4.5 Article

Different risk factor profiles for mucinous and nonmucinous ovarian cancer:: Results from the Danish MALOVA study

Journal

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
Volume 16, Issue 6, Pages 1160-1166

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0089

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: The aim of the study was to examine the overall risk factors for epithelial ovarian cancer and according to histologic subtypes. Materials and Methods: Ovarian cancer cases and controls were recruited from 1995 to 1999, and personal interviews were conducted. A total of 554 cases and 1,564 randomly selected controls were included. The analyses were done using multiple logistic regression models. Results: The overall risk of ovarian cancer decreased with ever being pregnant [odds ratios (OR), 0.40; 95% confidence intervals (0), 0.30-0.55], with increasing pregnancies (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45-0.87 and OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.37-0.69 for two and three pregnancies as compared with one), and with older age at first and last pregnancy, respectively. Increasing years of ovulation was a very strong risk factor with a 7% to 8% increase in risk for each year of ovulation. Use of oral contraceptives (OR, 0.67, 95% CI, 0.53-0.85) and longer duration of use were associated with a decreased risk of ovarian cancer. Ever use of hormone replacement therapy increased the overall risk (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.05-1.61). For all those variables, the effect was present for serous tumors, endometrioid tumors, and tumors of other histologies, but not for mucinous tumors. In contrast, current smoking was a risk factor only for mucinous tumors (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.01-3.15) and increasing body mass index tended to increase the risk especially for mucinous and endometrioid tumors. Conclusions: We confirmed already known risk factors for ovarian cancer, and we observed significant differences in the risk profiles between mucinous and nonmucinous tumors indicating different etiologies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available