4.5 Article

Endometriosis, in vitro fertilisation and the risk of gynaecological malignancies, including ovarian and breast cancer

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2009.08.004

关键词

in vitro fertilisation; endometriosis; gynaecological cancer; ovarian cancer; breast cancer; endometrial cancer; cervical cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is evidence that endometriosis as well as drugs used in the process of in vitro fertilisation appear to associate with increased risk for gynaecological cancer. In this review, we attempt to describe this relationship according to the most recent epidemiologic data and to present the possible mechanisms on the molecular level that could potentially explain this correlation. There are data to support that ovarian endometriosis could have the potential for malignant transformation. Epidemiologic and genetic studies support this notion. It seems that endometriosis is associated with specific types of ovarian cancer (endometrioid and clear cell). There is no clear association between endometriosis and breast or endometrial cancer. More studies are needed to establish the risk factors that may lead to malignant transformation of this condition and to identify predisposed individuals who may require closer surveillance. Currently, there is no proven relationship between any type of gynaecological cancer and drugs used for infertility treatment. In principle, infertile women have increased risk for gynaecologic malignancies. Nulligravidas who received treatment are at increased Fisk for malignancy compared with women who had conceived after treatment. There is limited evidence that clomiphene citrate use for more than six cycles or 900 mg or treatment of women over the age of 40 could increase their risk for ovarian and breast cancer. More studies with the appropriate statistical power and follow-up time are required to evaluate accurately the long-term effects of these drugs and procedures. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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