Prospective study examines air pollution's impact on cervical cancer recurrence and mortality risk in women, suggesting environmental factors influence prognosis.
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide The impact of air pollution on the prognosis of cervical cancer (CC) remains unclear. This study examined the associations of major air pollutants on recurrence and mortality among CC patients. We enrolled 3,758 women diagnosed with primary CC at the Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University between 2019 and 2022, following them annually until June 2024. Air pollution exposure was estimated using high-resolution spatiotemporal models based on residential addresses. Weighted Cox proportional hazards models based on the Fine–Gray approach were used to estimate the risk of recurrence, while stratified Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the risk of death, adjusting for demographic, clinical, and meteorological factors. Among the patients (median follow-up ∼ 3 years), 217 recurrences (5.8%) and 113 deaths (3.0%) occurred. Each interquartile range increase in fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ), inhalable particulate matter (PM 10 ), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) was associated with elevated recurrence risk, with subdistribution hazard ratios (SHRs) of 1.93 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.40–2.66), 1.65 (1.13–2.42), 1.60 (1.14–2.24), and 1.26 (1.07–1.48), respectively. Higher exposure to PM 2.5, PM 10, and NO 2 was also linked to increased mortality risk, with hazard ratios (HRs) of 2.55 (95% CI: 1.78–3.67), 2.21 (1.38–3.54), and 1.37 (1.03–1.84), respectively. No significant association was observed for ozone (O 3 ). Exposure–response and sensitivity analyses supported these findings. This cohort study provides the first evidence that long-term exposure to air pollution after surgery is associated with increased risks of recurrence and mortality in primary CC patients, highlighting it as a modifiable environmental determinant of CC prognosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: