METHODS AND FINDINGS: Genetic instruments to proxy 12 risk factors were constructed by identifying single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that were robustly (P < 5 × 10-8) and independently associated with each respective risk factor in previously reported genome-wide association studies. These risk factors included genetic liability to 3 factors (endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, type 2 diabetes) scaled to reflect a 50% higher odds liability to disease. We obtained summary statistics for the association of these SNPs with risk of overall and histotype-specific invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (22,406 cases; 40,941 controls) and low malignant potential tumours (3,103 cases; 40,941 controls) from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC). The OCAC dataset comprises 63 genotyping project/case-control sets with participants of European ancestry recruited from 14 countries (US, Australia, Belarus, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Canada, Poland, UK, Spain, Netherlands, and Sweden). SNPs were combined into multi-allelic inverse-variance-weighted fixed or random effects models to generate effect estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Three complementary sensitivity analyses were performed to examine violations of MR assumptions: MR-Egger regression and weighted median and mode estimators. A Bonferroni-corrected P value threshold was used to establish strong evidence (P < 0.0042) and suggestive evidence (0.0042 < P < 0.05) for associations. In MR analyses, there was strong or suggestive evidence that 2 of the 12 risk factors were associated with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer and 8 of the 12 were associated with 1 or more invasive epithelial ovarian cancer histotypes. There was strong evidence that genetic liability to endometriosis was associated with an increased risk of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (odds ratio [OR] per 50% higher odds liability: 1.10, 95% CI 1.06-1.15; P = 6.94 × 10-7) and suggestive evidence that lifetime smoking exposure was associated with an increased risk of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (OR per unit increase in smoking score: 1.36, 95% CI 1.04-1.78; P = 0.02). In analyses examining histotypes and low malignant potential tumours, the strongest associations found were between height and clear cell carcinoma (OR per SD increase: 1.36, 95% CI 1.15-1.61; P = 0.0003); age at natural menopause and endometrioid carcinoma (OR per year later onset: 1.09, 95% CI 1.02-1.16; P = 0.007); and genetic liability to polycystic ovary syndrome and endometrioid carcinoma (OR per 50% higher odds liability: 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.96; P = 0.002). There was little evidence for an association of genetic liability to type 2 diabetes, parity, or circulating levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D and sex hormone binding globulin with ovarian cancer or its subtypes. The primary limitations of this analysis include the modest statistical power for analyses of risk factors in relation to some less common ovarian cancer histotypes (low grade serous, mucinous, and clear cell carcinomas), the inability to directly examine the association of some ovarian cancer risk factors that did not have robust genetic variants available to serve as proxies (e.g., oral contraceptive use, hormone replacement therapy), and the assumption of linear relationships between risk factors and ovarian cancer risk.
CONCLUSIONS: Our comprehensive examination of possible aetiological drivers of ovarian carcinogenesis using germline genetic variants to proxy risk factors supports a role for few of these factors in invasive epithelial ovarian cancer overall and suggests distinct aetiologies across histotypes. The identification of novel risk factors remains an important priority for the prevention of epithelial ovarian cancer.
METHODS: We analysed the relationship between pre-diagnostic prolactin levels and the risk of in situ breast cancer overall, and by menopausal status and use of postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) at blood donation. Conditional logistic regression was used to assess this association in a case-control study nested within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort, including 307 in situ breast cancer cases and their matched control subjects.
RESULTS: We found a significant positive association between higher circulating prolactin levels and risk of in situ breast cancer among all women [pre-and postmenopausal combined, ORlog2=1.35 (95% CI 1.04-1.76), Ptrend=0.03]. No statistically significant heterogeneity was found between prolactin levels and in situ cancer risk by menopausal status (Phet=0.98) or baseline HT use (Phet=0.20), although the observed association was more pronounced among postmenopausal women using HT compared to non-users (Ptrend=0.06 vs Ptrend=0.35). In subgroup analyses, the observed positive association was strongest in women diagnosed with in situ breast tumors<4 years compared to ≥4 years after blood donation (Ptrend=0.01 vs Ptrend=0.63; Phet=0.04) and among nulliparous women compared to parous women (Ptrend=0.03 vs Ptrend=0.15; Phet=0.07).
CONCLUSIONS: Our data extends prior research linking prolactin and invasive breast cancer to the outcome of in situ breast tumours and shows that higher circulating prolactin is associated with increased risk of in situ breast cancer.
METHODS: A total of 335,060 women participating in the European Prospective Investigation into Nutrition and Cancer (EPIC) Study, completed a dietary questionnaire from 1992 to 2000, and were followed-up until 2010 for incidence of breast cancer. Hazard ratios (HR) of breast cancer by country-specific, as well as cohort-wide categories of beverage intake were estimated.
RESULTS: During an average follow-up of 11 years, 1064 premenopausal, and 9134 postmenopausal breast cancers were diagnosed. Caffeinated coffee intake was associated with lower risk of postmenopausal breast cancer: adjusted HR=0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82 to 0.98, for high versus low consumption; Ptrend=0.029. While there was no significant effect modification by hormone receptor status (P=0.711), linear trend for lower risk of breast cancer with increasing caffeinated coffee intake was clearest for estrogen and progesterone receptor negative (ER-PR-), postmenopausal breast cancer (P=0.008). For every 100 ml increase in caffeinated coffee intake, the risk of ER-PR- breast cancer was lower by 4% (adjusted HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.00). Non-consumers of decaffeinated coffee had lower risk of postmenopausal breast cancer (adjusted HR=0.89; 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.99) compared to low consumers, without evidence of dose-response relationship (Ptrend=0.128). Exclusive decaffeinated coffee consumption was not related to postmenopausal breast cancer risk, compared to any decaffeinated-low caffeinated intake (adjusted HR=0.97; 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.14), or to no intake of any coffee (HR: 0.96; 95%: 0.82 to 1.14). Caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee were not associated with premenopausal breast cancer. Tea intake was neither associated with pre- nor post-menopausal breast cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: Higher caffeinated coffee intake may be associated with lower risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. Decaffeinated coffee intake does not seem to be associated with breast cancer.
Methods: Thirty female Sprague-Dawley rats were sorted into 5 groups (n = 6) namely: MPv (leaf treatment); MPr (root treatment); ERT (estrogen treatment); OVXC (untreated ovariectomized control) and Sham (untreated sham-operated control). All rats (except the Sham) were ovariectomized to induce a state of estrogen deficiency that simulates menopause. Two weeks after ovariectomy, the rats were treated for 8 weeks with oral gavages of estrogen and plant extracts. The ERT group received 64.5 μg/kg/day dose of estrogen while MPv and MPr groups received 20 mg/kg/day dose of leaf and root extracts, respectively. At the end of treatment, left femora were excised from euthanized rats and investigated for changes in bone micro-architecture, mineral density, and biomechanical properties.
Results: Bone volume fraction, degree of anisotropy and structure-model-index of bone were significantly improved (p
DESIGN: Prospective study.
SETTING: University hospital.
PATIENT(S): Six hundred ten women undergoing SHG.
INTERVENTION(S): We performed SHG with six different types of catheters: Foleycath (Wembley Rubber Products, Sepang, Malaysia), Hysca Hysterosalpingography Catheter (GTA International Medical Devices S.A., La Caleta D.N., Dominican Republic), H/S Catheter Set (Ackrad Laboratories, Cranford, NJ), PBN Balloon Hystero-Salpingography Catheter (PBN Medicals, Stenloese, Denmark), ZUI-2.0 Catheter (Zinnanti Uterine Injection; BEI Medical System International, Gembloux, Belgium), and Goldstein Catheter (Cook, Spencer, IN).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We assessed the reliability, the physician's ease of use, the time requested for the insertion of the catheter, the volume of contrast medium used, the tolerability for the patients, and the cost of the catheters.
RESULT(S): In 568 (93%) correctly performed procedures, no statistically significant differences were found among the catheters. The Foleycath was the most difficult for the physician to use and required significantly more time to position correctly. The Goldstein catheter was the best tolerated by the patients. The Foleycath was the cheapest whereas the PBN Balloon was the most expensive.
CONCLUSION(S): The choice of the catheter must be targeted to achieving a good balance between tolerability for the patients, efficacy, cost, and the personal preference of the operator.
METHODS: The study encompassed a comprehensive three-stage approach to the development and validation of the PROM. Initially, during the preliminary design stage, the necessity for a new PROM was recognized, an expert panel was formed, and semi-structured qualitative interviews were carried out with GSM patients. In the second stage, the study used the five-step pre-validation methodology established by Prior et al. to generate and refine the PROM items. The third and final stage encompassed the determination of scale and item content validity indexes to ensure validity. Additionally, the reliability of each construct was evaluated using Cronbach's α.
RESULTS: The resulting PROM was named GSM-SVTAQ (GSM-symptoms and vaginal treatments acceptability questionnaire). It demonstrated excellent validity in assessing symptoms burden, health-related and sexual quality of life, and vaginal treatment acceptability, with high content validity indices and strong internal consistency. The scale content validity indices and Cronbach's α coefficients for the three domains were (0.926, 0.939), (0.875, 0.947), and (0.824, 0.855), respectively.
CONCLUSION: The GSM-SVTAQ stands as the first GSM-specific, valid, and reliable PROM capable of comprehensively measuring the three components of GSM and the acceptability of vaginal treatments. Its implementation has the potential to significantly enhance patient care and outcomes in GSM management.
SUMMARY ANSWER: Although there was no overall association between diabetes and age at menopause, our study suggests that early-onset diabetes may accelerate menopause.
WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Today, more women of childbearing age are being diagnosed with diabetes, but little is known about the impact of diabetes on reproductive health.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We investigated the impact of diabetes on age at natural menopause (ANM) in 258 898 women from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), enrolled between 1992 and 2000.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Determinant and outcome information was obtained through questionnaires. Time-dependent Cox regression analyses were used to estimate the associations of diabetes and age at diabetes diagnosis with ANM, stratified by center and adjusted for age, smoking, reproductive and diabetes risk factors and with age from birth to menopause or censoring as the underlying time scale.
MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Overall, no association between diabetes and ANM was found (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89-1.01). However, women with diabetes before the age of 20 years had an earlier menopause (10-20 years: HR = 1.43; 95% CI 1.02-2.01, <10 years: HR = 1.59; 95% CI 1.03-2.43) compared with non-diabetic women, whereas women with diabetes at age 50 years and older had a later menopause (HR = 0.81; 95% CI 0.70-0.95). None of the other age groups were associated with ANM.
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Strengths of the study include the large sample size and the broad set of potential confounders measured. However, results may have been underestimated due to survival bias. We cannot be sure about the sequence of the events in women with a late age at diabetes, as both events then occur in a short period. We could not distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Based on the literature, an accelerating effect of early-onset diabetes on ANM might be plausible. A delaying effect of late-onset diabetes on ANM has not been reported before, and is not in agreement with recent studies suggesting the opposite association.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The coordination of EPIC is financially supported by the European Commission (DG-SANCO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The national cohorts are supported by Danish Cancer Society (Denmark); Ligue Contre le Cancer, Institut Gustave Roussy, Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) (France); German Cancer Aid, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMMF) (Germany); Ministry of Health and Social Solidarity, Stavros Niarchos Foundation and Hellenic Health Foundation (Greece); Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC) and National Research Council (Italy); Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); ERC-2009-AdG 232997 and Nordforsk, Nordic Centre of Excellence programme on Food, Nutrition and Health (Norway); Health Research Fund (FIS), Regional Governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia (no. 6236) and Navarra, ISCIII RETIC (RD06/0020) (Spain); Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Scientific Council and Regional Government of Skåne and Västerbotten (Sweden); Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Stroke Association, British Heart Foundation, Department of Health, Food Standards Agency, and Wellcome Trust (UK). None of the authors reported a conflict of interest.