Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Reviews

Sex Hormones, Hormonal Interventions, and Gastric Cancer Risk: A Meta-analysis

M. Constanza Camargo, Yasuyuki Goto, Jovanny Zabaleta, Douglas R. Morgan, Pelayo Correa and Charles S. Rabkin
M. Constanza Camargo
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yasuyuki Goto
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jovanny Zabaleta
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Douglas R. Morgan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pelayo Correa
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Charles S. Rabkin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-0834 Published January 2012
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Estrogens may influence gastric cancer risk, but published studies are inconclusive. We therefore carried out a meta-analysis addressing the associations of gastric cancer in women with menstrual and reproductive factors and with use of estrogen- and antiestrogen-related therapies. Searches of PubMed up to June, 2011 and review of citations yielded a total of 28 independent studies, including at least one exposure of interest. Random effects pooled estimates of relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% CIs were calculated for eight exposures reported in at least five studies, including: age at menarche, age at menopause, years of fertility, parity, age at first birth, oral contraceptive use, hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and tamoxifen treatment. Longer years of fertility (RR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.63–0.86) and HRT (RR = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.64–0.92) were each associated with decreased gastric cancer risk. Conversely, tamoxifen treatment was associated with increased risk (RR = 1.82; 95% CI: 1.39–2.38). The other five exposures were not significantly associated. Our analysis supports the hypothesis that longer exposure to estrogen effects of either ovarian or exogenous origin may decrease risk of gastric cancer. Additional studies are warranted to extend this finding and to identify the underlying mechanisms. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 21(1); 20–38. ©2011 AACR.

Background

Gastric cancer represents the fourth most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death worldwide (1). Notably, for most populations in both high- and low-incidence regions, the overall incidence in males is approximately double that of females (2, 3). Because these sex differences cannot be totally explained by variations in sociodemographic characteristics, environmental factors, or Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection (4, 5), female sex hormones have been proposed to be protective (6). This hypothesis has been previously evaluated by examining associations of gastric cancer risk in women with sex hormone–related exposures, but most individual studies have been inconclusive. To more precisely characterize the reported associations, we have done a meta-analysis of these data.

Materials and Methods

We searched for studies published in any language before June 30, 2011 evaluating the associations of sex hormone–related exposures with gastric cancer incidence or mortality, using PubMed software to search Medline (U.S. National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD).

To identify studies of menstrual and reproductive factors, as well as exogenous estrogens, the following search strategy was used: (gastric cancer OR stomach cancer OR stomach neoplasms) AND (reproductive factors OR menstrual factors OR age at menarche OR menarche OR menstruation OR parity OR pregnancy OR breastfeeding OR miscarriage OR abortion OR fertility OR age at menopause OR estrogens OR sex hormones OR ovariectomy OR oophorectomy OR hysterectomy OR sex differences OR male predominance OR exogenous hormones OR oral contraceptives (OC) OR hormone replacement therapy (HRT) OR menopausal hormone therapy OR climacteric OR reproductive history) AND (risk assessment OR risk OR risk factors OR epidemiology) AND (case–control studies OR case–control OR cohort studies OR cohort). Reference lists of the selected papers were also screened for other potential articles that may have been missed in the database search. If necessary, we attempted to contact the authors to request additional information.

For the search of tamoxifen studies, the following strategy was used: tamoxifen AND (gastric cancer OR stomach cancer OR stomach neoplasms OR gastrointestinal neoplasms) AND (case–control studies OR case–control OR cohort studies OR cohort OR longitudinal studies OR longitudinal OR retrospective studies OR retrospective OR prospective studies OR prospective OR follow-up studies OR epidemiologic studies). We also searched for data on primary gastric cancer in randomized clinical trials of tamoxifen therapy for breast cancer treatment or prevention by combining the following terms: tamoxifen AND (gastric cancer OR stomach cancer OR stomach neoplasms OR gastrointestinal neoplasms OR “second cancers” OR “second malignancies” OR neoplasms, second primary[MeSH Terms]) AND (breast cancer OR breast neoplasms OR breast malignancy) AND (randomized controlled trial[Publication Type] OR (randomized[Title/Abstract] AND controlled[Title/Abstract] AND trial[Title/Abstract]) OR random*[Title/Abstract] OR random allocation[MeSH Terms]). We also reviewed the reference lists of identified articles and of 2 previous meta-analyses addressing the associations of tamoxifen therapy with breast cancer recurrence and with adverse effects (7, 8).

Two investigators in our team independently reviewed the articles and extracted the data; any disagreement was resolved by consulting a third reviewer. For inclusion in this reanalysis, the studies had to present adjusted estimates of relative risk (or similar measures of association including odds ratios; RR), and corresponding 95% CIs. If anatomical subsite–specific RRs were reported, we extracted data on noncardia gastric cancer only. Although gastric cancer risk was purportedly increased with tamoxifen exposure presumed from date of diagnosis in 2 cancer registry studies (9, 10), we only included data for known exposure status.

The following information was recorded for each study: first author, journal, country in which conducted, year of publication, study design, studied outcome, exposure variables and categories, number of gastric cancer cases, number of controls, cohort size (if applicable), age range, menopausal status of the participants, duration of follow-up (if applicable), total person-years of observation (if applicable), treatment regimen (if applicable), adjusted-RR estimates and 95% CI for incident gastric cancer, and confounding variables controlled.

Pooled risk estimates were calculated for exposure variables that were reported in at least 5 studies, which included age at menarche, age at menopause, years of fertility (defined as years between menarche and menopause in all but one study, which also omitted periods of pregnancy; ref. 11), parity, age at first birth, OC use, HRT, and tamoxifen treatment.

Other sex hormone–related variables reported in fewer than 5 studies included menstrual regularity, number of pregnancies, age at first pregnancy, breastfeeding of offspring, spontaneous abortion, induced abortion, oophorectomy, hysterectomy, menopausal status, intrauterine device use, parenteral contraceptive use, tubal sterilization, duration of OC use, duration of HRT, and history of endometriosis or vaginosis.

Exposures to exogenous estrogens and tamoxifen therapy were analyzed as dichotomous variables. Because some studies reported associations for varying durations of OC use, as compared with never use, we pooled those risk estimates using random effects meta-analysis to estimate the overall effect for ever versus never use. Because the categories of other exposure measures varied across studies, we conducted a meta-analysis of the comparison of the highest versus the lowest category (or the inverse of the comparison of the lowest vs. the highest category, as applicable) in each study. For 2 instances, in which an adjusted RR for this comparison was unavailable, we calculated a crude RR (with Fisher exact 95% CI) from the reported data. On the basis of 95% CI, we calculated the standard error (se) for the ln(RR) by the formula: se = (ln(upper limit) − ln(lower limit))/(2*Z1-α/2), in which for a 95% CI, Z1-α/2 equal to 1.96 (12). Pooled RRs with corresponding 95% CI were then obtained using the random effects method of DerSimonian and Laird, with inverse variance weights (13). Between-study heterogeneity was assessed for statistical significance using the Q statistic and quantified with the I2 metric, classified as low (<25%), moderate (25%–50%), and high (>50%) following Higgins and colleagues (14, 15). If moderate or high heterogeneity was identified for a given variable, meta-regression techniques were used to examine the extent to which 1 or more of the following covariates might be explanatory: study design (cohort, case–control, or randomized clinical trial), continent in which conducted (Asia, Europe, or North America), studied outcome (incidence or mortality), menopausal status of the participants (all postmenopausal or both pre- and postmenopausal), and whether or not the study adjusted for a proxy variable related to socioeconomic status (SES) such as education, income, or occupation. Galbraith plots were used to identify studies which were major contributors to heterogeneity (16). Given that SES is inversely associated with gastric cancer risk (17) and is also an important predictor of HRT use (18), we tried to minimize confounding with an alternative meta-analysis which excluded 3 studies that did not adjust for any SES-related variables.

