Minh Tung Phung

Evaluating Ovarian Cancer Risk–Reducing Salpingectomy Acceptance: A Survey

Abstract With evidence that salpingectomy is effective in preventing high-grade serous carcinoma, it is time to consider offering this procedure to people at higher-than-average lifetime risk for ovarian cancer, despite not having a pathogenic genetic variant that increases the risk for ovarian cancer. This targeted approach has potential to be effective at reducing ovarian cancer incidence, and unlike opportunistic salpingectomy, it is focused on people with an increased lifetime risk of ovarian cancer. However, the acceptability of this approach within the population of potential patients remains unknown. We conducted an online survey of adults in British Columbia, Canada, who were defined as “at risk” for ovarian cancer (i.e., people born with ovaries). Participants completed a questionnaire on demographics, ovarian cancer risk and protective factors, concerns about risk-reducing salpingectomy (RSS), and the risk they considered high enough to warrant RRS. We included 211 participants. Among these participants, 42% (n = 88) indicated that they would consider RRS at any lifetime risk or any risk above the population average. Another 20 participants chose risks between 1.5% and 4% for a cumulative 51% of the sample choosing risks below thresholds for oophorectomy. In contrast, 6% (n = 12) indicated that they would not consider the procedure at any risk level. None of the factors collected were associated with the likelihood that a person would find RRS acceptable. Overall, our participants showed broad interest in RRS as an ovarian cancer prevention strategy. These results suggest that there would likely be uptake if RRS was offered. Significance: This study found that many participants were willing to consider RRS to prevent ovarian cancer. Further research on RRS should be undertaken to understand how this can be best used for ovarian cancer prevention.

A framework for assessing interactions for risk stratification models: the example of ovarian cancer

Abstract Generally, risk stratification models for cancer use effect estimates from risk/protective factor analyses that have not assessed potential interactions between these exposures. We have developed a 4-criterion framework for assessing interactions that includes statistical, qualitative, biological, and practical approaches. We present the application of this framework in an ovarian cancer setting because this is an important step in developing more accurate risk stratification models. Using data from 9 case-control studies in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of interactions among 15 unequivocal risk and protective factors for ovarian cancer (including 14 non-genetic factors and a 36-variant polygenic score) with age and menopausal status. Pairwise interactions between the risk/protective factors were also assessed. We found that menopausal status modifies the association among endometriosis, first-degree family history of ovarian cancer, breastfeeding, and depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate use and disease risk, highlighting the importance of understanding multiplicative interactions when developing risk prediction models.

Trends of Ovarian Cancer Incidence by Histotype and Race/Ethnicity in the United States 1992–2019

The effect of risk factors on ovarian cancer differs by histotype, and the prevalence of such risk factors varies by race/ethnicity. It is not clear how ovarian cancer incidence has changed over time by histotype and race/ethnicity. We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER-12) 1992–2019 data to examine the trend of ovarian cancer incidence for three histotypes (high-grade serous N = 19,691, endometrioid N = 3,212, and clear cell N = 3,275) and four racial/ethnic groups (Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic White). Joinpoint and age-period-cohort analyses were conducted to analyze ovarian cancer incidence trends. High-grade serous cancer was the most common histotype, but its incidence has significantly decreased over time for all racial/ethnic groups; the decrease was largest for non-Hispanic White women (average annual percent change AAPC during 2010–2019 = −6.1; 95% confidence interval (CI), −8.0 to −4.2). Conversely, clear cell cancer was most common in the Asian/Pacific Islanders, and its incidence has increased over time, particularly among Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander women (AAPC during 2010–2019 = 2.8; 95% CI, 0.8 to 4.7, and AAPC = 1.5; 95% CI, 0.7 to 2.2, respectively). Endometrioid cancer incidence has decreased in non-Hispanic White but increased in Hispanic women (AAPC during 2010–2019 = −1.3; 95% CI, −1.9 to −0.8, and AAPC = 3.6; 95% CI, 1.0 to 6.3, respectively). The differential incidence trends by histotype and race/ethnicity underscore the need to monitor incidence and risk factor trends across different groups and develop targeted preventive interventions to reduce the burden of ovarian cancer and disparity by race/ethnicity. Significance: During 1992–2019, high-grade serous ovarian cancer incidence has decreased while clear cell cancer incidence has increased regardless of race/ethnicity. Endometrioid cancer incidence has decreased in non-Hispanic White but increased in Hispanic women. Differential ovarian cancer incidence trends highlight the need for targeted preventive interventions by histotype and race/ethnicity.

