OBJECTIVES: Menopausal status is a common covariate in epidemiologic studies. Still, there are no standard definitions for menopausal status using observational data. This study assesses distinctions between menopausal status definitions using commonly collected epidemiologic data, and explores their impact on study outcomes using breast cancer rates as an example. STUDY DESIGN: Using survey data from 227,700 women aged 40-64 who received screening mammograms from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, we classified menopausal status under five different definitions: one complex definition combining multiple variables, two definitions using age as a proxy for menopausal status, one based only on menstrual period status, and one based on age and menstrual period status. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We compared the distribution of menopausal status and menopausal status-specific breast cancer incidence and detection rates across definitions for menopausal status. RESULTS: Overall, 36% and 29% of women were consistently classified as postmenopausal and premenopausal, respectively, across all definitions. Menopausal status-specific breast cancer incidence and detection rates were similar across definitions. Rates were unchanged when information regarding natural menopause, bilateral oophorectomy, hormone therapy, and timing of last menstrual period were sequentially added to definitions of postmenopausal status. CONCLUSIONS: Distinctions in menopausal status definitions contribute to notable differences in how women are classified, but translate to only slight differences in menopausal status-specific breast cancer rates. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVES: Menopausal status is a common covariate in epidemiologic studies. Still, there are no standard definitions for menopausal status using observational data. This study assesses distinctions between menopausal status definitions using commonly collected epidemiologic data, and explores their impact on study outcomes using breast cancer rates as an example. STUDY DESIGN: Using survey data from 227,700 women aged 40-64 who received screening mammograms from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, we classified menopausal status under five different definitions: one complex definition combining multiple variables, two definitions using age as a proxy for menopausal status, one based only on menstrual period status, and one based on age and menstrual period status. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We compared the distribution of menopausal status and menopausal status-specific breast cancer incidence and detection rates across definitions for menopausal status. RESULTS: Overall, 36% and 29% of women were consistently classified as postmenopausal and premenopausal, respectively, across all definitions. Menopausal status-specific breast cancer incidence and detection rates were similar across definitions. Rates were unchanged when information regarding natural menopause, bilateral oophorectomy, hormone therapy, and timing of last menstrual period were sequentially added to definitions of postmenopausal status. CONCLUSIONS: Distinctions in menopausal status definitions contribute to notable differences in how women are classified, but translate to only slight differences in menopausal status-specific breast cancer rates. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: P A van den Brandt; D Spiegelman; S S Yaun; H O Adami; L Beeson; A R Folsom; G Fraser; R A Goldbohm; S Graham; L Kushi; J R Marshall; A B Miller; T Rohan; S A Smith-Warner; F E Speizer; W C Willett; A Wolk; D J Hunter Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2000-09-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: E B Gold; J Bromberger; S Crawford; S Samuels; G A Greendale; S D Harlow; J Skurnick Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2001-05-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: R Talamini; S Franceschi; C La Vecchia; E Negri; L Borsa; M Montella; F Falcini; E Conti; C Rossi Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1996-02 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Siobán D Harlow; Kevin Cain; Sybil Crawford; Lorraine Dennerstein; Roderick Little; Ellen S Mitchell; Bin Nan; John F Randolph; John Taffe; Matheos Yosef Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2006-06-13 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Hazel B Nichols; Donna D Baird; Frank Z Stanczyk; Anne Z Steiner; Melissa A Troester; Kristina W Whitworth; Dale P Sandler Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2015-04-14
Authors: Christopher L Owens; Dan Peterson; Aruna Kamineni; Diana S M Buist; Sheila Weinmann; Tyler R Ross; Andrew E Williams; Azadeh Stark; Kenneth F Adams; Terry S Field Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2013-05-08 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Janie M Lee; Robert F Arao; Brian L Sprague; Karla Kerlikowske; Constance D Lehman; Robert A Smith; Louise M Henderson; Garth H Rauscher; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Gregory S Calip; Onchee Yu; Denise M Boudreau; Huibo Shao; Ruth Oratz; Stephen B Richardson; Heather T Gold Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Heidi S Wirtz; Denise M Boudreau; Julie R Gralow; William E Barlow; Shelly Gray; Erin J A Bowles; Diana S M Buist Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-01-10 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Denise M Boudreau; Onchee Yu; Jessica Chubak; Heidi S Wirtz; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Monica Fujii; Diana S M Buist Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-02-21 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Floortje K Ploos van Amstel; Sanne W van den Berg; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Marieke F M Gielissen; Judith B Prins; Petronella B Ottevanger Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jennifer A Harvey; Charlotte C Gard; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Berta A Geller; Tracy L Onega Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-12-18 Impact factor: 11.105