4.7 Article

Ovarian cancer and menopausal hormone therapy in the NIH-AARP diet and health study

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 107, Issue 7, Pages 1181-1187

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2012.397

Keywords

ovarian cancer; menopausal hormone therapy; cohort

Categories

Funding

  1. Intramural Research Programme of the NIH, National Cancer Institute
  2. Florida Department of Health (FDOH)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Women using unopposed estrogens during menopause are at increased risk of ovarian cancer. It is uncertain whether oestrogen plus progestin therapy exerts similar effects. METHODS: We evaluated menopausal hormone use and incident ovarian cancer (n = 426) in 92 601 post-menopausal women enrolled in the National Institutes of Health-AARP (NIH-AARP) Diet and Health Study. Participants were administered questionnaires in 1996-1997 and followed through 2006. Hazard rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox regression. RESULTS: Increased risks were associated with long duration (10 + years) use of unopposed oestrogen (RR 2.15, 95% CI: 1.30-3.57 among women with a hysterectomy) and oestrogen plus progestin (RR 1.68, 95% CI: 1.13-2.49 among women with intact uteri) therapy. Similar risks were associated with progestins that were used sequentially (< 15 days progestin per month) (RR 1.60, 95% CI: 1.10-2.33) or continuously (> 25 days progestin per month) (RR 1.43, 95% CI: 1.032-2.01; P-value for heterogeneity = 0.63). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that long duration use of both unopposed estrogens and oestrogen plus progestins are associated with increased risks of ovarian cancer, and that risk associated with oestrogen plus progestin use does not vary by regimen (sequential or continuous). British Journal of Cancer (2012) 107, 1181-1187. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.397 www.bjcancer.com Published online 28 August 2012 (c) 2012 Cancer Research UK

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available