Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The risk for subsequent primary lung cancer after cervical carcinoma: A quantitative analysis based on 864,627 cases

  • Sheng Gong,

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft

    Affiliation Department of Thoracic Surgery, The Public Health Clinical Center of Chengdu, Chengdu, P.R. China

    ⨯
  • Gang Li,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Software

    Affiliation Department of Thoracic Surgery, The Public Health Clinical Center of Chengdu, Chengdu, P.R. China

    ⨯
  • Dan Li,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation

    Affiliation Department of Thoracic Surgery, The Public Health Clinical Center of Chengdu, Chengdu, P.R. China

    ⨯
  • Yu Liu,

    Roles Investigation, Methodology, Resources

    Affiliation Department of Thoracic Surgery, The Public Health Clinical Center of Chengdu, Chengdu, P.R. China

    ⨯
  • Banggui Wu

    Roles Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    18981832143@163.com

    Affiliation Department of Thoracic Surgery, The Public Health Clinical Center of Chengdu, Chengdu, P.R. China

    ⨯

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the risk of developing subsequent primary lung cancer among cervical cancer patients and the general population.

Methods

Several databases were searched from inception to April 25, 2023. The standard incidence ratios (SIRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were combined to identify the risk for second primary lung cancer after cervical carcinoma. Subgroup analyses based on the follow-up period, age, degree of malignancy and source of SIR were conducted. All the statistical analyses were performed with STATA 15.0 software.

Results

A total of 22 retrospective studies involving 864,627 participants were included. The pooled results demonstrated that cervical cancer patients had a significantly greater risk for lung cancer than did the general population (SIR = 2.63, 95% CI: 2.37–2.91, P<0.001). Furthermore, subgroup analyses stratified by follow-up period (<5 years and ≥5 years), age (≤50 years and <50 years), and degree of malignancy (invasive and in situ) also revealed an increased risk of developing lung cancer among cervical carcinoma patients.

Conclusion

Cervical cancer patients are more likely to develop subsequent primary lung cancer than the general population, regardless of age, follow-up time or degree of malignancy. However, more high-quality prospective studies are still needed to verify our findings.

Citation: Gong S, Li G, Li D, Liu Y, Wu B (2024) The risk for subsequent primary lung cancer after cervical carcinoma: A quantitative analysis based on 864,627 cases. PLoS ONE 19(6): e0305670. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305670

Editor: Yan Wang, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, CHINA

Received: April 22, 2024; Accepted: June 3, 2024; Published: June 24, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Gong et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding: This work was funded by Chengdu High-level Key Clinical Specialty Construction Project.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; HPV, human papillomavirus; HR, hazard ratio; NOS, Newcastle Ottawa scale; OR, odds ratio; SHS, second-hand smoke; SIR, standard incidence ratio; THS, third-hand smoke

Introduction

According to the most recent cancer epidemiology data, 14,100 new cases of uterine cervix disease and 4,280 related deaths are estimated to occur in the United States in 2022. Although the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has gained popularity in recent years, the incidence rate of cervical carcinoma is still relatively high, and it remains one of the causes of tumor-related deaths among women [1]. However, the mortality rate of cervical cancer patients has been declining in recent decades due to great efforts in screening techniques and awareness and improvements in treatment strategies [2, 3]. Thus, the number of patients with a history of cervical carcinoma has increased significantly in the clinic.

Lung cancer remains the second most common malignancy and the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women in the United States, with 118,830 estimated new cases and 61,360 related deaths in 2022 [1]. Moreover, an obvious increasing trend in the incidence of lung cancer in young women was observed in the past decade [4–6]. Therefore, it is believed that there are more lung cancer patients with previous cervical cancer than patients with previous cervical cancer.

Cancer survivors often suffer from long-term “side effects” caused by the disease and its treatment and are more likely to develop new primary cancers in most cases [7]. There are several potential reasons for this phenomenon. First, chemoradiotherapy, a common antitumor treatment, can cause DNA damage, cell death and a disturbed immune microenvironment [8]. Second, cancer patients may have poorer nutritional status, which reduces the body’s ability to prevent tumorigenesis [9]. Third, patients with cancer are more likely to receive a physical examination, which contributes to screening for early-stage tumors.