Because some studies of tamoxifen reported no gastric cancers in one of the treatment groups, we could not compute individual RR estimates. We therefore summed the gastric cancers and corresponding person-time for tamoxifen-treated and tamoxifen-untreated groups, separately for randomized trials and observational studies. Summary RRs (with Fisher exact 95% CI) were derived for the 2 marginal analyses and then pooled using a random effects meta-analysis.

Publication bias was investigated by visual inspection of Begg's funnel plots and formally tested using Egger's regression asymmetry method (19, 20). The influence of individual studies on the overall meta-analysis RR was assessed by sequentially dropping each one before pooling study-specific RRs. A priori, we considered an influential study to be one for which its exclusion altered the overall pooled RR by more than 10%.

Statistical analyses were done with Stata version 11 (StataCorp) using a combination of published macros for meta-analysis, including metan, metainf, metareg, galbr, and metabias (21). A P value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all tests, except the heterogeneity and Egger regression tests for which P < 0.1 was considered significant. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

Results

Literature search for menstrual and reproductive factors and exogenous estrogens

The literature search identified 336 publications, for which the titles and abstracts were scanned to determine potential eligibility for inclusion. Of the 336, 19 were retrieved for further evaluation that also led to identification of 5 more citations from their collective references (Fig. 1A). Thus, 24 articles (23 written in English and 1 in Japanese) reported associations of at least 1 sex hormone–related variable with gastric cancer risk (11, 22–44). However, we excluded the articles by Miller and colleagues (22), Plesko and colleagues (23), Tsukuma and colleagues (24), La Vecchia and colleagues (25), and Kvale and colleagues (28) because only point estimates were reported without 95% CI. Two articles reported partially overlapping data from the Japanese Collaborative Cohort Study (31, 37); we extracted data from Sakauchi and colleagues (37), the more recent reference, for all sex-related variables except years of fertility, which was only available from Kaneko and colleagues (31). Two articles from the Shanghai Women's Health Study reported overlapping results on OC use (36, 40), so those results were extracted from the more recent reference (40); other sex-related variables were extracted from Freedman and colleagues (36). Two articles reported risk estimates based on the same Italian hospital based case–control study, so data from the larger sample of Fernandez and colleagues (32) were used for HRT, whereas other sex-related variables were only available from La Vecchia and colleagues (26). Two reports based on the U.K. General Practice Research Database overlapped (34, 44), so data from the more recent reference were used (44). Exogenous estrogen exposure in the Japan Public Health Center–based Prospective Study reported by Persson and colleagues (38) was excluded because OC use and HRT were not distinguished. Therefore, a total of 18 articles, representing 14 independent studies, were included in the meta-analysis (Table 1). All but 2 articles reported on gastric cancer incidence as the outcome; the exceptions being 2 articles on gastric cancer mortality by Sakauchi and colleagues (37) and Chang and colleagues (43). Six studies had been carried out in Europe, 6 in Asia, and 2 in North America. Seven studies reported case–control comparisons and 7 were analyses of cohorts. Five studies were restricted to postmenopausal women (26, 27, 30, 37, 44), and the remaining 9 studies included both pre- and postmenopausal women. Studies differed with respect to the risk factors controlled in the original analyses: all studies adjusted for age, 7 controlled for SES-related variables (11, 26, 27, 35, 36, 39, 43), 6 controlled for body mass index (11, 27, 32, 36, 41, 44), 6 controlled for smoking (11, 30, 32, 36, 41, 44), 4 controlled for family history of gastric cancer (26, 27, 30, 38), 6 controlled for diet-related variables (11, 26, 27, 30, 35, 41), and 5 controlled for multiple menstrual or reproductive-related variables simultaneously (26, 29, 35, 39, 40). However, Frise and colleagues (35) used premenopausal as the referent category for age at menopause, and Freedman and colleagues (41) used nulliparous as the referent category for age at first birth. Hence, these 2 adjusted RRs could not be pooled with others comparing the highest versus the lowest categories, so we calculated and used crude RRs instead.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Flow diagram of the literature search for studies of (A) menstrual and reproductive factors and exogenous hormones and (B) tamoxifen.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Characteristics of observational studies addressing the association of gastric cancer with menstrual and reproductive factors, and with use of estrogen-related therapies

Literature search for tamoxifen exposure

The two independent literature searches identified 115 citations that were potentially relevant to this reanalysis (Fig. 1B). On the basis of the information provided in the title and abstract, we retrieved for further evaluation 13 articles in which drug therapy in the treatment arm differed from that in the control arm solely by the use of tamoxifen. References of these articles and of 2 previous meta-analyses led to identification of 12 additional studies. Besides irrelevant and duplicate citations, we excluded articles that had either no cases of gastric cancer or did not distinguish them within larger categories (e.g., digestive tract). There were overlapping results from the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (45, 46), the Christ Hospital Adjuvant Tamoxifen Trial (47, 48), the B-14 trial (49, 50), and the Stockholm Breast Cancer Study Group (51, 52), so data from the more recent articles were extracted (46, 48, 50, 52). In addition, 2 reports based on U.S. cancer registrations overlapped (53, 54), so data from the longer study period were extracted (53). Thus, a total of 14 independent studies, including 9 randomized trials (48, 50, 52, 55–60) and 5 cohorts (46, 53, 61–63), were included in the meta-analysis (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Characteristics of randomized trials and observational studies addressing the association of gastric cancer with tamoxifen therapy

Years of fertility

For the analysis of years of fertility, a total of 8 studies were identified (11, 26, 27, 30, 31, 35, 36, 38; Fig. 2A). Study-specific RRs for the longest versus the shortest duration of fertility ranged from 0.55 to 0.99. The pooled RR suggested a significant inverse association with a 26% decreased risk of gastric cancer (Table 3) and low between-study heterogeneity. The pooled RR was robust to the exclusion of any individual study.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

A and B, random-effects estimates and 95% CIs of gastric cancer relative risk (RR) associated with (A) years of fertility (highest vs. lowest category) and (B) HRT (ever vs. never). Study-specific RRs are shown as squares, with the size of the symbol inversely proportional to the study-specific variance. Pooled RRs are shown as diamonds, with the middle corresponding to the point estimate and the width representing the 95% CI. C and D, Begg's funnel plots with pseudo 95% CIs for gastric cancer RRs associated with (C) years of fertility and (D) HRT.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Summary of meta-analytic results

Age at menarche

Associations of gastric cancer with age at menarche were reported in 11 studies (11, 26, 27, 29, 30, 35–38, 41, 42). Study-specific RRs for the oldest age at menarche as compared with the youngest age ranged from 0.70 to 1.93, and the pooled RR was 1.0 (Table 3). Between-study heterogeneity was high, but meta-regression analysis of potential explanatory factors failed to explain the variability. A Galbraith plot (not shown) indicated the studies by Frise and colleagues (35) and Persson and colleagues (38) as outliers contributing to this heterogeneity. The pooled RR derived with exclusion of those studies was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.80–1.0). Notably, analysis restricted to the same set of studies (n = 8) included in the meta-analysis of years of fertility [including data from Kaneko and colleagues (31) instead of Sakauchi and colleagues (37)], had a pooled RR of 1.08 (95% CI: 0.86–1.35) for oldest age at menarche as compared with the youngest age, similar to the effect based on all 11 studies.

Age at menopause

Ten studies examined the association of gastric cancer and age at menopause (11, 26, 27, 29, 30, 35–38, 41). Study-specific RRs for the oldest age at menopause as compared with the youngest ranged from 0.52 to 1.44. The pooled RR was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.67–1.05), with low heterogeneity across studies. This estimate was robust to the exclusion of any individual study. The pooled RR was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62–1.06) for the 8 studies [including data from Kaneko and colleagues (31) instead of Sakauchi and colleagues (37)] that also reported on years of fertility.

Parity

Twelve studies provided information on parity (11, 26, 27, 29, 35–39, 41–43), with study-specific RRs for highest number of full-term pregnancies in comparison with the lowest ranging from 0.52 to 1.90. The summary RR was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.74–1.19). For the 5 studies (11, 26, 35, 38, 41) that used nulliparous women as the reference group, the pooled RR was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.66–1.38; I2 = 56.3%), whereas for the other 7 that used a parous comparison group (either 1 child or 1–2 children), the pooled RR was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.68–1.27; I2 = 89.3%). High heterogeneity was detected among all 12 studies, but there were no significant explanatory variables in meta-regression analysis. A Galbraith plot (not shown) identified the studies by La Vecchia and colleagues (26), Chung and colleagues (42), and Chang and colleagues (43) as outliers contributing to between-study heterogeneity. In an analysis excluding those 3 studies, the pooled RR was essentially unchanged at 0.96 (95% CI: 0.85–1.07).

Age at first birth

Risk estimates for oldest versus youngest age at first birth were reported in 10 studies (11, 26, 27, 29, 30, 36–39, 41) and ranged from 0.43 to 1.45. The pooled RR was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.85–1.15), with low heterogeneity among the studies (Table 3). This estimate was robust to the exclusion of any individual study.

Oral contraceptive use

Risk estimates for ever versus never OC use were reported in 4 studies (26, 35, 40, 42) and ranged from 0.79 to 2.50. In addition, the studies by Duell and colleagues (11) and Freedman and colleagues (41) reported 2 to 3 RRs depending on duration of use, which we pooled to obtain overall RRs for ever use of 1.18 (95% CI: 0.89–1.56) for Duell and colleagues (11) and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.54–1.34) for Freedman and colleagues (41). The proportion of OC users ranged from 3% in a study from Italy using data collected before 1993 (26) to 55% in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition Study, which included women enrolled from 1992 to 1998 (11). The overall pooled RR of gastric cancer for ever users versus never users of OC was 1.15 (95% CI: 0.71–1.88). We found high heterogeneity among the studies, but none of the available variables significantly explained this variation. A Galbraith plot (not shown) indicated the studies by Dorjgochoo and colleagues (40), Freedman and colleagues (41), and Chung and colleagues (42) as outliers contributing to this heterogeneity. The pooled RR derived with exclusion of those studies was 1.11 (95% CI: 0.87–1.42).

Hormone replacement therapy

Figure 2B represents a forest plot of the effect size distribution for the 7 studies that reported on postmenopausal HRT (11, 32, 35–37, 41, 44). The proportion of HRT users ranged from 2% in China (36) to 55% in the United States (41). The pooled RR of gastric cancer for ever users of HRT as compared with never users was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.64–0.92), and there was low heterogeneity among all studies. The average pooled RR was robust to the exclusion of any one study from the overall meta-analysis. In a sensitivity analysis restricted to the 4 studies that adjusted for a proxy variable of SES (11, 32, 35, 36), the point pooled RR was minimally changed, but statistical significance was lost (RR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.60–1.06).

Tamoxifen therapy

Table 2 summarizes studies with data for comparison of primary gastric cancer incidence among women treated or untreated with tamoxifen. Nine randomized controlled trials including 33,329 patients reported a total of 19 gastric cancer cases in the tamoxifen arms and 14 in the control arms. Five separate observational cohort studies reported combined incidence rates of 0.57 and 0.30 gastric cancers per 1,000 patient-years in the tamoxifen-treated and tamoxifen-untreated groups, respectively. Thus, tamoxifen treatment was associated with a nonsignificantly increased risk in the randomized trials (RR = 1.35; 95% CI: 0.64–2.92) and a significantly increased risk in the observational studies (RR = 1.90; 95% CI: 1.41–2.52). A meta-analysis of these 2 marginal RRs (with inverse variance weights of 13% and 87%, respectively) found a significantly increased gastric cancer risk among women treated with tamoxifen (RR = 1.82; 95% CI: 1.39–2.38).

Publication bias

The P values for Egger's test of publication bias were greater than 0.1 for all exposure variables with the exception of OC use (P = 0.10; Table 3). Figure 2 presents Begg's funnel plots for years of fertility (2C) and HRT (2D), the 2 variables found to be significantly associated with gastric cancer risk.

Discussion

Although much has been learned about the epidemiology of gastric cancer, it is still unclear why males have higher risk than females. Our meta-analysis identified decreased gastric cancer risks among women with longer duration of fertility or exposure to HRT and increased risk with exposure to the antiestrogenic agent tamoxifen. However, we found no significant associations with age at menarche, age at menopause, parity, age at first birth, or OC use. On balance, these findings support the notion that estrogen exposure influences the risk of gastric cancer in women.

Given the narrow range of age at menarche, variation of years of fertility is mainly determined by age at menopause. Accordingly, we expected similar associations of gastric cancer with these latter 2 variables, at least with restriction to the common set of 8 studies in which both variables were reported. A potential explanation for the discrepancy in our results, not addressable with aggregated data, may be inconsistency between these variables in categorizing individuals as having high (or low) exposure within a given study.

The other null associations of our analysis may also be understood in context. OC use is not a strong risk factor for breast cancer, an estrogen-driven malignancy (64, 65). Hence, it may not be surprising that OC use does not seem to be associated with gastric cancer risk, for which estrogen exposure presumably has a smaller role. Furthermore, parity and age at first birth do not have clear interpretations with regard to quantitative exposure to estrogen, so the failure to find significant associations with these variables is less relevant to the estrogen hypothesis.

The studies we included vary with respect to the factors controlled in the original analyses. Although we used the reported multivariable adjusted RRs where available, there may have been residual confounding. In the case of HRT, it is possible that postmenopausal women who used hormone therapy may have differed from never users in ways that influence their risk of gastric cancer. Nevertheless, the 4 studies that adjusted for these differences with a proxy variable for SES had a similar pooled RR as all 7 studies of HRT. Thus, confounding by SES would not explain the association between HRT use and gastric cancer, to the extent that these proxies adequately controlled for SES differences without residual confounding.

As a selective estrogen receptor modulator, tamoxifen has both antiestrogenic (e.g., breast tissue) and estrogenic (e.g., bone) effects (66). In a mouse model of gastric cancer, tamoxifen upregulated estrogen-responsive pathways and prevented gastric cancer development (67). We found an opposite effect on risk of gastric cancer in humans, which may speculatively reflect species differences in gastric epithelial susceptibility to the dual tamoxifen effects. Additional potential explanations for the inconsistency between animal and epidemiologic studies include differences in relative age, dose, and duration of treatment as well as drug metabolism.

Chronic infection with H. pylori is the primary cause of gastric cancer, and this bacterium is designated a Class I carcinogen by the World Health Organization (68). Sex differences in age at acquisition and infection prevalence have been proposed as potential explanations for differences in gastric cancer incidence between males and females (3, 69, 70). Indeed, a meta-analysis of international population-based surveys (71) found that males had slightly higher infection prevalence among adults (adjusted OR = 1.16) but not among children. Studies measuring spontaneous clearance of H. pylori infection by sex have varied, with some studies indicating slightly higher seroreversion rates for women than men (72–74), although others found similar rates (75–77). With regard to therapeutic eradication, no significant variation by sex has been reported. In sum, the small magnitude of these sex differences in H. pylori acquisition and clearance cannot fully explain the 2:1 incidence gap.

Steroid-based molecules are incorporated by H. pylori into its membrane lipids and differ in their potential effects on bacterial survival (78, 79). Free cholesterol, for example, is glucosylated after incorporation into H. pylori and acts to inhibit specific T-cell responses (80). In vitro, estradiol is bacteriostatic whereas progesterone and androstenedione are bactericidal (81). In H. pylori–infected insulin–gastrin transgenic (INS-GAS) male mice, estradiol supplementation results in decreased expression of IFNG, TNFA, and IL1B, and increased expression of IL-10 in the epithelial mucosa. Interestingly, these effects are associated with attenuation of gastric lesions and in some models protect against the development of cancer (67, 82, 83). In addition, infected mice treated with estradiol have reduced gastric mRNA expression and serum levels of the neutrophil chemoattractant CXCL1 (67), suggesting that estradiol may limit mucosal injury caused by activated neutrophils. Another study based on a chemically induced model of gastric cancer found that estrogen-treated male rats, as well as female rats, have a lower risk than nontreated male controls (84).

There are several lines of evidence that estrogens may protect against gastric cancer: (i) estrogens interact with receptors in normal, precancerous, and cancerous gastric cells (85, 86), which could regulate the growth and clonal expansion of these cells; (ii) CpG islands in the estrogen receptor gene promoters become hypermethylated with aging, leading to reduced expression with effects on tumor suppressor activity (87); (iii) estrogens increase expression of trefoil factor family genes, which encode products that protect gastric mucosa from endogenous and exogenous insults (88); (iv) estrogens increase apoptosis in human gastric cancer cells in vitro (89); (v) estrogens increase the strength of the immune response to bacterial pathogens by directly blocking expression of caspase-12 (90); (vi) estrogens retard cell migration after simulated “epithelial wounding” in primary cultured cells and particularly in cancer cell lines (91); (vii) high concentrations of plasma isoflavones from phytoestrogens are associated with decreased risk of gastric cancer (92); (viii) polymorphisms in genes involved in estrogen inactivation and hormone bioavailability have been associated with gastric cancer risk (93); and (ix) men with prostate cancer potentially exposed to therapeutic exogenous estrogens had a reduced incidence of gastric cancer as compared with an age-matched reference population (94).

Smoking may facilitate persistence of H. pylori infection (95), increases risk of eradication failure (96), and is considered to have a causal role in the development of gastric cancer (97). Thus, sex differences in smoking patterns may contribute to the male predominance of gastric cancer incidence. However, Freedman and colleagues (5) found roughly similar male/female ratios for cancer incidence among smokers and nonsmokers, suggesting that the difference in smoking does not entirely explain the marked sex difference in gastric cancer risk.

About 9% of gastric cancers harbor Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) infection (98, 99). Furthermore, tumors in males are more than twice as likely to be EBV-positive than tumors in females. Given this sex difference in incidence rates overall, the 2-fold sex difference in EBV positivity implies that the incidence of EBV-positive gastric cancer is 4 times higher in males than females.

Differences in diet between men and women might also be related to sex differences in gastric cancer incidence. In particular, low consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables may increase the risk of noncardia tumors (100), and some studies have suggested that women eat fruits and vegetables both more frequently and in greater quantities than men (101, 102). Other factors that may potentially explain the higher risk of gastric cancer among males, as compared with females, are differences in medication and occupational exposures.

Our analysis was limited by the inconsistent categorization of the exposure variables, particularly those with more than 2 strata. As with any meta-analysis, we cannot exclude the possibility that other studies may have been missed during our literature search, or that studies that observed null effects were absent from the literature altogether. Nevertheless, we found little evidence of publication bias. A greater potential concern with regard to data completeness is that some of the published studies on HRT or tamoxifen did not specifically report incidence of gastric cancer, and many registered tamoxifen trials are still unpublished (7).

Our inability to detect significant between-study heterogeneity may be due to the insensitivity of the Q statistic and/or limited sample sizes. Furthermore, insufficient data precluded analyses for histologic and anatomic subtypes, which might have varying associations with the reviewed exposures. We were also unable to evaluate HRT formulation (unopposed estrogen vs. estrogen plus progesterone compounds) and duration of therapy.

Our finding about tamoxifen primarily reflects observational studies with unmeasured confounding of treatment assignment. Nevertheless, limited data from randomized controlled trials was consistent. The analyses of both the randomized trial and the observational cohort data were hampered by inclusion of groups with zero events, which we addressed by marginal analyses. Although this analytic approach has recognized limitations (103), alternative approaches such as continuity corrections also have drawbacks (104). Furthermore, we could not account for the differences in dose and duration of tamoxifen treatment among studies. Thus, these results should be interpreted with caution.

We restricted our meta-analysis to associations with overt gastric cancer. However, given the recognized multistep process of gastric carcinogenesis (105), it is necessary to consider how estrogens might influence earlier stages such as intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia. Direct assessment of estrogens would be additionally informative, as studies to date are almost exclusively based on surrogate measures. Furthermore, the effect of other selective estrogen receptor modulating drugs on gastric carcinogenesis could be usefully examined.

In conclusion, our results are consistent with the hypothesis that effects of estrogen may lower the risk of gastric cancer in women. Further studies are needed to extend these observations and identify the biological bases of this epidemiologic association. Better understanding of how sex differences influence carcinogenesis would provide important insights into gastric cancer etiology.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Grant Support

This study was funded by the Intramural Research Program of the U.S. National Cancer Institute, NIH.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Nancy Terry, Biomedical Librarian at the U.S. NIH Library for her help with reviewing the search strategies.

  • Received August 29, 2011.
  • Revision received October 7, 2011.
  • Accepted October 15, 2011.
  • ©2011 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Ferlay J,
    2. Shin HR,
    3. Bray F,
    4. Forman D,
    5. Mathers C,
    6. Parkin DM
    . Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 2010;127:2893–917.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Griffith GW
    . The sex ratio in gastric cancer and hypothetical considerations relative to aetiology. Br J Cancer 1968;22:163–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Sipponen P,
    2. Correa P
    . Delayed rise in incidence of gastric cancer in females results in unique sex ratio (M/F) pattern: etiologic hypothesis. Gastric Cancer 2002;5:213–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Lindblad M,
    2. Rodríguez LA,
    3. Lagergren J
    . Body mass, tobacco and alcohol and risk of esophageal, gastric cardia, and gastric non-cardia adenocarcinoma among men and women in a nested case-control study. Cancer Causes Control 2005;16:285–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Freedman ND,
    2. Derakhshan MH,
    3. Abnet CC,
    4. Schatzkin A,
    5. Hollenbeck AR,
    6. McColl KE
    . Male predominance of upper gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma cannot be explained by differences in tobacco smoking in men versus women. Eur J Cancer 2010;46:2473–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Chandanos E,
    2. Lagergren J
    . Oestrogen and the enigmatic male predominance of gastric cancer. Eur J Cancer 2008;44:2397–403.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Tamoxifen for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001;(1):CD000486.
  8. 8.↵
    1. Braithwaite RS,
    2. Chlebowski RT,
    3. Lau J,
    4. George S,
    5. Hess R,
    6. Col NF
    . Meta-analysis of vascular and neoplastic events associated with tamoxifen. J Gen Intern Med 2003;18:937–47.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Chandanos E,
    2. Lindblad M,
    3. Jia C,
    4. Rubio CA,
    5. Ye W,
    6. Lagergren J
    . Tamoxifen exposure and risk of oesophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma: a population-based cohort study of breast cancer patients in Sweden. Br J Cancer 2006;95:118–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Mellemkjaer L,
    2. Friis S,
    3. Olsen JH,
    4. Scélo G,
    5. Hemminki K,
    6. Tracey E,
    7. et al.
    Risk of second cancer among women with breast cancer. Int J Cancer 2006;118:2285–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Duell EJ,
    2. Travier N,
    3. Lujan-Barroso L,
    4. Boutron-Ruault MC,
    5. Clavel-Chapelon F,
    6. Palli D,
    7. et al.
    Menstrual and reproductive factors, exogenous hormone use, and gastric cancer risk in a cohort of women from the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition. Am J Epidemiol 2010;172:1384–93.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Bradburn MJ
    . Updated and New Commands for Meta-Analysis in STATA. 2004. Cancer Research UK Medical Statistics Group. Oxford: Centre for Statistics in Medicine. [cited 20 May 2011]. Available from: http://www.medepi.net/meta/software/Bradburn_metan_updates.pdf.
  13. 13.↵
    1. DerSimonian R,
    2. Laird N
    . Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7:177–88.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Higgins JP,
    2. Thompson SG
    . Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002;21:1539–58.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Higgins JP,
    2. Thompson SG,
    3. Deeks JJ,
    4. Altman DG
    . Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557–60.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Galbraith RF
    . Graphical display of estimates having differing standard errors. Technometrics 1988;30:271–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    1. Crew KD,
    2. Neugut AI
    . Epidemiology of gastric cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2006;12:354–62.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Finley C,
    2. Gregg EW,
    3. Solomon LJ,
    4. Gay E
    . Disparities in hormone replacement therapy use by socioeconomic status in a primary care population. J Community Health 2001;26:39–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Begg CB,
    2. Mazumdar M
    . Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994;50:1088–101.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Egger M,
    2. Davey Smith G,
    3. Schneider M,
    4. Minder C
    . Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629–34.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Sterne JAC
    , editor. Meta-analysis in Stata: an updated collection from the Stata Journal 2009. Stata Press, USA.
  22. 22.↵
    1. Miller AB,
    2. Barclay TH,
    3. Choi NW,
    4. Grace MG,
    5. Wall C,
    6. Plante M,
    7. et al.
    A study of cancer, parity and age at first pregnancy. J Chronic Dis 1980;33:595–605.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Plesko I,
    2. Preston-Martin S,
    3. Day NE,
    4. Tzonou A,
    5. Dimitrova E,
    6. Somogyi J
    . Parity and cancer risk in Slovakia. Int J Cancer 1985;36:529–33.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Tsukuma H,
    2. Fujimoto I,
    3. Furukawa H,
    4. Iwanaga T,
    5. Okuda S,
    6. Tatsuta M,
    7. et al.
    [A case-control study of stomach cancer in young females, with special reference to the effects of pregnancy and delivery]. [Article in Japanese] Gan No Rinsho 1989;35:35–40.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    1. La Vecchia C,
    2. Negri E,
    3. Franceschi S,
    4. Parazzini F
    . Long-term impact of reproductive factors on cancer risk. Int J Cancer 1993;53:215–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. La Vecchia C,
    2. D'Avanzo B,
    3. Franceschi S,
    4. Negri E,
    5. Parazzini F,
    6. Decarli A
    . Menstrual and reproductive factors and gastric-cancer risk in women. Int J Cancer 1994;59:761–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Palli D,
    2. Cipriani F,
    3. Decarli A,
    4. Galli M,
    5. Saieva C,
    6. Fraumeni JF Jr.,
    7. et al.
    Reproductive history and gastric cancer among post-menopausal women. Int J Cancer 1994;56:812–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Kvåle G,
    2. Heuch I,
    3. Nilssen S
    . Parity in relation to mortality and cancer incidence: a prospective study of Norwegian women. Int J Epidemiol 1994;23:691–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Heuch I,
    2. Kvåle G
    . Menstrual and reproductive factors and risk of gastric cancer: a Norwegian cohort study. Cancer Causes Control 2000;11:869–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Inoue M,
    2. Ito LS,
    3. Tajima K,
    4. Yamamura Y,
    5. Kodera Y,
    6. Takezaki T,
    7. et al.
    Height, weight, menstrual and reproductive factors and risk of gastric cancer among Japanese postmenopausal women: analysis by subsite and histologic subtype. Int J Cancer 2002;97:833–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Kaneko S,
    2. Tamakoshi A,
    3. Ohno Y,
    4. Mizoue T,
    5. Yoshimura T
    . JACC Study Group. Menstrual and reproductive factors and the mortality risk of gastric cancer in Japanese menopausal females. Cancer Causes Control 2003;14:53–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Fernandez E,
    2. Gallus S,
    3. Bosetti C,
    4. Franceschi S,
    5. Negri E,
    6. La Vecchia C
    . Hormone replacement therapy and cancer risk: a systematic analysis from a network of case-control studies. Int J Cancer 2003;105:408–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Heuch I,
    2. Kvåle G
    . Does breastfeeding affect the risk of gastric cancer? Int J Cancer 2003;106:982–3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Lindblad M,
    2. García Rodríguez LA,
    3. Chandanos E,
    4. Lagergren J
    . Hormone replacement therapy and risks of oesophageal and gastric adenocarcinomas. Br J Cancer 2006;94:136–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Frise S,
    2. Kreiger N,
    3. Gallinger S,
    4. Tomlinson G,
    5. Cotterchio M
    . Menstrual and reproductive risk factors and risk for gastric adenocarcinoma in women: findings from the Canadian national enhanced cancer surveillance system. Ann Epidemiol 2006;16:908–16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Freedman ND,
    2. Chow WH,
    3. Gao YT,
    4. Shu XO,
    5. Ji BT,
    6. Yang G,
    7. et al.
    Menstrual and reproductive factors and gastric cancer risk in a large prospective study of women. Gut 2007;56:1671–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Sakauchi F
    . Japan Collaborative Cohort Study for Evaluation of Cancer. Reproductive history and health screening for women and mortality in the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study for Evaluation of Cancer (JACC). Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2007;8 Suppl:129–34.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Persson C,
    2. Inoue M,
    3. Sasazuki S,
    4. Kurahashi N,
    5. Iwasaki M,
    6. Ye W,
    7. et al.
    Female reproductive factors and the risk of gastric cancer in a large-scale population-based cohort study in Japan (JPHC study). Eur J Cancer Prev 2008;17:345–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Bahmanyar S,
    2. Lambe M,
    3. Zendehdel K,
    4. Nyrén O,
    5. Boffetta P,
    6. Ye W
    . Parity and risk of stomach cancer by sub-site: a national Swedish study. Br J Cancer 2008;98:1295–300.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Dorjgochoo T,
    2. Shu XO,
    3. Li HL,
    4. Qian HZ,
    5. Yang G,
    6. Cai H,
    7. et al.
    Use of oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices and tubal sterilization and cancer risk in a large prospective study, from 1996 to 2006. Int J Cancer 2009;124:2442–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Freedman ND,
    2. Lacey JV Jr.,
    3. Hollenbeck AR,
    4. Leitzmann MF,
    5. Schatzkin A,
    6. Abnet CC
    . The association of menstrual and reproductive factors with upper gastrointestinal tract cancers in the NIH-AARP cohort. Cancer 2010;116:1572–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Chung HW,
    2. Noh SH,
    3. Lim JB
    . Analysis of demographic characteristics in 3242 young age gastric cancer patients in Korea. World J Gastroenterol 2010;16:256–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Chang CC,
    2. Chen CC,
    3. Chiu HF,
    4. Yang CY
    . Higher parity associated with higher risk of death from gastric cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2011;17:784–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Green J,
    2. Czanner G,
    3. Reeves G,
    4. Watson J,
    5. Wise L,
    6. Roddam A,
    7. et al.
    Menopausal hormone therapy and risk of gastrointestinal cancer: Nested case-control study within a prospective cohort, and meta-analysis. Int J Cancer 2011 Jun 13.
  45. 45.↵
    1. Andersson M,
    2. Storm HH,
    3. Mouridsen HT
    . Incidence of new primary cancers after adjuvant tamoxifen therapy and radiotherapy for early breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1991;83:1013–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.↵
    1. Andersson M,
    2. Jensen MB,
    3. Engholm G,
    4. Henrik Storm H
    . Risk of second primary cancer among patients with early operable breast cancer registered or randomised in Danish Breast Cancer cooperative Group (DBCG) protocols of the 77, 82 and 89 programmes during 1977–2001. Acta Oncol 2008;47:755–64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Ribeiro G,
    2. Swindell R
    . The Christie hospital adjuvant tamoxifen trial–status at 10 years. Br J Cancer 1988;57:601–3.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Ribeiro G,
    2. Swindell R
    . The Christie Hospital adjuvant tamoxifen trial. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1992;11:121–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Fisher B,
    2. Costantino JP,
    3. Redmond CK,
    4. Fisher ER,
    5. Wickerham DL,
    6. Cronin WM
    . Endometrial cancer in tamoxifen-treated breast cancer patients: findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-14. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:527–37.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. 50.↵
    1. Fisher B,
    2. Dignam J,
    3. Bryant J,
    4. DeCillis A,
    5. Wickerham DL,
    6. Wolmark N,
    7. et al.
    Five versus more than five years of tamoxifen therapy for breast cancer patients with negative lymph nodes and estrogen receptor-positive tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:1529–42.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. 51.↵
    1. Fornander T,
    2. Rutqvist LE,
    3. Cedermark B,
    4. Glas U,
    5. Mattsson A,
    6. Skoog L,
    7. et al.
    Adjuvant tamoxifen in early-stage breast cancer: effects on intercurrent morbidity and mortality. J Clin Oncol 1991;9:1740–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  52. 52.↵
    1. Rutqvist LE,
    2. Johansson H,
    3. Signomklao T,
    4. Johansson U,
    5. Fornander T,
    6. Wilking N
    . Adjuvant tamoxifen therapy for early stage breast cancer and second primary malignancies. Stockholm Breast Cancer Study Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:645–51.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. 53.↵
    1. Curtis RE,
    2. Boice JD Jr.,
    3. Shriner DA,
    4. Hankey BF,
    5. Fraumeni JF Jr.
    . Second cancers after adjuvant tamoxifen therapy for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:832–4.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  54. 54.↵
    1. Newcomb PA,
    2. Solomon C,
    3. White E
    . Tamoxifen and risk of large bowel cancer in women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1999;53:271–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Rydén S,
    2. Fernö M,
    3. Möller T,
    4. Aspegren K,
    5. Bergljung L,
    6. Killander D,
    7. et al.
    Long-term effects of adjuvant tamoxifen and/or radiotherapy. The South Sweden Breast Cancer Trial. Acta Oncol 1992;31:271–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Cummings FJ,
    2. Gray R,
    3. Tormey DC,
    4. Davis TE,
    5. Volk H,
    6. Harris J,
    7. et al.
    Adjuvant tamoxifen versus placebo in elderly women with node-positive breast cancer: long-term follow-up and causes of death. J Clin Oncol 1993;11:29–35.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  57. 57.↵
    1. Rivkin SE,
    2. Green S,
    3. Metch B,
    4. Cruz AB,
    5. Abeloff MD,
    6. Jewell WR,
    7. et al.
    Adjuvant CMFVP versus tamoxifen versus concurrent CMFVP and tamoxifen for postmenopausal, node-positive, and estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer patients: a Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 1994;12:2078–85.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. 58.↵
    1. Cuzick J,
    2. Forbes J,
    3. Edwards R,
    4. Baum M,
    5. Cawthorn S,
    6. Coates A,
    7. et al.
    First results from the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS-I): a randomised prevention trial. Lancet 2002;360:817–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    1. Fisher B,
    2. Costantino JP,
    3. Wickerham DL,
    4. Cecchini RS,
    5. Cronin WM,
    6. Robidoux A,
    7. et al.
    Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: current status of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1652–62.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. 60.↵
    1. Veronesi U,
    2. Maisonneuve P,
    3. Rotmensz N,
    4. Bonanni B,
    5. Boyle P,
    6. Viale G,
    7. et al.
    Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: late results of the Italian Randomized Tamoxifen Prevention Trial among women with hysterectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:727–37.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. 61.↵
    1. Matsuyama Y,
    2. Tominaga T,
    3. Nomura Y,
    4. Koyama H,
    5. Kimura M,
    6. Sano M,
    7. et al.
    Second cancers after adjuvant tamoxifen therapy for breast cancer in Japan. Ann Oncol 2000;11:1537–43.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  62. 62.↵
    1. Ursic-Vrscaj M,
    2. Kovacic J,
    3. Bebar S,
    4. Djurisic A,
    5. Fras PA,
    6. Robic V
    . Endometrial and other primary cancers after tamoxifen treatment of breast cancer–results of retrospective cohort study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001;95:105–10.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    1. Fowble B,
    2. Hanlon A,
    3. Freedman G,
    4. Nicolaou N,
    5. Anderson P
    . Second cancers after conservative surgery and radiation for stages I-II breast cancer: identifying a subset of women at increased risk. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;51:679–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    1. Romieu I,
    2. Berlin JA,
    3. Colditz G
    . Oral contraceptives and breast cancer. Review and meta-analysis. Cancer 1990;66:2253–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    1. Kahlenborn C,
    2. Modugno F,
    3. Potter DM,
    4. Severs WB
    . Oral contraceptive use as a risk factor for premenopausal breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Mayo Clin Proc 2006;81:1290–302.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. 66.↵
    1. Osborne CK
    . Tamoxifen in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1998;339:1609–18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. 67.↵
    1. Sheh A,
    2. Ge Z,
    3. Parry NM,
    4. Muthupalani S,
    5. Rager JE,
    6. Raczynski AR,
    7. et al.
    17(lowercase beta)-estradiol and tamoxifen prevent gastric cancer by modulating leukocyte recruitment and oncogenic pathways in Helicobacter pylori-infected INS-GAS male mice. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2011;4:1426–35.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  68. 68.↵
    IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, Schistosomes, liver flukes and Helicobacter pylori. Lyon, France:IARC Press 1994;61:218–20.
  69. 69.↵
    1. Goodman KJ,
    2. Correa P,
    3. Tenganá Aux HJ,
    4. Ramírez H,
    5. DeLany JP,
    6. Guerrero Pepinosa O,
    7. et al.
    Helicobacter pylori infection in the Colombian Andes: a population-based study of transmission pathways. Am J Epidemiol 1996;144:290–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  70. 70.↵
    1. Replogle ML,
    2. Glaser SL,
    3. Hiatt RA,
    4. Parsonnet J
    . Biologic sex as a risk factor for Helicobacter pylori infection in healthy young adults. Am J Epidemiol 1995;142:856–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. 71.↵
    1. de Martel C,
    2. Parsonnet J
    . Helicobacter pylori infection and gender: a meta-analysis of population-based prevalence surveys. Dig Dis Sci 2006;51:2292–301.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. 72.↵
    1. Klein PD,
    2. Gilman RH,
    3. Leon-Barua R,
    4. Diaz F,
    5. Smith EO,
    6. Graham DY
    . The epidemiology of Helicobacter pylori in Peruvian children between 6 and 30 months of age. Am J Gastroenterol 1994;89:2196–200.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  73. 73.↵
    1. Kikuchi S,
    2. Ohgihara A,
    3. Hasegawa A,
    4. Miki K,
    5. Kaneko E,
    6. Mizukoshi H
    . Seroconversion and seroreversion of Helicobacter pylori antibodies over a 9-year period and related factors in Japanese adults. Helicobacter 2004;9:335–41.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  74. 74.↵
    1. Fawcett JP,
    2. Barbezat GO,
    3. Poulton R,
    4. Milne BJ,
    5. Xia HH,
    6. Talley NJ
    . Helicobacter pylori serology in a birth cohort of New Zealanders from age 11 to 26. World J Gastroenterol 2005;11:3273–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  75. 75.↵
    1. Ashorn M,
    2. Mäki M,
    3. Hällström M,
    4. Uhari M,
    5. Akerblom HK,
    6. Viikari J,
    7. et al.
    Helicobacter pylori infection in Finnish children and adolescents. A serologic cross-sectional and follow-up study. Scand J Gastroenterol 1995;30:876–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  76. 76.↵
    1. Rehnberg-Laiho L,
    2. Rautelin H,
    3. Valle M,
    4. Kosunen TU
    . Persisting Helicobacter antibodies in Finnish children and adolescents between two and twenty years of age. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1998;17:796–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. 77.↵
    1. Rosenstock S,
    2. Jørgensen T,
    3. Andersen L,
    4. Bonnevie O
    . Seroconversion and seroreversion in IgG antibodies to Helicobacter pylori: a serology based prospective cohort study. J Epidemiol Community Health 2000;54:444–50.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  78. 78.↵
    1. Hosoda K,
    2. Shimomura H,
    3. Hayashi S,
    4. Yokota K,
    5. Oguma K,
    6. Hirai Y
    . Anabolic utilization of steroid hormones in Helicobacter pylori . FEMS Microbiol Lett 2009;297:173–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  79. 79.↵
    1. Shimomura H,
    2. Hosoda K,
    3. Hayashi S,
    4. Yokota K,
    5. Oguma K,
    6. Hirai Y
    . Steroids mediate resistance to the bactericidal effect of phosphatidylcholines against Helicobacter pylori . FEMS Microbiol Lett 2009;301:84–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. 80.↵
    1. Wunder C,
    2. Churin Y,
    3. Winau F,
    4. Warnecke D,
    5. Vieth M,
    6. Lindner B,
    7. et al.
    Cholesterol glucosylation promotes immune evasion by Helicobacter pylori . Nat Med 2006;12:1030–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. 81.↵
    1. Hosoda K,
    2. Shimomura H,
    3. Hayashi S,
    4. Yokota K,
    5. Hirai Y
    . Steroid hormones as bactericidal agents to Helicobacter pylori . FEMS Microbiol Lett 2011;318:68–75.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  82. 82.↵
    1. Ohtani M,
    2. García A,
    3. Rogers AB,
    4. Ge Z,
    5. Taylor NS,
    6. Xu S,
    7. et al.
    Protective role of 17 beta -estradiol against the development of Helicobacter pylori-induced gastric cancer in INS-GAS mice. Carcinogenesis 2007;28:2597–604.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  83. 83.↵
    1. Ohtani M,
    2. Ge Z,
    3. García A,
    4. Rogers AB,
    5. Muthupalani S,