High Prediagnosis Inflammation-Related Risk Score Associated with Decreased Ovarian Cancer Survival

Abstract Background: There is suggestive evidence that inflammation is related to ovarian cancer survival. However, more research is needed to identify inflammation-related factors that are associated with ovarian cancer survival and to determine their combined effects. Methods: This analysis used pooled data on 8,147 women with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium. The prediagnosis inflammation-related exposures of interest included alcohol use; aspirin use; other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use; body mass index; environmental tobacco smoke exposure; history of pelvic inflammatory disease, polycystic ovarian syndrome, and endometriosis; menopausal hormone therapy use; physical inactivity; smoking status; and talc use. Using Cox proportional hazards models, the relationship between each exposure and survival was assessed in 50% of the data. A weighted inflammation-related risk score (IRRS) was developed, and its association with survival was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models in the remaining 50% of the data. Results: There was a statistically significant trend of increasing risk of death per quartile of the IRRS [HR = 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.03–1.14]. Women in the upper quartile of the IRRS had a 31% higher death rate compared with the lowest quartile (95% CI, 1.11–1.54). Conclusions: A higher prediagnosis IRRS was associated with an increased mortality risk after an ovarian cancer diagnosis. Further investigation is warranted to evaluate whether postdiagnosis exposures are also associated with survival. Impact: Given that pre- and postdiagnosis exposures are often correlated and many are modifiable, our study results can ultimately motivate the development of behavioral recommendations to enhance survival among patients with ovarian cancer.

Depot-Medroxyprogesterone Acetate Use Is Associated with Decreased Risk of Ovarian Cancer: The Mounting Evidence of a Protective Role of Progestins

AbstractBackground:Combined oral contraceptive use is associated with a decreased risk of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (ovarian cancer). There is suggestive evidence of an inverse association between progestin-only contraceptive use and ovarian cancer risk, but previous studies have been underpowered.Methods:The current study used primary data from 7,977 women with ovarian cancer and 11,820 control women in seven case–control studies from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium to evaluate the association between use of depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), an injectable progestin-only contraceptive, and ovarian cancer risk. Logistic models were fit to determine the association between ever use of DMPA and ovarian cancer risk overall and by histotype. A systematic review of the association between DMPA use and ovarian cancer risk was conducted.Results:Ever use of DMPA was associated with a 35% decreased risk of ovarian cancer overall (OR, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.50–0.85). There was a statistically significant trend of decreasing risk with increasing duration of use (Ptrend < 0.001). The systematic review yielded six studies, four of which showed an inverse association and two showed increased risk.Conclusions:DMPA use appears to be associated with a decreased risk of ovarian cancer in a duration-dependent manner based on the preponderance of evidence. Further study of the mechanism through which DMPA use is associated with ovarian cancer is warranted.Impact:The results of this study are of particular interest given the rise in popularity of progestin-releasing intrauterine devices that have a substantially lower progestin dose than that in DMPA, but may have a stronger local effect.

Reproductive Factors Do Not Influence Survival with Ovarian Cancer

Abstract Background: Previous studies on the association between reproductive factors and ovarian cancer survival are equivocal, possibly due to small sample sizes. Methods: Using data on 11,175 people diagnosed with primary invasive epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer (ovarian cancer) from 16 studies in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC), we examined the associations between survival and age at menarche, combined oral contraceptive use, parity, breastfeeding, age at last pregnancy, and menopausal status using Cox proportional hazard models. The models were adjusted for age at diagnosis, race/ethnicity, education level, and OCAC study and stratified on stage and histotype. Results: During the mean follow-up of 6.34 years (SD = 4.80), 6,418 patients passed away (57.4%). There was no evidence of associations between the reproductive factors and survival among patients with ovarian cancer overall or by histotype. Conclusions: This study found no association between reproductive factors and survival after an ovarian cancer diagnosis. Impact: Reproductive factors are well-established risk factors for ovarian cancer, but they are not associated with survival after a diagnosis of ovarian cancer.