According to previous literature, cervical cancer patients are reported to have an 8% increased risk for second primary cancers, especially radiation site-associated tumors and smoking-related tumors such as vagina, vulva, pulmonary and esophageal cancers [10]. For lung cancer, it has been reported that the occurrence of lung cancer is also significantly associated with HPV infection [11, 12]. Considering these common risk factors, including HPV infection, smoking status and female hormones, cervical cancer patients are suggested to have a greater risk of lung cancer than the general population. However, it has also been reported that some factors, such as chemotherapy, may have a protective effect on second primary cancer patients [13]. Thus, it is still necessary to further identify the risk of developing subsequent primary lung cancer among cervical cancer patients, which might help with the clinical management of patients with previous cervical carcinoma.

The aim of this meta-analysis was to identify the risk for subsequent primary lung cancer in cervical cancer patients based on current evidence and relevant data.

Materials and methods

This meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (2020) [14].

Literature search

The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science electronic databases were searched from their inception to April 25, 2023. The following terms were used during the search: cervical cancer, cervical carcinoma, carcinoma of the cervix, lung, pulmonary, cancer, tumor, carcinoma, neoplasm, subsequent primary and second primary. The detailed search strategy for PubMed was as follows: (cervical cancer OR cervical carcinoma OR carcinoma of cervix) AND (lung OR pulmonary) AND (cancer OR tumor OR carcinoma OR neoplasm) AND (subsequent primary OR second primary). Moreover, free words and MeSH terms were applied, and references cited in the included publications were also reviewed.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) patients who were pathologically diagnosed with primary cervical cancer; 2) patients whose subsequent primary lung cancer was also pathologically diagnosed; 3) patients whose standard incidence ratio (SIR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated by comparing the incidence rates of lung cancer in cervical cancer patients and the general population; 4) patients whose SIRs with corresponding 95% CIs were reported or for whom enough data were available for calculation; and 5) patients whose full texts were available.

The exclusion criteria were as follows: 1) duplicated or severely overlapping data (>50%); 2) meeting abstracts, letters, editorials, animal trials or case reports; 3) small sample sizes with < 1000 cases; and 4) insufficient data to calculate SIRs with 95% CIs.

Data extraction and quality assessment

The following information was collected from the included studies: the name of the first author, publication year, sample size, source of participants (region or database), year of diagnosis, follow-up time, age, degree of cervical cancer malignancy, source of SIRs, SIRs and 95% CIs.

The quality of the included studies was assessed according to the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) score, and studies with an NOS score of 6 or higher were regarded as high-quality studies [15].

The literature search, selection, data extraction and quality assessment were independently performed by two authors (Sheng Gong and Gang Li).

Statistical analysis

All the statistical analyses were conducted with STATA 15.0 software. The SIRs and 95% CIs were combined to identify the risk for subsequent primary lung cancer among cervical cancer patients compared to the general population. When the SIRs and 95% CIs were not provided, they were calculated based on the number of observed and calculated cases among the cervical carcinoma patients and the general population. The heterogeneity among the included studies was assessed by I2 statistics and Q tests. When significant heterogeneity was detected and presented as I2>50% or P<0.1, the random effects model was applied; otherwise, the fixed effects model was used [16]. In addition, subgroup analyses stratified by the follow-up period (<5 years and ≥5 years), age (≤50 years old and <50 years old), and degree of malignancy (invasive and in situ) were conducted to identify the source of heterogeneity and stability of the pooled results in this meta-analysis. Furthermore, Begg’s funnel plot and Egger’s test were conducted to detect publication bias [13, 17]. A P value<0.05 was regarded as a significant difference.

Results

Literature search and selection

Initially, 1,846 records were found in these four electronic databases, and 339 duplicated records were removed. After screening the titles and abstracts, 1,450 publications were excluded, and 19 records were excluded among the remaining 57 publications. Thus, 38 full texts were carefully reviewed for eligibility, and 22 retrospective studies were eventually included [10, 18–38]. The specific literature selection process is shown in Fig 1.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. The flow diagram of this meta-analysis.

