BACKGROUND: On the basis of a population-based cohort, we assessed the cancer risk, focusing on gynaecological cancers and pre-malignant lesions, among women with a previous tubal sterilization. METHODS: Using the Danish Hospital Discharge Register we identified 65 232 women who had a tubal sterilization (1977-1993). The cohort was followed for cancer occurrence, and compared with the expected number based on the national cancer incidence rates. RESULTS: The overall risk of ovarian cancer was decreased (standardized incidence ratio [SIR] = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.6, 1.0), and it was still decreased > or =10 years after the sterilization (SIR = 0.65; 95% CI: 0.4, 1.0). The rate of endometrial cancer was also decreased (SIR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.5, 1.0), the risk continued being moderately reduced during follow-up, although it was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide, population-based study we find that women with tubal sterilization have a decreased risk of subsequent development of ovarian cancer. As the protective effect is not decreasing with years of follow-up, our data do not support that 'screening' bias can explain the protective effect, but indicate that the sterilization itself may convey a reduction in risk. The same pattern is found for endometrial cancer, the association being less strong.
BACKGROUND: On the basis of a population-based cohort, we assessed the cancer risk, focusing on gynaecological cancers and pre-malignant lesions, among women with a previous tubal sterilization. METHODS: Using the Danish Hospital Discharge Register we identified 65 232 women who had a tubal sterilization (1977-1993). The cohort was followed for cancer occurrence, and compared with the expected number based on the national cancer incidence rates. RESULTS: The overall risk of ovarian cancer was decreased (standardized incidence ratio [SIR] = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.6, 1.0), and it was still decreased > or =10 years after the sterilization (SIR = 0.65; 95% CI: 0.4, 1.0). The rate of endometrial cancer was also decreased (SIR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.5, 1.0), the risk continued being moderately reduced during follow-up, although it was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide, population-based study we find that women with tubal sterilization have a decreased risk of subsequent development of ovarian cancer. As the protective effect is not decreasing with years of follow-up, our data do not support that 'screening' bias can explain the protective effect, but indicate that the sterilization itself may convey a reduction in risk. The same pattern is found for endometrial cancer, the association being less strong.
Authors: Megan S Rice; Megan A Murphy; Allison F Vitonis; Daniel W Cramer; Linda J Titus; Shelley S Tworoger; Kathryn L Terry Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2013-07-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Michelle L Kurta; Kirsten B Moysich; Joel L Weissfeld; Ada O Youk; Clareann H Bunker; Robert P Edwards; Francesmary Modugno; Roberta B Ness; Brenda Diergaarde Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Chrissy McNamara; Sarah E Abbott; Elisa V Bandera; Bo Qin; Lauren C Peres; Fabian Camacho; Patricia G Moorman; Anthony J Alberg; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; Melissa Bondy; Michele L Cote; Ellen Funkhouser; Edward S Peters; Ann G Schwartz; Joellen M Schildkraut; Paul Terry Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2017-09-04 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Roberta B Ness; Rhiannon C Dodge; Robert P Edwards; Julie A Baker; Kirsten B Moysich Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Ira Winer; Amy Lehman; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Randal Robinson; Michael Simon; Michele Cote Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 3.437