4.5 Article

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

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
卷 16, 期 6, 页码 1160-1166

出版社

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

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据