7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Contraceptive use and the risk of ovarian cancer among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation

      , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
      Gynecologic Oncology
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Risks of Breast, Ovarian, and Contralateral Breast Cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers

          The clinical management of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers requires accurate, prospective cancer risk estimates.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Prophylactic oophorectomy in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.

            Data concerning the efficacy of bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy for reducing the risk of gynecologic cancer in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations are limited. We investigated whether this procedure reduces the risk of cancers of the coelomic epithelium and breast in women who carry such mutations. A total of 551 women with disease-associated germ-line BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations were identified from registries and studied for the occurrence of ovarian and breast cancer. We determined the incidence of ovarian cancer in 259 women who had undergone bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy and in 292 matched controls who had not undergone the procedure. In a subgroup of 241 women with no history of breast cancer or prophylactic mastectomy, the incidence of breast cancer was determined in 99 women who had undergone bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy and in 142 matched controls. The length of postoperative follow-up for both groups was at least eight years. Six women who underwent prophylactic oophorectomy (2.3 percent) received a diagnosis of stage I ovarian cancer at the time of the procedure; two women (0.8 percent) received a diagnosis of papillary serous peritoneal carcinoma 3.8 and 8.6 years after bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy. Among the controls, 58 women (19.9 percent) received a diagnosis of ovarian cancer, after a mean follow-up of 8.8 years. With the exclusion of the six women whose cancer was diagnosed at surgery, prophylactic oophorectomy significantly reduced the risk of coelomic epithelial cancer (hazard ratio, 0.04; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.01 to 0.16). Of 99 women who underwent bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy and who were studied to determine the risk of breast cancer, breast cancer developed in 21 (21.2 percent), as compared with 60 (42.3 percent) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.29 to 0.77). Bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy reduces the risk of coelomic epithelial cancer and breast cancer in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Ovarian cancer and oral contraceptives: collaborative reanalysis of data from 45 epidemiological studies including 23,257 women with ovarian cancer and 87,303 controls.

              Oral contraceptives were introduced almost 50 years ago, and over 100 million women currently use them. Oral contraceptives can reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, but the eventual public-health effects of this reduction will depend on how long the protection lasts after use ceases. We aimed to assess these effects. Individual data for 23,257 women with ovarian cancer (cases) and 87,303 without ovarian cancer (controls) from 45 epidemiological studies in 21 countries were checked and analysed centrally. The relative risk of ovarian cancer in relation to oral contraceptive use was estimated, stratifying by study, age, parity, and hysterectomy. Overall 7308 (31%) cases and 32,717 (37%) controls had ever used oral contraceptives, for average durations among users of 4.4 and 5.0 years, respectively. The median year of cancer diagnosis was 1993, when cases were aged an average of 56 years. The longer that women had used oral contraceptives, the greater the reduction in ovarian cancer risk (p<0.0001). This reduction in risk persisted for more than 30 years after oral contraceptive use had ceased but became somewhat attenuated over time-the proportional risk reductions per 5 years of use were 29% (95% CI 23-34%) for use that had ceased less than 10 years previously, 19% (14-24%) for use that had ceased 10-19 years previously, and 15% (9-21%) for use that had ceased 20-29 years previously. Use during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s was associated with similar proportional risk reductions, although typical oestrogen doses in the 1960s were more than double those in the 1980s. The incidence of mucinous tumours (12% of the total) seemed little affected by oral contraceptives, but otherwise the proportional risk reduction did not vary much between different histological types. In high-income countries, 10 years use of oral contraceptives was estimated to reduce ovarian cancer incidence before age 75 from 1.2 to 0.8 per 100 users and mortality from 0.7 to 0.5 per 100; for every 5000 woman-years of use, about two ovarian cancers and one death from the disease before age 75 are prevented. Use of oral contraceptives confers long-term protection against ovarian cancer. These findings suggest that oral contraceptives have already prevented some 200,000 ovarian cancers and 100,000 deaths from the disease, and that over the next few decades the number of cancers prevented will rise to at least 30,000 per year.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Gynecologic Oncology
                Gynecologic Oncology
                Elsevier BV
                00908258
                March 2022
                March 2022
                : 164
                : 3
                : 514-521
                Article
                10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.01.014
                35063280
                2d814081-5501-4cb4-a1d9-9c0df1a629a6
                © 2022

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article