Comparison of culdoscopic and laparoscopic tubal sterilization.

The growing number of women requesting interval sterilization (apart from term delivery or abortion procedures) necessitates the re-evaluation of traditional surgical procedures. A total of 800 women--the first 400 women undergoing culdoscopic and laparoscopic tubal sterilization procedures at Siriraj Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand--evaluate the appropriateness of the two sterilization procedures for use in interval sterilization programs. No serious operative complications occurred in either group. However, the rate of postoperative complications was considerably higher for the culdoscopic group than for the laparoscopic group. Hospitalization was required for only a small percentage of the patients and most had resumed their normal activities within two days of the operation. This study indicates that both procedures are effective and may be safely performed on an outpatient basis without general anesthetics and with minimal discomfort for the patients.     

Depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate (dmpa) and risk of edometrial cancer

This is a report of results from a case-control study of the relationship of the long-acting progestational contraceptive, depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) to risk of endometrial carcinoma. Prior use of DMPA and information on known and suspected risk factors for endometrial cancer were ascertained in personal interviews with 122 women with histologically confirmed disease and 939 controls selected from 2 hospitals in Bangkok and 1 in Chiang Mai, Thailand. Based on 3 exposed cases and 84 exposed controls, the relative risk of endometrial cancer was estimated to be 0.21 (95% confidence interval = 0.06,0.79) in women who had ever used DMPA (but who had not first used DMPA in the year prior to diagnosis). All 3 exposed cases had also received estrogens pre-menopausally. Exposure to such estrogens enhanced risk of endometrial cancer and reduced the apparent protective effect of DMPA. Although based on small numbers of exposed women, the protective effect of DMPA appeared to last for at least 8 years after cessation of use. The reduction in risk of endometrial cancer is at least as great for DMPA as for combined oral contraceptives.     

Alcohol,tobacco and breast cancer--collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 53 epidemiological studies,including 58,515 women with breast cancer and 95,067 women without the disease

Alcohol and tobacco consumption are closely correlated and published results on their association with breast cancer have not always allowed adequately for confounding between these exposures. Over 80% of the relevant information worldwide on alcohol and tobacco consumption and breast cancer were collated, checked and analysed centrally. Analyses included 58,515 women with invasive breast cancer and 95,067 controls from 53 studies. Relative risks of breast cancer were estimated, after stratifying by study, age, parity and, where appropriate, women's age when their first child was born and consumption of alcohol and tobacco. The average consumption of alcohol reported by controls from developed countries was 6.0 g per day, i.e. about half a unit/drink of alcohol per day, and was greater in ever-smokers than never-smokers, (8.4 g per day and 5.0 g per day, respectively). Compared with women who reported drinking no alcohol, the relative risk of breast cancer was 1.32 (1.19-1.45, P<0.00001) for an intake of 35-44 g per day alcohol, and 1.46 (1.33-1.61, P<0.00001) for >/=45 g per day alcohol. The relative risk of breast cancer increased by 7.1% (95% CI 5.5-8.7%; P<0.00001) for each additional 10 g per day intake of alcohol, i.e. for each extra unit or drink of alcohol consumed on a daily basis. This increase was the same in ever-smokers and never-smokers (7.1% per 10 g per day, P<0.00001, in each group). By contrast, the relationship between smoking and breast cancer was substantially confounded by the effect of alcohol. When analyses were restricted to 22 255 women with breast cancer and 40 832 controls who reported drinking no alcohol, smoking was not associated with breast cancer (compared to never-smokers, relative risk for ever-smokers=1.03, 95% CI 0.98-1.07, and for current smokers=0.99, 0.92-1.05). The results for alcohol and for tobacco did not vary substantially across studies, study designs, or according to 15 personal characteristics of the women; nor were the findings materially confounded by any of these factors. If the observed relationship for alcohol is causal, these results suggest that about 4% of the breast cancers in developed countries are attributable to alcohol. In developing countries, where alcohol consumption among controls averaged only 0.4 g per day, alcohol would have a negligible effect on the incidence of breast cancer. In conclusion, smoking has little or no independent effect on the risk of developing breast cancer; the effect of alcohol on breast cancer needs to be interpreted in the context of its beneficial effects, in moderation, on cardiovascular disease and its harmful effects on cirrhosis and cancers of the mouth, larynx, oesophagus and liver.