Carcinoma in-situ of cervix in sisters "There are no 'cancer families' in which the cervix has been the organ affected."'Yet if, as claimed,2 early age at first coitus, having a first baby while a teenager, multiplicity of partners and pregnancies, and low socioeconomic class are relevant to the development of cervical cancer, it should not be surprising that example and en- vironment might combine to lead to similar lesions occurring in sisters.In the family here described, the mother had four sons and four daughters and died at 50 from myocardial infarction.The pattern among the four daughters, all in socioeconomic class V, is as follows. Case reportsDaughter No I was born in March 1936.First coitus was at age 18.She was pregnant when she married at 19 but aborted.She was still 19 when she had a baby.When 22 she divorced her husband and "had three chaps" before remarrying at 27, again when pregnant.That baby was premature and is backward.When 29 she had trichomonas vaginitis but her cervical smear was negative.She did not take the pill.She was 33 when at examination for secondary infertility her smear was reported positive.Cone biopsy confirmed carcinoma-in-situ of the cervix.Five and a half years later she is well, the cervix looks healthy, and the smear is negative.Daughter No 2 was born in February 1941.First coitus was at 18 and first baby (premature) at 19.She married when 22 and had three babies and three miscarriages.The last pregnancy, a successful one, was at 28.She was 31 when at request for sterilisation she was found to have a positive smear.She had been taking the pill for the previous 18 months.The cone biopsy taken at tubal ligation showed carcinoma-in-situ.Three and a half years later she is well, the cervix looks normal, and the smear is negative.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Toghill et al. (1976) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: