OBJECTIVE: To compare two methods for calculating lifetime ovulatory cycles (LOC) to determine if more detailed menstrual cycle information results in stronger associations with ovarian cancer. METHODS: Using data from 232 cases and 242 controls in a population-based study of ovarian cancer, we compared a standard method for calculating LOC with a second method that had more detailed information on menstrual characteristics. Odds ratios for ovarian cancer by number of LOC were estimated using unconditional logistic regression. RESULTS: The average number of LOC was 29 fewer for the second method that had more detailed menstrual cycle information, as compared to the standard method (p < 0.0001). The difference was due primarily to the second method considering episodes of missed/irregular periods. Associations between LOC and ovarian cancer were weaker for the second method than the standard method. Further analyses suggested that a reduced number of ovulatory cycles due to menstrual irregularity was associated with increased ovarian cancer risk, in contrast to the protective effects observed for fewer ovulatory cycles due to pregnancy or oral contraceptive use. CONCLUSION: Obtaining additional details on menstrual factors that affect LOC, particularly missed or irregular cycles, provides important information on ovarian cancer risk. Our data suggest that episodes of anovulation due to menstrual disturbances should be evaluated separately from anovulation due to pregnancy or oral contraceptive use.
OBJECTIVE: To compare two methods for calculating lifetime ovulatory cycles (LOC) to determine if more detailed menstrual cycle information results in stronger associations with ovarian cancer. METHODS: Using data from 232 cases and 242 controls in a population-based study of ovarian cancer, we compared a standard method for calculating LOC with a second method that had more detailed information on menstrual characteristics. Odds ratios for ovarian cancer by number of LOC were estimated using unconditional logistic regression. RESULTS: The average number of LOC was 29 fewer for the second method that had more detailed menstrual cycle information, as compared to the standard method (p < 0.0001). The difference was due primarily to the second method considering episodes of missed/irregular periods. Associations between LOC and ovarian cancer were weaker for the second method than the standard method. Further analyses suggested that a reduced number of ovulatory cycles due to menstrual irregularity was associated with increased ovarian cancer risk, in contrast to the protective effects observed for fewer ovulatory cycles due to pregnancy or oral contraceptive use. CONCLUSION: Obtaining additional details on menstrual factors that affect LOC, particularly missed or irregular cycles, provides important information on ovarian cancer risk. Our data suggest that episodes of anovulation due to menstrual disturbances should be evaluated separately from anovulation due to pregnancy or oral contraceptive use.
Authors: Holly R Harris; Ana Babic; Penelope M Webb; Christina M Nagle; Susan J Jordan; Harvey A Risch; Mary Anne Rossing; Jennifer A Doherty; Marc T Goodman; Francesmary Modugno; Roberta B Ness; Kirsten B Moysich; Susanne K Kjær; Estrid Høgdall; Allan Jensen; Joellen M Schildkraut; Andrew Berchuck; Daniel W Cramer; Elisa V Bandera; Nicolas Wentzensen; Joanne Kotsopoulos; Steven A Narod; Catherine M Phelan; John R McLaughlin; Hoda Anton-Culver; Argyrios Ziogas; Celeste L Pearce; Anna H Wu; Kathryn L Terry Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Melissa Z Braganza; Amy Berrington de González; Sara J Schonfeld; Nicolas Wentzensen; Alina V Brenner; Cari M Kitahara Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2014-01-21
Authors: Joanne Kotsopoulos; Jan Lubinski; Jacek Gronwald; Cezary Cybulski; Rochelle Demsky; Susan L Neuhausen; Charmaine Kim-Sing; Nadine Tung; Susan Friedman; Leigha Senter; Jeffrey Weitzel; Beth Karlan; Pal Moller; Ping Sun; Steven A Narod Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-12-18 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Mollie E Barnard; Elizabeth M Poole; Gary C Curhan; A Heather Eliassen; Bernard A Rosner; Kathryn L Terry; Shelley S Tworoger Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Hannah P Yang; Kelsey R Murphy; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Neena George; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Jolanta Lissowska; Louise A Brinton; Nicolas Wentzensen Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2016-04-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Joellen M Schildkraut; Edwin S Iversen; Melanie A Wilson; Merlise A Clyde; Patricia G Moorman; Rachel T Palmieri; Regina Whitaker; Rex C Bentley; Jeffrey R Marks; Andrew Berchuck Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-04-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Delores J Grant; Patricia G Moorman; Lucy Akushevich; Rachel T Palmieri; Rex C Bentley; Joellen M Schildkraut Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2010-03-23 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Jonathan L Hecht; Joanne Kotsopoulos; Susan E Hankinson; Shelley S Tworoger Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-04-21 Impact factor: 4.254