    6. Taylor NS,
    7. et al.
    17{beta}-Estradiol suppresses Helicobacter pylori-induced gastric pathology in male hypergastrinemic INS-GAS mice. Carcinogenesis 2011;32:1244–50.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  84. 84.↵
    1. Furukawa H,
    2. Iwanaga T,
    3. Koyama H,
    4. Taniguchi H
    . Effect of sex hormones on the experimental induction of cancer in rat stomach–a preliminary study. Digestion 1982;23:151–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  85. 85.↵
    1. Tokunaga A,
    2. Kojima N,
    3. Andoh T,
    4. Matsukura N,
    5. Yoshiyasu M,
    6. Tanaka N,
    7. et al.
    Hormone receptors in gastric cancer. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1983;19:687–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  86. 86.↵
    1. Matsuyama S,
    2. Ohkura Y,
    3. Eguchi H,
    4. Kobayashi Y,
    5. Akagi K,
    6. Uchida K,
    7. et al.
    Estrogen receptor beta is expressed in human stomach adenocarcinoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2002;128:319–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. 87.↵
    1. Zhao YF,
    2. Zhang YG,
    3. Tian XX,
    4. Juan Du,
    5. Jie Zheng
    . Aberrant methylation of multiple genes in gastric carcinomas. Int J Surg Pathol 2007;15:242–51.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  88. 88.↵
    1. Taupin D,
    2. Podolsky DK
    . Trefoil factors: initiators of mucosal healing. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2003;4:721–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. 89.↵
    1. Pricci M,
    2. Linsalata M,
    3. Russo F,
    4. Messa C,
    5. Amati L,
    6. Caradonna L,
    7. et al.
    Effects of 17beta-estradiol administration on apoptosis and polyamine content in AGS cell line. Anticancer Res 2001;21:3215–20.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  90. 90.↵
    1. Yeretssian G,
    2. Doiron K,
    3. Shao W,
    4. Leavitt BR,
    5. Hayden MR,
    6. Nicholson DW,
    7. et al.
    Gender differences in expression of the human caspase-12 long variant determines susceptibility to Listeria monocytogenes infection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009;106:9016–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  91. 91.↵
    1. Nylander-Koski O,
    2. Kiviluoto T,
    3. Puolakkainen P,
    4. Kivilaakso E,
    5. Mustonen H
    . The effect of nitric oxide, growth factors, and estrogen on gastric cell migration. J Surg Res 2007;143:230–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  92. 92.↵
    1. Ko KP,
    2. Park SK,
    3. Park B,
    4. Yang JJ,
    5. Cho LY,
    6. Kang C,
    7. et al.
    Isoflavones from phytoestrogens and gastric cancer risk: a nested case-control study within the Korean Multicenter Cancer Cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010;19:1292–300.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  93. 93.↵
    1. Freedman ND,
    2. Ahn J,
    3. Hou L,
    4. Lissowska J,
    5. Zatonski W,
    6. Yeager M,
    7. et al.
    Polymorphisms in estrogen- and androgen-metabolizing genes and the risk of gastric cancer. Carcinogenesis 2009;30:71–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  94. 94.↵
    1. Lindblad M,
    2. Ye W,
    3. Rubio C,
    4. Lagergren J
    . Estrogen and risk of gastric cancer: a protective effect in a nationwide cohort study of patients with prostate cancer in Sweden. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004;13:2203–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  95. 95.↵
    1. Cardenas VM,
    2. Graham DY
    . Smoking and Helicobacter pylori infection in a sample of U.S. adults. Epidemiology 2005;16:586–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  96. 96.↵
    1. Suzuki T,
    2. Matsuo K,
    3. Ito H,
    4. Sawaki A,
    5. Hirose K,
    6. Wakai K,
    7. et al.
    Smoking increases the treatment failure for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Am J Med 2006;119:217–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  97. 97.↵
    IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking. Lyon, France; IARC Press 2004;83:557–613.
  98. 98.↵
    1. Murphy G,
    2. Pfeiffer R,
    3. Camargo MC,
    4. Rabkin CS
    . Meta-analysis shows that prevalence of Epstein-Barr virus-positive gastric cancer differs based on sex and anatomic location. Gastroenterology 2009;137:824–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  99. 99.↵
    1. Camargo MC,
    2. Murphy G,
    3. Koriyama C,
    4. Pfeiffer RM,
    5. Kim WH,
    6. Herrera-Goepfert R,
    7. et al.
    Determinants of Epstein-Barr virus-positive gastric cancer: an international pooled analysis. Br J Cancer 2011;105:38–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. 100.↵
    1. Lunet N,
    2. Valbuena C,
    3. Vieira AL,
    4. Lopes C,
    5. Lopes C,
    6. David L,
    7. et al.
    Fruit and vegetable consumption and gastric cancer by location and histological type: case-control and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer Prev 2007;16:312–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. 101.↵
    1. Baker AH,
    2. Wardle J
    . Sex differences in fruit and vegetable intake in older adults. Appetite 2003;40:269–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  102. 102.↵
    1. Schätzer M,
    2. Rust P,
    3. Elmadfa I
    . Fruit and vegetable intake in Austrian adults: intake frequency, serving sizes, reasons for and barriers to consumption, and potential for increasing consumption. Public Health Nutr 2010;13:480–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  103. 103.↵
    1. Altman DG,
    2. Deeks JJ
    . Meta-analysis, Simpson's paradox, and the number needed to treat. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2002;2. Available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/2/3.
  104. 104.↵
    1. Sweeting MJ,
    2. Sutton AJ,
    3. Lambert PC
    . What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data. Stat Med 2004;23:1351–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  105. 105.↵
    1. Correa P,
    2. Haenszel W,
    3. Cuello C,
    4. Tannenbaum S,
    5. Archer M
    . A model for gastric cancer epidemiology. Lancet 1975;2:58–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention: 21 (1)
January 2012
Volume 21, Issue 1
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Sex Hormones, Hormonal Interventions, and Gastric Cancer Risk: A Meta-analysis
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Sex Hormones, Hormonal Interventions, and Gastric Cancer Risk: A Meta-analysis
M. Constanza Camargo, Yasuyuki Goto, Jovanny Zabaleta, Douglas R. Morgan, Pelayo Correa and Charles S. Rabkin
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev January 1 2012 (21) (1) 20-38; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-0834

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Sex Hormones, Hormonal Interventions, and Gastric Cancer Risk: A Meta-analysis
M. Constanza Camargo, Yasuyuki Goto, Jovanny Zabaleta, Douglas R. Morgan, Pelayo Correa and Charles S. Rabkin
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev January 1 2012 (21) (1) 20-38; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-0834
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Background
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Grant Support
    • Acknowledgments
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Epigenetic Alterations and Cervical Cancer Development
  • Lessons Learned from Setting Up a Prospective Study
  • Environmental Exposures and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma
Show more Reviews
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
eISSN: 1538-7755
ISSN: 1055-9965

Advertisement