*PubMed (n = 783), EMBASE (n = 56), Cochrane Library (n = 338) and Web of Science (n = 669).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305670.g001

Basic characteristics of the included studies

The 22 studies were published between 1974 and 2020, and the sample sizes ranged from 763 to 182,040, with a total of 864,627 patients. Patients were diagnosed between 1935 and 2011. All included studies were high-quality studies with an NOS score of 6 or higher. The other detailed data are presented in Table 1.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Basic characteristics of included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305670.t001

The risk for subsequent primary lung cancer after cervical cancer

After combining the 22 included studies, the pooled results indicated a significantly increased risk of developing subsequent primary lung cancer among cervical cancer patients (SIR = 2.63, 95% CI: 2.37–2.91, P<0.001; I2 = 91.9%, P<0.001) (Fig 2).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. The risk for subsequent primary lung cancer after cervical cancer.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305670.g002

Subgroup analysis based on the follow-up period revealed an increased risk throughout the follow-up period (<5 years: SIR = 3.03, 95% CI: 1.83–5.00, P<0.001; ≥5 years: SIR = 2.37, 95% CI: 2.03–2.77, P<0.001) (S1A and S1B Fig). In addition, subgroup analysis stratified by age indicated that cervical cancer patients who were older or younger than 50 years old had an increased risk of developing lung cancer (SIR = 3.27, 95% CI: 1.99–5.40, P<0.001; SIR = 3.94, 95% CI: 3.27–4.76, P<0.001) (S2A and S2B Fig). Furthermore, the degree of malignancy did not affect the risk for subsequent primary lung cancer among cervical cancer patients (invasive: SIR = 2.44, 95% CI: 1.87–3.18, P<0.001; in situ: SIR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.70–2.36, P<0.001) (S3A and S3B Fig). Subgroup analysis stratified by publication year (before or after 2000) also revealed an increased risk of lung cancer in cervical cancer patients (Table 2).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Results of meta-analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305670.t002

Sensitivity analysis and publication bias

The sensitivity analysis was conducted by excluding each study at one time and showed that the results of this meta-analysis were stable and reliable (Fig 3). In addition, Begg’s funnel plot was symmetrical (Fig 4), and the P value of Egger’s test was 0.501, which indicated that no significant heterogeneity was observed in the current meta-analysis.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3. Sensitivity analysis for the risk of developing subsequent primary lung cancer after cervical cancer.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305670.g003

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 4. Begg’s plot.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305670.g004

Discussion

The current meta-analysis demonstrated that patients with cervical cancer have a significantly greater risk of developing subsequent primary lung cancer than does the general population. Moreover, subgroup analysis based on follow-up time, age and degree of malignancy showed similar results, and cervical carcinoma patients were indeed more likely to develop lung cancer than the general population. However, due to the high heterogeneity and other limitations, more high-quality prospective studies are still needed to verify our findings.

Based on the current relevant evidence, there are several possible explanations for this phenomenon. First, it is well known that HPV infection is one of the most important causes of cervical cancer, especially high-risk genotypes such as HPV 16 and 18 [39]. Interestingly, in the meta-analysis conducted by Karnosky et al., lung cancer patients showed a weighted overall 4.7-fold (95% CI: 2.7–8.4, P<0.001) increase in the HPV infection rate compared to that of healthy people, especially in squamous cell carcinoma patients, and HPV genotypes 16 and 18 were also proven to be the most prevalent high-risk genotypes [40]. Zhai et al. demonstrated that HPV infection was significantly associated with the incidence of lung cancer [odds ratio (OR) = 5.67, 95% CI: 3.09–10.40, P<0.001], especially lung squamous cell carcinoma (OR = 9.78, 95% CI: 6.28–15.22, P<0.001) after reviewing 1,094 cases and 484 noncancer controls, and HPV16/18 infection was associated with a slightly greater risk for lung cancer (OR = 6.02, 95% CI: 3.22–11.28, P<0.001) [41]. In addition, an increasing number of studies have shown that HPV plays a role in the carcinogenesis, development and progression of lung cancer through several signaling pathways, such as the PI3K/Akt/HIF-1α pathway [42–44]. Second, smoking is another important risk factor for cervical carcinoma [45]. Although the proportion of smokers in women is relatively low, second-hand smoke (SHS) and third-hand smoke (THS) are major public health problems for women. Wen et al. verified that daily SHS and THS exposure were strongly related to increased risks for cervical cancer [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.06–1.42; HR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.03–1.49] [46]. Moreover, longer exposure to SHS and THS led to greater risks (p for trend: 0.006 and 0.035, respectively) [46]. Third, the occurrence of cervical carcinoma is also associated with early marriage, early childbearing, premature sex and multiple births [47–50]. These parameters could increase estrogen levels to some extent, and a number of studies have indicated that estrogen is closely related to the occurrence and development of lung cancer [51–53].

