Clara Bodelon1, Ruth M Pfeiffer2, Saundra S Buys2, Amanda Black2, Mark E Sherman2. 1. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics (CB, RMP, AB, MES) and Division of Cancer Prevention (MES), National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, UT (SSB). clara.bodelon@nih.gov. 2. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics (CB, RMP, AB, MES) and Division of Cancer Prevention (MES), National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, UT (SSB).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence suggests that many ovarian cancers represent metastases from occult fallopian tube carcinomas or tumors arising within ovarian endometriosis. We hypothesized that small ovarian volumes, as reflected in nonvisualization by transvaginal ultrasound (TVU), would be a marker of lower ovarian cancer risk, whereas enlargement on serial examinations would indicate higher risk. METHODS: To address these hypotheses, we analyzed serial ovarian volume measurements determined by TVU for 29321 women (102787 scans) performed in the ovarian cancer screening arm of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) trial. Cox models were used to compute hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as measures of association between TVU results and ovarian cancer. We assessed whether increasing ovarian volume preceded diagnosis of ovarian cancer in a nested case-control analysis comparing case patients and control patients matched on age, center, and screening year (1:4 ratio). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Visualization of normal-appearing ovaries at the last TVU scan was associated with marginally higher ovarian cancer risk compared with nonvisualization of the ovaries (HR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.00 to 2.01). Ovarian volume increased statistically significantly in ovarian cancer case patients one to two years before diagnosis (P < .001), but not in matched control patients. CONCLUSION: Our analysis of TVU data suggests that increasing ovarian volume is associated with greater ovarian cancer risk, but it is only detectable one to two years before diagnosis. Published by Oxford University Press 2014.
BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence suggests that many ovarian cancers represent metastases from occult fallopian tube carcinomas or tumors arising within ovarian endometriosis. We hypothesized that small ovarian volumes, as reflected in nonvisualization by transvaginal ultrasound (TVU), would be a marker of lower ovarian cancer risk, whereas enlargement on serial examinations would indicate higher risk. METHODS: To address these hypotheses, we analyzed serial ovarian volume measurements determined by TVU for 29321 women (102787 scans) performed in the ovarian cancer screening arm of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) trial. Cox models were used to compute hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as measures of association between TVU results and ovarian cancer. We assessed whether increasing ovarian volume preceded diagnosis of ovarian cancer in a nested case-control analysis comparing case patients and control patients matched on age, center, and screening year (1:4 ratio). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Visualization of normal-appearing ovaries at the last TVU scan was associated with marginally higher ovarian cancer risk compared with nonvisualization of the ovaries (HR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.00 to 2.01). Ovarian volume increased statistically significantly in ovarian cancer case patients one to two years before diagnosis (P < .001), but not in matched control patients. CONCLUSION: Our analysis of TVU data suggests that increasing ovarian volume is associated with greater ovarian cancer risk, but it is only detectable one to two years before diagnosis. Published by Oxford University Press 2014.
Authors: J R van Nagell; P D DePriest; M B Reedy; H H Gallion; F R Ueland; E J Pavlik; R J Kryscio Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Mark E Sherman; James V Lacey; Saundra S Buys; Douglas J Reding; Christine D Berg; Craig Williams; Patricia Hartge Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Usha Menon; Steven J Skates; Sara Lewis; Adam N Rosenthal; Barnaby Rufford; Karen Sibley; Nicola Macdonald; Anne Dawnay; Arjun Jeyarajah; Robert C Bast; David Oram; Ian J Jacobs Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: John R van Nagell; Paul D DePriest; Frederick R Ueland; Christopher P DeSimone; Amy L Cooper; J Matt McDonald; Edward J Pavlik; Richard J Kryscio Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: P C Prorok; G L Andriole; R S Bresalier; S S Buys; D Chia; E D Crawford; R Fogel; E P Gelmann; F Gilbert; M A Hasson; R B Hayes; C C Johnson; J S Mandel; A Oberman; B O'Brien; M M Oken; S Rafla; D Reding; W Rutt; J L Weissfeld; L Yokochi; J K Gohagan Journal: Control Clin Trials Date: 2000-12
Authors: R B Hayes; D Reding; W Kopp; A F Subar; N Bhat; N Rothman; N Caporaso; R G Ziegler; C C Johnson; J L Weissfeld; R N Hoover; P Hartge; C Palace; J K Gohagan Journal: Control Clin Trials Date: 2000-12
Authors: Mark E Sherman; M Patricia Madigan; James V Lacey; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Nancy Potischman; Joseph D Carreon; Patricia Hartge; Louise A Brinton Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2007-08-27 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Mark E Sherman; Ronny I Drapkin; Neil S Horowitz; Christopher P Crum; Sue Friedman; Janice S Kwon; Douglas A Levine; Ie-Ming Shih; Donna Shoupe; Elizabeth M Swisher; Joan Walker; Britton Trabert; Mark H Greene; Goli Samimi; Sarah M Temkin; Lori M Minasian Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2016-05-24
Authors: Phuong L Mai; Austin Miller; Amanda Black; Roni T Falk; John F Boggess; Katherine Tucker; Ashley R Stuckey; Gustavo C Rodriguez; Cheung Wong; Thomas T Amatruda; Kelly J Wilkinson; Susan C Modesitt; S Diane Yamada; Kristin L Bixel; Gretchen E Glaser; Peter G Rose; Mark H Greene; Mark E Sherman Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 10.693
Authors: Soumia Brakta; Lynn P Chorich; Hyung-Goo Kim; Laurel A Coons; John A Katzenellenbogen; Janet E Hall; Kenneth S Korach; Lawrence C Layman Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: W Stott; S Campbell; A Franchini; O Blyuss; A Zaikin; A Ryan; C Jones; A Gentry-Maharaj; G Fletcher; J Kalsi; S Skates; M Parmar; N Amso; I Jacobs; U Menon Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: A Sharma; M Burnell; A Gentry-Maharaj; S Campbell; N N Amso; M W Seif; G Fletcher; C Brunell; G Turner; R Rangar; A Ryan; I Jacobs; U Menon Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Will Stott; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Andy Ryan; Nazar Amso; Mourad Seif; Chris Jones; Ian Jacobs; Max Parmar; Usha Menon; Stuart Campbell; Matthew Burnell Journal: F1000Res Date: 2018-08-10