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

Author(s):  
Marina Kvaskoff ◽  
Yahya Mahamat-Saleh ◽  
Leslie V Farland ◽  
Nina Shigesi ◽  
Kathryn L Terry ◽  
...  

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.

PLoS ONE ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e94601 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pei-yue Jiang ◽  
Zhong-bo Jiang ◽  
Ke-xin Shen ◽  
Ying Yue

Oncotarget ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (29) ◽  
pp. 20807-20815 ◽  
Author(s):  
Massimiliano Berretta ◽  
Agnieszka Micek ◽  
Alessandra Lafranconi ◽  
Sabrina Rossetti ◽  
Raffaele Di Francia ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yanyang Pang ◽  
Wu Wang

The association between dietary protein intake and ovarian cancer had been inconsistent in the previous epidemiological studies. The aim of the present study was to identify and synthesize all citations evaluating the relationship on ovarian cancer with protein intake. The search included PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from inception to June 2018. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were calculated for relationship between the dietary protein intake and ovarian cancer risk using a random-effects model. Publication bias was evaluated using Egger’s test and Begg’s funnel plots. At the end, ten citations with 2354 patients were included in meta-analysis. Summarized RR with 95%CI on ovarian cancer was 0.915 (95%CI = 0.821–1.021), with no between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%, P=0.708). The results were consistent both in animal protein intake and in vegetable intake on ovarian cancer. Subgroup analysis by study design did not find positive association either in cohort studies or in case–control studies. Egger’s test (P=0.230) and Funnel plot suggested no publication bias. Based on the obtained results, we conclude that high dietary protein intake had no significant association on ovarian cancer risk. Besides that, it is necessary to develop high quality, large-scale studies with detailed amount of dietary protein intake for verifying our results.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (33) ◽  
pp. 4188-4198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia G. Moorman ◽  
Laura J. Havrilesky ◽  
Jennifer M. Gierisch ◽  
Remy R. Coeytaux ◽  
William J. Lowery ◽  
...  

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.


Author(s):  
Veronika S. Biller ◽  
Michael F. Leitzmann ◽  
Anja M. Sedlmeier ◽  
Felix F. Berger ◽  
Olaf Ortmann ◽  
...  

AbstractSedentary behaviour is an emerging risk factor for several site-specific cancers. Ovarian cancers are often detected at late disease stages and the role of sedentary behaviour as a modifiable risk factor potentially contributing to ovarian cancer risk has not been extensively examined. We systematically searched relevant databases from inception to February 2020 for eligible publications dealing with sedentary behaviour in relation to ovarian cancer risk. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, calculating summary relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random-effects model. We calculated the E-Value, a sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding. We tested for publication bias and heterogeneity. Seven studies (three prospective cohort studies and four case–control studies) including 2060 ovarian cancer cases were analysed. Comparing highest versus lowest levels of sedentary behaviour, the data indicated a statistically significant increase in the risk of ovarian cancer in relation to prolonged sitting time (RR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.07–1.57). Sub-analyses of prospective cohort studies (RR = 1.33, 95% CI = 0.92–1.93) and case–control studies (RR = 1.28, 95% CI = 0.98–1.68) showed statistically non-significant results. Sensitivity analysis showed that an unmeasured confounder would need to be related to sedentary behaviour and ovarian cancer with a RR of 1.90 to fully explain away the observed RR of 1.29. Our analyses showed a statistically significant positive association between sedentary behaviour and ovarian cancer risk.


2010 ◽  
Vol 91 (6) ◽  
pp. 1752-1763 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fariba Kolahdooz ◽  
Jolieke C van der Pols ◽  
Christopher J Bain ◽  
Geoffrey C Marks ◽  
Maria Celia Hughes ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 961-967 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lijie Wang ◽  
Beihua Kong

ObjectiveStudies investigating the association betweenmatrix metalloproteinase-1(MMP1) gene promoter 1607–base pair (bp) polymorphism and ovarian cancer risk have yielded conflicting results.MethodsWe therefore carried out a meta-analysis of 754 ovarian cancer cases and 1184 controls from 5 published case-control studies. The strength of the association betweenMMP11607-bp polymorphism and ovarian cancer susceptibility was calculated using pooled odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsThe results suggest that no statistically significant associations exist betweenMMP11607-bp polymorphisms and ovarian cancer risk in all 4 genetic models (2G2G vs 1G1G: OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.81–1.43;P= 0.23; 1G2G vs 1G1G: OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.82–1.36;P= 0.15; 1G2G + 2G2G vs 1G1G: OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83–1.34;P= 0.16; 2G2G vs 1G1G + 1G2G: OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.80–1.20;P= 0.84).ConclusionsIn summary, this meta-analysis showed that theMMP11607-bp polymorphism is not associated with ovarian cancer risk.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cunzhong Yuan ◽  
Xiaoyan Liu ◽  
Shi Yan ◽  
Cunfang Wang ◽  
Beihua Kong