In our study, we were unable to identify the influencing factors for subsequent primary lung cancer due to sufficient data reported in the literature in the form of a meta-analysis. However, a few studies have investigated this topic. Qian et al. reported that advanced age, black race and radiotherapy (all P<0.05) were risk factors for second primary lung cancer in cervical cancer patients after enrolling 15,358 single cervical cancer patients and 451 lung cancer patients with previous cervical cancer [54]. In the study by Arnold et al., advanced age was also reported to be a risk factor for subsequent lung cancer, although this finding is not consistent with the results of subgroup analysis based on age (≥50 years old vs. <50 years old: 3.27 vs. 3.94 for SIR) [36]. Furthermore, Chaturvedi et al. revealed that the increased risk for subsequent primary lung cancer in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix was more obvious than that in patients with adenocarcinoma of the cervix (SIR: 2.69 vs. 2.18, P = 0.026) [55]. Overall, more relevant studies are urgently needed to identify influencing factors for subsequent primary lung cancer among cervical cancer patients, which would help with the clinical management and intervention of the risk of lung cancer after treatment for cervical cancer.

There are several limitations in this meta-analysis. First, all included studies were retrospective, which might cause bias. Second, due to insufficient information, we were unable to conduct additional subgroup analyses based on the treatment of cervical carcinoma and other parameters or to identify the influencing factors for subsequent primary lung cancer among cervical cancer patients. Third, significant heterogeneity was observed in our study, but we did not find the main sources of heterogeneity according to the results. Fourth, in the study by Levi et al., the specific number of cervical cancer patients was not provided, and 34,615 was the total sample size of this study. Fifth, most cervical carcinoma patients in the included studies were diagnosed before 2000, and the current treatment methods and overall conditions of women are quite different from those before 2000.

Conclusion

Compared to the general population, cervical cancer patients are much more likely to develop subsequent primary lung cancer despite their age, follow-up time and degree of malignancy. However, more high-quality prospective studies are still needed to verify our findings.

Supporting information

S1 Fig.

A. The risk for subsequent primary lung cancer among cervical cancer patients who were follow-up for less than 5 years. B. The risk for subsequent primary lung cancer among cervical cancer patients who were follow-up for more than 5 years.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305670.s001

(PDF)

S2 Fig.

A. The risk for subsequent primary lung cancer among cervical cancer patients who were older than 50-year-old. B. The risk for subsequent primary lung cancer among cervical cancer patients who were younger than 50-year-old.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305670.s002

(PDF)

S3 Fig.

A. The risk for subsequent primary lung cancer among invasive cervical cancer patients. B. The risk for subsequent primary lung cancer among patients with carcinoma in situ of the cervix.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305670.s003

(PDF)

