4.6 Article

In vitro fertilization is associated with an increased risk of borderline ovarian tumours

期刊

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 129, 期 2, 页码 372-376

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.01.027

关键词

In vitro fertilization; Borderline ovarian tumours; Cohort study; Hazard ratios; Risk factors; Epidemiology

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia [573122]
  2. Australian Government Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research
  3. Medical Research Council [MR/K006525/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. MRC [MR/K006525/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. To compare the risk of borderline ovarian tumours in women having in vitro fertilization (IVF) with women diagnosed with infertility but not having IVF. Methods. This was a whole-population cohort study of women aged 20-44 years seeking hospital infertility treatment or investigation in Western Australia in 1982-2002. Using Cox regression, we examined the effects of IVF treatment and potential confounders on the rate of borderline ovarian tumours. Potential confounders included parity, age, calendar year, socio-economic status, infertility diagnoses including pelvic inflammatory disorders and endometriosis and surgical procedures including hysterectomy and tubal ligation. Results. Women undergoing IVF had an increased rate of borderline ovarian tumours with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-5.04). Unlike invasive epithelial ovarian cancer, neither birth (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.43-1.88) nor hysterectomy (1.02; 0.24.-4.37) nor sterilization (1.48; 0.63-3.48) appeared protective and the rate was not increased in women with a diagnosis of endometriosis (HR 0.31; 95% CI 0.04-2.29). Conclusions. Women undergoing IVF treatment are at increased risk of being diagnosed with borderline ovarian tumours. Risk factors for borderline ovarian tumours appear different from those for invasive ovarian cancer. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.6
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