The record
In the OCWAA consortium, ever use of genital powder was associated with ovarian cancer with OR = 1.22 (95% CI 0.97-1.53) among African American women and OR = 1.36 (95% CI 1.19-1.57) among White women; prevalence of ever use among cases was 35.8% in African American women versus 29.5% in White women.
Claim scope
The largest race-comparative analysis available: 620 African American cases, 1,146 AA controls, 2,800 White cases, 6,735 White controls. Verified per-record: Davis CP et al., Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2021;30(9):1660-1668, DOI 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-0162, PMC8419086. It confirms higher exposure prevalence among African American women.
What this source does not establish
IT DOES NOT SUPPORT A HIGHER RISK RATIO FOR BLACK WOMEN. The AA point estimate (1.22) is LOWER than the White estimate (1.36) and its confidence interval CROSSES 1.0 (0.97-1.53), i.e. it is not statistically significant. The authors' own conclusion is that the associations 'were similar across race.'
Limitations
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT DISCIPLINE POINT IN THE EPIDEMIOLOGY. The differential story the record supports is DIFFERENTIAL EXPOSURE PREVALENCE (35.8% vs 29.5%), NOT a differential risk ratio per unit of exposure. A page claiming talc is 'more dangerous for Black women' would be contradicted by its own strongest citation. The defensible claim is: similar per-user risk, higher exposure prevalence, therefore a larger share of cases attributable to the exposure in that population.
Source
Pmid — 34155063