A large number of lawsuits and a long debate have dragged down the theory as to whether the talcum powder widely used for babies and also by women in the genital area plays a key role in the development of some types of cancer. Now, a new analysis by US government researchers from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences with data from more than 250,000 women ( exactly 252,745 and with an average age of 57 years ) has found no link, but the authors advise caution as the study might not be large enough. The controversy is far from being resolved in the short term.
For decades, some women have used talcum powder for genital hygiene to absorb odor and moisture, either through direct application or through underwear, sanitary napkins, tampons, or diaphragms. The practice is more common among older generations than younger ones, but its use has become controversial due to potential cancer risks.
In the recent study, the scientists found no evidence that talc was dangerous when used as a feminine hygiene product. And it is likely that after the publication of this study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson, which in recent years has been forced to pay billions of euros in compensation for the women who claim to have developed ovarian cancer after using Johnson’s Baby Powder, take the opportunity to appeal each of the court decisions against you.
Study
Of the 252,745 American women studied, 38% said they used talcum powder on their genital area; 10% said they did it for at least 20 years and 22% said they used it at least once a week.
After about 11 years, 2,168 had developed ovarian cancer : 61 cases per 100,000 people a year among those who ever used talcum powder around their genital areas and 55 cases per 100,000 people a year among those who did not.
The study says there is a possible association between dust and ovarian cancer among women who had no history of hysterectomy or tubal ligation, but this “finding should be considered exploratory and hypothesis-generating only.” They explain that in women with intact reproductive tracts, the dust can travel directly to the affected areas and cause irritation or inflammation. In women who have had their uterus removed or their fallopian tubes blocked, the dust does not have physical access to the ovaries.
Therefore, no statistically significant association was found when comparing women who had used talcum powder and those who had never used it. Neither was any significant association found when comparing the frequency or duration of use.
Study limitations
According to the experts, as it is an observational study, there are limitations. Each cohort study measured dust use differently. The way in which talcum powder exposure was assessed and frequency of use varied, so it is difficult to know if there is a connection between the amount of talcum powder used and ovarian cancer . In addition, the study does not specify what type of talcum powder was used by the women in the study and, despite being a considerable sample, it included mainly white women with studies and half of them without overweight, so it is complicated generalize with this very specific population group.
The authors urge caution: “The study may have been underpowered to identify a small increase in risk.”
Why is talcum associated with cancer?
Talc is a mineral that is sometimes found naturally in areas that also contain asbestos (also known as asbestos) and asbestos is a known carcinogen . However, US manufacturers of talc cosmetic products agreed to ban asbestos in 1976. Since that time, the International Agency for Research on Cancer has stated that there is “possible” evidence that genital use of talc-based body powder it may be related to cancer. Over time, the use of talcum powder has also been linked to other types of cancer, such as mesothelioma, which affects the tissue that lines the lungs and other organs.
European legislation
Since the 1980s, asbestos / asbestos related products have been shown to cause cancer. The European Union Technical Commission prohibited the use of any type of asbestos since January 1, 2005 for those countries that had not yet banned it. For this reason, all Member States have had to prohibit the commercialization and use of any type of asbestos.
ScienceMediaCentre Expert Opinions:
“This is a very well done study by a highly respected group of researchers. Proving causal links of this type is very difficult and the authors are very careful to highlight the potential limitations of the work. However, this research is robust, analyzing data from 250,000 women with an average follow-up of more than 11 years, and has concluded that there is no statistically significant relationship between the use of talc and the development of ovarian cancer, “explained Iain McNeish. , Director of the Ovarian Cancer Action Research Center at Imperial College London, who was not involved in the study.
“One thing this research clearly demonstrates is how difficult it is to determine if something like this is really a risk factor for cancer. Despite the fact that we are talking about a competent and careful study that has more than a quarter of a million women as a sample, it still leaves room for doubt about the association, if any, between the use of dust in the genital area and the ovarian cancer. There is still uncertainty. There is question as to whether the dust itself is what causes any increased risk of cancer. And there is also uncertainty about what the size of the risk increase is, if any. But what the research does establish is that if using talcum powder or other powder on that part of a woman’s body actually increases the risk of ovarian cancer, the increased risk is likely to be small. Not being a woman, I can’t worry about my own health in this regard, but if I were one of them, this wouldn’t be on my list of concerns, ”said Kevin McConway , emeritus professor of applied statistics at The Open University.
Referencia: : Association of Powder Use in the Genital Area With Risk of Ovarian Cancer. Katie M. O’Brien, PhD1; Shelley S. Tworoger, PhD2,3; Holly R. Harris, ScD4,5; et al Garnet L. Anderson, PhD6; Clarice R. Weinberg, PhD7; Britton Trabert, PhD8; Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD9; Aimee A. D’Aloisio, PhD10; Dale P. Sandler, PhD1; Nicolas Wentzensen, MD, PhD11 JAMA. Journal of the American Medical Association 2020;323(1):49-59. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.20079