This meta-analysis aims to examine whether theXRCC3polymorphisms are associated with ovarian cancer risk. Eligible case-control studies were identified through search in PubMed. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were appropriately derived from fixed effects models. We therefore performed a meta-analysis of 5,302 ovarian cancer cases and 8,075 controls from 4 published articles and 8 case-control studies for 3 SNPs ofXRCC3. No statistically significant associations betweenXRCC3rs861539 polymorphisms and ovarian cancer risk were observed in any genetic models. ForXRCC3rs1799794 polymorphisms, we observed a statistically significant correlation with ovarian cancer risk using the homozygote comparison (T2T2 versus T1T1: OR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.54–0.90,P=0.005), heterozygote comparison (T1T2 versus T1T1: OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.00–1.21,P=0.04), and the recessive genetic model (T2T2 versus T1T1+T1T2: OR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.52–0.87,P=0.002). ForXRCC3rs1799796 polymorphisms, we also observed a statistically significant correlation with ovarian cancer risk using the heterozygote comparison (T1T2 versus T1T1: OR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.83–0.99,P=0.04). In conclusion, this meta-analysis shows that theXRCC3were associated with ovarian cancer risk overall for Caucasians. Asian and African populations should be further studied.


2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_6) ◽  
pp. vi142-vi142
Author(s):  
Kyle Walsh ◽  
Chenan Zhang ◽  
Lisa Calvocoressi ◽  
Helen Hansen ◽  
Andrew Berchuck ◽  
...  

Abstract BACKGROUND Women ages 35–44 have three-fold higher risk of meningioma compared to men. Epidemiologic studies have implicated exogenous hormone use, but endogenous hormonal factors are inconsistently associated. Elevated body mass index (BMI) is consistently associated with meningioma risk in both men and women, and personal history of breast cancer has also been associated with meningioma risk. Recent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified a meningioma risk locus on chromosome 10p12 near previous GWAS hits for breast and ovarian cancers. METHODS To elucidate the pleiotropic role of 10p12 variation in predisposition to diverse tumors - possibly via a common mediating factor - we performed imputation‐based fine‐mapping in three case-control datasets of meningioma (927 cases, 790 controls), female breast cancer (28108 cases, 22209 controls), and ovarian cancer (25509 cases, 40941 controls). Analyses were stratified by sex (meningioma), estrogen receptor status (breast), and histotype (ovarian), then combined using ASSET meta-analysis. Lead variants were queried for association with >700 additional traits to identify potential effect-mediators. RESULTS Two-sided ASSET meta-analysis identified a lead variant near the MLLT10 promoter (P=1.4x10-13) associated with significantly increased risk of meningioma in women (OR=1.42, 95% CI: 1.20–1.69) and non-significantly increased risk in men (OR=1.19, 95% CI: 0.91–1.57). The meningioma risk allele was also associated with ovarian cancer risk (OR=1.09, 95% CI: 1.06–1.12) and ER+ breast cancer risk (OR=1.05, 95% CI: 1.02–1.08), but protected against ER- breast cancer (OR=0.91, 95% CI: 0.86–0.96). The risk allele was associated with higher body fat percentage, waist circumference and BMI at genome-wide levels (P< 5.0x10-8), but mediation analysis adjusting for BMI did not attenuate its association with meningioma risk. CONCLUSION We identify a MLLT10 eQTL that confers risk of female meningioma, ER+ breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and obesity, but which protects against ER- breast cancer. Our results implicate a possible estrogenic mechanism underlying meningioma tumorigenesis.


2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Li Li ◽  
Jun Zhou ◽  
Xia Jing Qian ◽  
Yi Ding Chen

ObjectiveWe aimed to examine the association between in vitro fertilization (IVF) and risk of cancers through conducting a meta-analysis of cohort studies.MethodsRelevant studies were identified by using PubMed, ISI Web of knowledge, and Scopus through March 2012. Reference lists from retrieved articles were also reviewed. We included historical cohort studies that reported relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between IVF and cancer risk. Both fixed- and random-effects models were used to calculate the summary risk estimates.ResultsEight cohort studies involving 746,455 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The overall combined RRs for women with IVF treatment were 0.99 (95% CI, 0.74–1.32) for all-site cancer, 1.59 (95% CI, 1.24–2.03) for ovarian cancer, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79–1.01) for breast cancer, and 1.07 (95% CI, 0.45–2.55) for cervical cancer. A beneficial effect was shown in the subgroup of breast cancer meta-analysis compared with women who gave birth (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65–0.95). Excess risk of ovarian cancer was still observed when analyses were restricted to studies with less than 8 years of follow-up (RR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.03–5.37) and studies including cancer cases diagnosed within 1 year of the IVF treatment (RR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.22–2.40). No evidence of substantial publication bias was observed.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests that there is no significant association between IVF and cancer risk. A possible beneficial effect was shown in the subgroup of breast cancer meta-analysis. Excess risk of ovarian cancer was observed in the analysis of all the studies and subgroups. Special attention should be made to women who may be diagnosed with cancer during or shortly after IVF treatment. Studies of high methodological quality with larger population and longer follow-up are required to provide more evidences for a better understanding of the association.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document