Diet and ovarian cancer risk: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cohort studies

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui Sun ◽  
Ting-Ting Gong ◽  
Yang Xia ◽  
Zhao-Yan Wen ◽  
Long-Gang Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Ovarian Cancer Risk ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Meta Analyses

scholarly journals The inflammatory potential of diet and ovarian cancer risk: results from two prospective cohort studies

2017 ◽  
Vol 117 (6) ◽  
pp. 907-911 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred K Tabung ◽  
Tianyi Huang ◽  
Edward L Giovannucci ◽  
Stephanie A Smith-Warner ◽  
Shelley S Tworoger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Prospective Cohort ◽  
Ovarian Cancer Risk ◽  
Prospective Cohort Studies

scholarly journals Alcohol intake and ovarian cancer risk: a pooled analysis of 10 cohort studies

2006 ◽  
Vol 94 (5) ◽  
pp. 757-762 ◽  
Author(s):  
J M Genkinger ◽  
D J Hunter ◽  
D Spiegelman ◽  
K E Anderson ◽  
J E Buring ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Alcohol Intake ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Ovarian Cancer Risk

scholarly journals Coffee consumption is not associated with ovarian cancer risk: a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies

Oncotarget ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (29) ◽  
pp. 20807-20815 ◽  
Author(s):  
Massimiliano Berretta ◽  
Agnieszka Micek ◽  
Alessandra Lafranconi ◽  
Sabrina Rossetti ◽  
Raffaele Di Francia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Dose Response ◽  
Prospective Cohort ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Coffee Consumption ◽  
Ovarian Cancer Risk ◽  
Prospective Cohort Studies

scholarly journals Fish Intake and Ovarian Cancer Risk: A Meta-Analysis of 15 Case-Control and Cohort Studies

PLoS ONE ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e94601 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pei-yue Jiang ◽  
Zhong-bo Jiang ◽  
Ke-xin Shen ◽  
Ying Yue
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Fish Intake ◽  
Ovarian Cancer Risk

scholarly journals Endometriosis and cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Kvaskoff ◽  
Yahya Mahamat-Saleh ◽  
Leslie V Farland ◽  
Nina Shigesi ◽  
Kathryn L Terry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Ovarian Cancer Risk

Abstract BACKGROUND Endometriosis is an often chronic, inflammatory gynaecologic condition affecting 190 million women worldwide. Studies have reported an elevated cancer risk among patients with endometriosis. However, prior research has included methodologic issues that impede valid and robust interpretation. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE We conducted a meta-analysis of studies investigating the association between endometriosis and cancer risk and analysed the results by methodologic characteristics. We discuss the implications of cancer screening in patients and management challenges faced by clinicians. SEARCH METHODS We searched PubMed and Embase databases for eligible studies from inception through 24 October 2019. We included cohort and case-control studies examining the association between endometriosis and cancer risk; cross-sectional studies and case reports were excluded. Publications had to present risk/rate/odds estimates with 95% CI. Random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate summary relative risks (SRR) and CIs. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed by the Q test and I2 statistics, and publication bias using Egger's and Begg's tests. Risk of bias and quality of the included studies were assessed using the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. OUTCOMES Forty-nine population-based case-control and cohort studies were included. Twenty-six studies were scored as having a ‘serious’/‘critical’ risk of bias, and the remaining 23 ‘low’/‘moderate’. Cancer-specific analyses showed a positive association between endometriosis and ovarian cancer risk (SRR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.68–2.22; n = 24 studies) that was strongest for clear cell (SRR = 3.44, 95% CI = 2.82–4.42; n = 5 studies) and endometrioid (SRR = 2.33, 95% CI = 1.82–2.98; n = 5 studies) histotypes (Pheterogeneity < 0.0001), although with significant evidence of both heterogeneity across studies and publication bias (Egger’s and Begg’s P-values < 0.01). A robust association was observed between endometriosis and thyroid cancer (SRR = 1.39, 95% CI =1.24–1.57; n = 5 studies), a very small association with breast cancer (SRR = 1.04, 95% CI =1.00–1.09; n = 20 studies) and no association with colorectal cancer (SRR = 1.00, 95% CI =0.87–1.16; n = 5 studies). The association with endometrial cancer was not statistically significant (SRR = 1.23, 95% CI =0.97–1.57; n = 17 studies) overall and wholly null when restricted to prospective cohort studies (SRR = 0.99, 95% CI =0.72–1.37; n = 5 studies). The association with cutaneous melanoma was also non-significant (SRR = 1.17, 95% CI =0.97–1.41; n = 7 studies) but increased in magnitude and was statistically significant when restricted to studies with low/moderate risk of bias (SRR = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.24–2.36, n = 2 studies). The most robust finding both in terms of statistical significance and magnitude of effect was an inverse association with cervical cancer (SRR = 0.68, 95% CI =0.56–0.82; n = 4 studies); however, this result has a high potential to reflect heightened access to detection of dysplasia for women who reached an endometriosis diagnosis and is thus likely not causal. Several additional cancer types were explored based on <4 studies. WIDER IMPLICATIONS Endometriosis was associated with a higher risk of ovarian and thyroid, and minimally (only 4% greater risk) with breast cancer, and with a lower risk of cervical cancer. However, this meta-analysis confirms that: a majority of studies had severe/critical risk of bias; there is impactful heterogeneity across studies—and for ovarian cancer, publication bias; and causal inference requires temporality, which in many studies was not considered. We discuss the implications of these potential associations from the perspectives of patients with endometriosis, clinicians involved in their care, and scientists investigating their long-term health risks.

Infertility and ovarian cancer risk: Evidence from nine prospective cohort studies

2020 ◽  
Vol 147 (8) ◽  
pp. 2121-2130
Author(s):  
Yu‐Ting Jiang ◽  
Ting‐Ting Gong ◽  
Jia‐Yu Zhang ◽  
Xiu‐Qin Li ◽  
Song Gao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Prospective Cohort ◽  
Ovarian Cancer Risk ◽  
Prospective Cohort Studies

Oral Contraceptives and Risk of Ovarian Cancer and Breast Cancer Among High-Risk Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (33) ◽  
pp. 4188-4198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia G. Moorman ◽  
Laura J. Havrilesky ◽  
Jennifer M. Gierisch ◽  
Remy R. Coeytaux ◽  
William J. Lowery ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Family History ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Brca2 Mutation ◽  
Ovarian Cancer Risk ◽  
Mutation Carriers ◽  
History Of ◽  
Meta Analyses

Purpose To estimate the risks of ovarian cancer and breast cancer associated with oral contraceptive (OC) use among women at elevated risk owing to mutations in BRCA1/2 or a strong family history. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published 2000 to 2012 that evaluated associations between OC use and breast or ovarian cancer among women who are carriers of a BRCA1/2 mutation or have a family history of breast or ovarian cancer. Results From 6,476 unique citations, we identified six studies examining ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and eight studies examining breast cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. For BRCA1/2 mutation carriers combined, meta-analysis showed an inverse association between OC use and ovarian cancer (odds ratio [OR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.73) and a nonstatistically significant association with breast cancer (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.58). Findings were similar when examining BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers separately. Data were inadequate to perform meta-analyses examining duration or timing of use. For women with a family history of ovarian or breast cancer, we identified four studies examining risk for ovarian cancer and three for breast cancer, but differences between studies precluded combining the data for meta-analyses, and no overall pattern could be discerned. Conclusion Our analyses suggest that associations between ever use of OCs and ovarian and breast cancer among women who are BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers are similar to those reported for the general population.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document