corn starch use was not differentiated from talc, then

it sounds to me like there is one heck of a lot of confounding that has not been accounted for. That's a very serious issue that may mask a true talc association.

[Mosby]

3. It's not the talc that's the issue

It's the minute amount of asbestos that used to be in talcum powder.

Lawyers have already made billions off this, so this study is worthless. There hasn't been any asbestos in talc since about 1970. So the law firms fish for clients using commercials.

ETA this woman was awarded 417 million, she put JnJ talc on her genitals for 41 years and died from ovarian cancer. The lawyers were using the contingency fee system so they could pocket 125 million dollars.


https://maryalexanderlaw.com/blog/california-talc-powder-lawsuit-news/

[hlthe2b]

4. No. Talc is the proxy for the presence of asbestos. Not cornstarch.

Different mines still produce talc contaminated with asbestos. FDA, for all its best intentions, does not monitor sufficiently closely and surely not in overseas produced products. Hell, FDA isn't sufficiently staffed nor supported enough (especially under Republican admins) to do much of anything within their responsibilities, including food and drug monitoring.

[Mosby]

5. I see what your saying I think

Cornstarch could have been a control.

But there is no asbestos in talc or cornstarch.

[hlthe2b]

6. It was an exposure that needed to be differentiated from talc. Since it was not, its presence

confounded (i.e., masked, likely diluted) the relationship with talc and might well have masked any TRUE association between asbestos-contaminated talc and adverse health effects

[rampartc]

2. i might be wrong, but haven't billions of women used talcum powder

for thousands of years? yet "Ovarian cancer is very rare and the lifetime risk of getting it is 1.3% ."

i'm not saying this should not be studied, but the effects of additives, cornstarch, impurities etc might weigh heavily.