PURPOSE: Few studies have examined methods of contraception, beyond oral contraceptives (OCs) and tubal ligation, in relation to ovarian cancer risk. METHODS: Nine hundred two cases with incident ovarian/peritoneal/tubal cancer were compared with 1800 population-based control subjects. Women self-reported all methods of contraception by using life calendars. RESULTS: Each of the contraceptive methods examined reduced the risk of ovarian cancer as compared with use of no artificial contraception. Comparing ever versus never use, after adjustment for potentially confounding factors and all other methods of contraception, the methods of contraception that emerged as protective were OCs (adjusted odds ratio [adj OR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.93); tubal ligation (adj OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.51-0.77); intrauterine devices (IUDs) (adj OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59-0.95); and vasectomy (adj OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.99). Although for OCs and tubal ligation we found that the longer the duration of use, the greater the effect, for IUDs the pattern was reversed: significant protection occurred with short duration and progressively greater risk (albeit nonsignificant) was seen with longer duration of use. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest case-control study to date, a range of effective methods of contraception reduced the risk for ovarian cancer. OCs and tubal ligation reduced ovarian cancer risk with lower odds ratios with longer duration of use, whereas IUDs reduced risk overall, having the greatest impact with short duration of use.
PURPOSE: Few studies have examined methods of contraception, beyond oral contraceptives (OCs) and tubal ligation, in relation to ovarian cancer risk. METHODS: Nine hundred two cases with incident ovarian/peritoneal/tubal cancer were compared with 1800 population-based control subjects. Women self-reported all methods of contraception by using life calendars. RESULTS: Each of the contraceptive methods examined reduced the risk of ovarian cancer as compared with use of no artificial contraception. Comparing ever versus never use, after adjustment for potentially confounding factors and all other methods of contraception, the methods of contraception that emerged as protective were OCs (adjusted odds ratio [adj OR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.93); tubal ligation (adj OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.51-0.77); intrauterine devices (IUDs) (adj OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59-0.95); and vasectomy (adj OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.99). Although for OCs and tubal ligation we found that the longer the duration of use, the greater the effect, for IUDs the pattern was reversed: significant protection occurred with short duration and progressively greater risk (albeit nonsignificant) was seen with longer duration of use. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest case-control study to date, a range of effective methods of contraception reduced the risk for ovarian cancer. OCs and tubal ligation reduced ovarian cancer risk with lower odds ratios with longer duration of use, whereas IUDs reduced risk overall, having the greatest impact with short duration of use.
Authors: R B Ness; J A Grisso; J Klapper; J J Schlesselman; S Silberzweig; R Vergona; M Morgan; J E Wheeler Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2000-08-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: R B Ness; J A Grisso; C Cottreau; J Klapper; R Vergona; J E Wheeler; M Morgan; J J Schlesselman Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: P D Stolley; J A Tonascia; P E Sartwell; M S Tockman; S Tonascia; A Rutledge; R Schinnar Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1978-03 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Susanne K Kjaer; Lene Mellemkjaer; Louise A Brinton; Christoffer Johansen; Gloria Gridley; Jørgen H Olsen Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2004-05-26 Impact factor: 7.196
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: Albina N Minlikeeva; Jo L Freudenheim; Wei-Hsuan Lo-Ciganic; Kevin H Eng; Grace Friel; Brenda Diergaarde; Francesmary Modugno; Rikki Cannioto; Emily Gower; J Brian Szender; Kassondra Grzankowski; Kunle Odunsi; Roberta B Ness; Kirsten B Moysich Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Lauren C Peres; Anthony J Alberg; Elisa V Bandera; Jill Barnholtz-Sloan; Melissa Bondy; Michele L Cote; Ellen Funkhouser; Patricia G Moorman; Edward S Peters; Ann G Schwartz; Paul D Terry; Sarah E Abbott; Fabian Camacho; Frances Wang; Joellen M Schildkraut Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Michelle L Kurta; Robert P Edwards; Kirsten B Moysich; Kathleen McDonough; Marnie Bertolet; Joel L Weissfeld; Janet M Catov; Francesmary Modugno; Clareann H Bunker; Roberta B Ness; Brenda Diergaarde Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-11-17 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Rikki Cannioto; Michael J LaMonte; Harvey A Risch; Chi-Chen Hong; Lara E Sucheston-Campbell; Kevin H Eng; J Brian Szender; Jenny Chang-Claude; Barbara Schmalfeldt; Ruediger Klapdor; Emily Gower; Albina N Minlikeeva; Gary R Zirpoli; Elisa V Bandera; Andrew Berchuck; Daniel Cramer; Jennifer A Doherty; Robert P Edwards; Brooke L Fridley; Ellen L Goode; Marc T Goodman; Estrid Hogdall; Satoyo Hosono; Allan Jensen; Susan Jordan; Susanne K Kjaer; Keitaro Matsuo; Roberta B Ness; Catherine M Olsen; Sara H Olson; Celeste Leigh Pearce; Malcolm C Pike; Mary Anne Rossing; Elizabeth A Szamreta; Pamela J Thompson; Chiu-Chen Tseng; Robert A Vierkant; Penelope M Webb; Nicolas Wentzensen; Kristine G Wicklund; Stacey J Winham; Anna H Wu; Francesmary Modugno; Joellen M Schildkraut; Kathryn L Terry; Linda E Kelemen; Kirsten B Moysich Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 4.254