4.6 Article

The effect of bisphosphonates on the risk of endometrial and ovarian malignancies

Journal

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
Volume 133, Issue 2, Pages 309-313

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.02.014

Keywords

Bisphosphonates; Ovarian cancer; Endometrial cancer; Risk; Prevention

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. The use of bisphosphonates has been associated with reduced risk and improved survival of breast and colorectal malignancies. This study was aimed at studying the effects of bisphosphonates on gynecological cancers. Methods. The Cancer in the Ovary and Uterus Study (CITOUS) is a case-control study of newly diagnosed cases of gynecological malignancies and age/clinic/ethnic-group matched population controls. The use of bisphosphonates prior to, and following, diagnosis was assessed in 424 cases of ovarian and endometrial cancers and 341 controls, all postmenopausal at recruitment, enrolled in Clalit Health Services (CHS), using pharmacy records. Results. The use of bisphosphonates for more than 1 year prior to diagnosis was associated with a significantly reduced risk of ovarian cancer (OR = 0.49,95% CI: 0.26-0.93) and endometrial cancer (OR = 0.39,95% CI: 024-0.63). The association with endometrial cancer (OR = 0.48,0.27-0.84) remained statistically significant after adjustment for a variety of putative effect modifiers (RR = 0.48, 0.26-0.89). The association with ovarian cancer remained significant when adjusted to statin use (0.46, 0.23-0.90) but not for other modifiers (0.58, 0.29-1.18). A strong negative association was found in an adjusted model for the use of either bisphosphonates or statins for more than 1 year (0.40, 0.23-0.68). Conclusion. The use of bisphosphonates, with or without statins, for more than 1 year before diagnosis was associated with reduced risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available