References

  1. 1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2022. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 2022, 72(1):7–33. pmid:35020204
  2. 2. Rebolj M, van Ballegooijen M, Berkers LM, Habbema D: Monitoring a national cancer prevention program: successful changes in cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands. International journal of cancer 2007, 120(4):806–812. pmid:17131311
  3. 3. de Kok IM, van der Aa MA, van Ballegooijen M, Siesling S, Karim-Kos HE, van Kemenade FJ, et al: Trends in cervical cancer in the Netherlands until 2007: has the bottom been reached? International journal of cancer 2011, 128(9):2174–2181. pmid:20626043
  4. 4. Kang MJ, Won YJ, Lee JJ, Jung KW, Kim HJ, Kong HJ, et al: Cancer Statistics in Korea: Incidence, Mortality, Survival, and Prevalence in 2019. Cancer research and treatment 2022, 54(2):330–344. pmid:35313102
  5. 5. Xia C, Dong X, Li H, Cao M, Sun D, He S, et al: Cancer statistics in China and United States, 2022: profiles, trends, and determinants. Chin Med J (Engl) 2022, 135(5):584–590. pmid:35143424
  6. 6. Cao W, Chen HD, Yu YW, Li N, Chen WQ: Changing profiles of cancer burden worldwide and in China: a secondary analysis of the global cancer statistics 2020. Chin Med J (Engl) 2021, 134(7):783–791. pmid:33734139
  7. 7. Chaturvedi AK, Engels EA, Gilbert ES, Chen BE, Storm H, Lynch CF, et al: Second cancers among 104,760 survivors of cervical cancer: evaluation of long-term risk. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2007, 99(21):1634–1643. pmid:17971527
  8. 8. Wang Y, Song W, Zhou S, Chang S, Chang J, Tian J, et al: The genomic and transcriptome characteristics of lung adenocarcinoma patients with previous breast cancer. BMC cancer 2022, 22(1):618. pmid:35668376
  9. 9. Wang Y, Luo L, Li J, Wang Y, Che G, Xie X: Prognostic Value of Pretreatment Geriatric Nutrition Risk Index in Lung Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis. Nutrition and cancer 2022, 74(9):3164–3171. pmid:35373678
  10. 10. Lim MC, Won YJ, Lim J, Kim YJ, Seo SS, Kang S, et al: Second Primary Cancer after Diagnosis and Treatment of Cervical Cancer. Cancer research and treatment 2016, 48(2):641–649. pmid:26194366
  11. 11. Osorio JC, Candia-Escobar F, Corvalán AH, Calaf GM, Aguayo F: High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Infection in Lung Cancer: Mechanisms and Perspectives. Biology 2022, 11(12). pmid:36552201
  12. 12. Nie Z, Zhang K, Li Z, Bing X, Jin S, Li M: Human papillomavirus 16 E6 promotes angiogenesis of lung cancer via SNHG1. Cell biochemistry and biophysics 2023. pmid:36690880
  13. 13. Wang Y, Li J, Chang S, Dong Y, Che G: Risk and Influencing Factors for Subsequent Primary Lung Cancer After Treatment of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Two Meta-Analyses Based on Four Million Cases. Journal of thoracic oncology: official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer 2021, 16(11):1893–1908. pmid:34256110
  14. 14. Zhang X, Tan R, Lam WC, Yao L, Wang X, Cheng CW, et al: PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Extension for Chinese Herbal Medicines 2020 (PRISMA-CHM 2020). The American journal of Chinese medicine 2020, 48(6):1279–1313. pmid:32907365
  15. 15. Stang A: Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. European journal of epidemiology 2010, 25(9):603–605. pmid:20652370
  16. 16. Barili F, Parolari A, Kappetein PA, Freemantle N: Statistical Primer: heterogeneity, random- or fixed-effects model analyses? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2018, 27(3):317–321. pmid:29868857
  17. 17. Begg CB, Mazumdar M: Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994, 50(4):1088–1101. pmid:7786990
  18. 18. Newell GR, Rawlings W, Krementz ET, Roberts JD: Multiple primary neoplasms in blacks compared to whites. III. Initial cancers of the female breast and uterus. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1974, 53(2):369–373.
  19. 19. Kapp DS, Fischer D, Grady KJ, Schwartz PE: Subsequent malignancies associated with carcinoma of the uterine cervix: including an analysis of the effect of patient and treatment parameters on incidence and sites of metachronous malignancies. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 1982, 8(2):197–205. pmid:7085375
  20. 20. Clarke EA, Kreiger N, Spengler RF: Second primary cancer following treatment for cervical cancer. Canadian Medical Association journal 1984, 131(6):553–556. pmid:6478337
  21. 21. Boice JD Jr., Day NE, Andersen A, Brinton LA, Brown R, Choi NW, et al: Second cancers following radiation treatment for cervical cancer. An international collaboration among cancer registries. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1985, 74(5):955–975. pmid:3858584
  22. 22. Storm HH: Second primary cancer after treatment for cervical cancer. Late effects after radiotherapy. Cancer 1988, 61(4):679–688. pmid:3338033
  23. 23. Arai T, Nakano T, Fukuhisa K, Kasamatsu T, Tsunematsu R, Masubuchi K, et al: Second cancer after radiation therapy for cancer of the uterine cervix. Cancer 1991, 67(2):398–405. pmid:1985734
  24. 24. Rabkin CS, Biggar RJ, Melbye M, Curtis RE: Second primary cancers following anal and cervical carcinoma: Evidence of shared etiologic factors. American journal of epidemiology 1992, 136(1):54–58. pmid:1329500
  25. 25. Levi F, Randimbison L, Te VC, Rolland-Portal I, Franceschi S, La Vecchia C: Multiple primary cancers in the Vaud Cancer Registry, Switzerland, 1974–89. British journal of cancer 1993, 67(2):391–395. pmid:8431373
  26. 26. Bergfeldt K, Einhorn S, Rosendahl I, Hall P: Increased risk of second primary malignancies in patients with gynecological cancer. A Swedish record-linkage study. Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) 1995, 34(6):771–777. pmid:7576744
  27. 27. Bjørge T, Hennig EM, Skare GB, Søreide O, Thoresen SO: Second primary cancers in patients with carcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix. The Norwegian experience 1970–1992. International journal of cancer 1995, 62(1):29–33. pmid:7601563
  28. 28. Kleinerman RA, Boice JD Jr., Storm HH, Sparen P, Andersen A, Pukkala E, Lynch CF, Hankey BF, Flannery JT: Second primary cancer after treatment for cervical cancer. An international cancer registries study. Cancer 1995, 76(3):442–452. pmid:8625126
  29. 29. McCredie MRE, Macfarlane GJ, Coates MS, Osborn RA: Risk of second malignant neoplasms following female genital tract cancers in New South Wales (Australia), 1972–91. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 1996, 6(5):362–368.
  30. 30. Fisher G, Harlow SD, Schottenfeld D: Cumulative risk of second primary cancers in women with index primary cancers of uterine cervix and incidence of lower anogenital tract cancers, Michigan, 1985–1992. Gynecologic oncology 1997, 64(2):213–223. pmid:9038266
  31. 31. Hemminki K, Dong C, Vaittinen P: Second primary cancer after in situ and invasive cervical cancer. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass) 2000, 11(4):457–461. pmid:10874555
  32. 32. Evans HS, Newnham A, Hodgson SV, Moller H: Second primary cancers after cervical intraepithelial neoplasia III and invasive cervical cancer in Southeast England. Gynecologic oncology 2003, 90(1):131–136. pmid:12821353
  33. 33. Taylor TH, Bringman D, Anton-Culver H: Malignancies following in situ cervical cancer in Hispanic Americans and non-Hispanic Whites. Gynecologic oncology 2006, 103(3):1012–1016. pmid:16857248
  34. 34. de Gonzalez AB, Curtis RE, Kry SF, Gilbert E, Lamart S, Berg CD, et al: Proportion of second cancers attributable to radiotherapy treatment in adults: a cohort study in the US SEER cancer registries. Lancet Oncology 2011, 12(4):353–360. pmid:21454129
  35. 35. Chen CY, Lai CH, Lee KD, Huang SH, Dai YM, Chen MC: Risk of second primary malignancies in women with cervical cancer: A population-based study in Taiwan over a 30-year period. Gynecologic oncology 2012, 127(3):625–630. pmid:22975362
  36. 36. Arnold M, Liu L, Kenter GG, Creutzberg CL, Coebergh JW, Soerjomataram I: Second primary cancers in survivors of cervical cancer in the Netherlands: Implications for prevention and surveillance. Radiotherapy And Oncology 2014, 111(3):374–381. pmid:24833558
  37. 37. Bright C, Reulen RC, Winter DL, Stark DP, McCabe MG, Edgar AB, et al: Risk of subsequent primary neoplasms in survivors of adolescent and young adult cancer (Teenage and Young Adult Cancer Survivor Study): a population-based, cohort study. Lancet Oncology 2019, 20(4):531–545. pmid:30797674
  38. 38. Sung H, Hyun N, Leach CR, Yabroff KR, Jemal A: Association of First Primary Cancer With Risk of Subsequent Primary Cancer Among Survivors of Adult-Onset Cancers in the United States. Jama 2020, 324(24):2521–2535. pmid:33351041
  39. 39. Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, Bosch FX, Kummer JA, Shah KV, et al: Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. The Journal of pathology 1999, 189(1):12–19. pmid:10451482
  40. 40. Karnosky J, Dietmaier W, Knuettel H, Freigang V, Koch M, Koll F, et al: HPV and lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer reports (Hoboken, NJ) 2021, 4(4):e1350. pmid:33624444
  41. 41. Zhai K, Ding J, Shi HZ: HPV and lung cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Journal of clinical virology: the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology 2015, 63:84–90. pmid:25315992
  42. 42. Liu J, Huang B, Xiu Z, Zhou Z, Liu J, Li X, et al: PI3K/Akt/HIF-1α signaling pathway mediates HPV-16 oncoprotein-induced expression of EMT-related transcription factors in non-small cell lung cancer cells. Journal of Cancer 2018, 9(19):3456–3466.
  43. 43. Gu NJ, Wu MZ, He L, Wang XB, Wang S, Qiu XS, et al: HPV 16 E6/E7 up-regulate the expression of both HIF-1α and GLUT1 by inhibition of RRAD and activation of NF-κB in lung cancer cells. Journal of Cancer 2019, 10(27):6903–6909.
  44. 44. Buonomo T, Carraresi L, Rossini M, Martinelli R: Involvement of aryl hydrocarbon receptor signaling in the development of small cell lung cancer induced by HPV E6/E7 oncoproteins. Journal of translational medicine 2011, 9:2. pmid:21205295
  45. 45. Nagelhout G, Ebisch RM, Van Der Hel O, Meerkerk GJ, Magnée T, De Bruijn T, et al: Is smoking an independent risk factor for developing cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Expert review of anticancer therapy 2021, 21(7):781–794. pmid:33663309
  46. 46. Wen Q, Wang X, Lv J, Guo Y, Pei P, Yang L, et al: Association between involuntary smoking and risk of cervical cancer in Chinese female never smokers: A prospective cohort study. Environmental research 2022, 212(Pt C):113371. pmid:35504339
  47. 47. Louie KS, de Sanjose S, Diaz M, Castellsagué X, Herrero R, Meijer CJ, et al: Early age at first sexual intercourse and early pregnancy are risk factors for cervical cancer in developing countries. British journal of cancer 2009, 100(7):1191–1197. pmid:19277042
  48. 48. Karimi Zarchi M, Akhavan A, Gholami H, Dehghani A, Naghshi M, Mohseni F: Evaluation of cervical cancer risk-factors in women referred to Yazd-Iran hospitals from 2002 to 2009. Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP 2010, 11(2):537–538. pmid:20843147
  49. 49. Kashyap N, Krishnan N, Kaur S, Ghai S: Risk Factors of Cervical Cancer: A Case-Control Study. Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing 2019, 6(3):308–314. pmid:31259228
  50. 50. Zhao M, Gu RY, Ding SR, Luo L, Jia Y, Gao CX, et al: Risk factors of cervical cancer among ethnic minorities in Yunnan Province, China: a case-control study. European journal of cancer prevention: the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) 2022, 31(3):287–292. pmid:34267110
  51. 51. Rodriguez-Lara V, Avila-Costa MR: An Overview of Lung Cancer in Women and the Impact of Estrogen in Lung Carcinogenesis and Lung Cancer Treatment. Frontiers in medicine 2021, 8:600121. pmid:34079807
  52. 52. Lee D, Lee PC, Hong JH, Shin DM: Estrogen treatment reduced oxalate transporting activity and enhanced migration through the involvement of SLC26A6 in lung cancer cells. Toxicology in vitro: an international journal published in association with BIBRA 2022, 82:105373. pmid:35500753
  53. 53. Liu S, Hu C, Li M, An J, Zhou W, Guo J, et al: Estrogen receptor beta promotes lung cancer invasion via increasing CXCR4 expression. Cell death & disease 2022, 13(1):70. pmid:35064116
  54. 54. Qian C, Liu H, Feng Y, Meng S, Wang D, Nie M, et al: Clinical characteristics and risk of second primary lung cancer after cervical cancer: A population-based study. PloS one 2020, 15(8):e0231807. pmid:32756555
  55. 55. Chaturvedi AK, Kleinerman RA, Hildesheim A, Gilbert ES, Storm H, Lynch CF, et al: Second cancers after squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2009, 27(6):967–973. pmid:19114696