BACKGROUND: Recent studies have called into question the long-held belief that hysterectomy without oophorectomy protects against ovarian cancer. This population-based longitudinal record-linkage study aimed to explore this relationship, overall and by age at hysterectomy, time period, surgery type, and indication for hysterectomy. METHODS: We followed the female adult Western Australian population (837 942 women) across a 27-year period using linked electoral, hospital, births, deaths, and cancer records. Surgery dates were determined from hospital records, and ovarian cancer diagnoses (n = 1640) were ascertained from cancer registry records. We used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between hysterectomy and ovarian cancer incidence. RESULTS: Hysterectomy without oophorectomy (n = 78 594) was not associated with risk of invasive ovarian cancer overall (HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.85 to 1.11) or with the most common serous subtype (HR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.89 to 1.23). Estimates did not vary statistically significantly by age at procedure, time period, or surgical approach. However, among women with endometriosis (5.8%) or with fibroids (5.7%), hysterectomy was associated with substantially decreased ovarian cancer risk overall (HR = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.24, and HR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.20 to 0.36, respectively) and across all subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that for most women, having a hysterectomy with ovarian conservation is not likely to substantially alter their risk of developing ovarian cancer. However, our results, if confirmed, suggest that ovarian cancer risk reduction could be considered as a possible benefit of hysterectomy when making decisions about surgical management of endometriosis or fibroids.
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have called into question the long-held belief that hysterectomy without oophorectomy protects against ovarian cancer. This population-based longitudinal record-linkage study aimed to explore this relationship, overall and by age at hysterectomy, time period, surgery type, and indication for hysterectomy. METHODS: We followed the female adult Western Australian population (837 942 women) across a 27-year period using linked electoral, hospital, births, deaths, and cancer records. Surgery dates were determined from hospital records, and ovarian cancer diagnoses (n = 1640) were ascertained from cancer registry records. We used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between hysterectomy and ovarian cancer incidence. RESULTS: Hysterectomy without oophorectomy (n = 78 594) was not associated with risk of invasive ovarian cancer overall (HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.85 to 1.11) or with the most common serous subtype (HR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.89 to 1.23). Estimates did not vary statistically significantly by age at procedure, time period, or surgical approach. However, among women with endometriosis (5.8%) or with fibroids (5.7%), hysterectomy was associated with substantially decreased ovarian cancer risk overall (HR = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.24, and HR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.20 to 0.36, respectively) and across all subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that for most women, having a hysterectomy with ovarian conservation is not likely to substantially alter their risk of developing ovarian cancer. However, our results, if confirmed, suggest that ovarian cancer risk reduction could be considered as a possible benefit of hysterectomy when making decisions about surgical management of endometriosis or fibroids.
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: Francesmary Modugno; Roberta B Ness; Glenn O Allen; Joellen M Schildkraut; Faith G Davis; Marc T Goodman Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Jacques E Rossouw; Garnet L Anderson; Ross L Prentice; Andrea Z LaCroix; Charles Kooperberg; Marcia L Stefanick; Rebecca D Jackson; Shirley A A Beresford; Barbara V Howard; Karen C Johnson; Jane Morley Kotchen; Judith Ockene Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-07-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Susan J Jordan; Adèle C Green; David C Whiteman; Suzanne P Moore; Christopher J Bain; Dorota M Gertig; Penelope M Webb Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Clara Glazer; Matthew Burnell; Andy Ryan; Hannah Berry; Jatinderpal Kalsi; Robert Woolas; Steve J Skates; Stuart Campbell; Mahesh Parmar; Ian Jacobs; Usha Menon Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Lilah Khoja; Rachel Palmieri Weber; Penelope M Webb; Susan J Jordan; Aruna Muthukumar; Jenny Chang-Claude; Renée T Fortner; Allan Jensen; Susanne K Kjaer; Harvey Risch; Jennifer Anne Doherty; Holly R Harris; Marc T Goodman; Francesmary Modugno; Kirsten Moysich; Andrew Berchuck; Joellen M Schildkraut; Daniel Cramer; Kathryn L Terry; Hoda Anton-Culver; Argyrios Ziogas; Minh Tung Phung; Gillian E Hanley; Anna H Wu; Bhramar Mukherjee; Karen McLean; Kathleen Cho; Malcolm C Pike; Celeste Leigh Pearce; Alice W Lee Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2021-11-12 Impact factor: 5.304