Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012 Jun 15;21(8):1282–1292. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0426

Use of fertility drugs and risk of ovarian cancer: results from a US-based case-control study

Michelle L Kurta 1, Kirsten B Moysich 2, Joel L Weissfeld 1,3, Ada O Youk 1,4, Clareann H Bunker 1, Robert P Edwards 3,5, Francesmary Modugno 1,3,5, Roberta B Ness 6, Brenda Diergaarde 1,3,*
PMCID: PMC3415595  NIHMSID: NIHMS381734  PMID: 22707710

Abstract

Background

Previous studies examining associations between use of fertility drugs and ovarian cancer risk have provided conflicting results. We used data from a large case-control study to determine whether fertility drug use significantly impacts ovarian cancer risk when taking into account parity, gravidity, and cause of infertility.

Methods

Data from the Hormones and Ovarian Cancer Prediction (HOPE) study were used (902 cases, 1802 controls). Medical and reproductive histories were collected via in-person interviews. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Models were adjusted for age, race, education, age at menarche, parity, oral contraceptive use, breastfeeding, talc use, tubal ligation, and family history of breast/ovarian cancer.

Results

Ever use of fertility drugs was not significantly associated with ovarian cancer within the total HOPE population (OR: 0.93, 95%CI: 0.65–1.35) or among women who reported seeking medical attention for infertility (OR: 0.87, 95%CI 0.54–1.40). We did observe a statistically significant increased risk of ovarian cancer for ever use of fertility drugs among women who, despite seeking medical attention for problems getting pregnant, remained nulligravid (OR: 3.13, 95%CI 1.01–9.67).

Conclusions

These results provide further evidence that fertility drug use does not significantly contribute to ovarian cancer risk among the majority of women; however, women who despite infertility evaluation and fertility drug use remain nulligravid, may have an elevated risk for ovarian cancer.

Impact

Our results suggest that fertility drug use does not significantly contribute to overall risk of ovarian cancer when adjusting for known confounding factors.

Keywords: ovarian cancer, fertility drugs, infertility, case-control

Introduction

Ovarian cancer is multifactorial and complex in etiology. Lifestyle factors shown to increase the risk of ovarian cancer include low parity (14), late onset of menopause (5, 6) and perineal talc use (79). Oral contraceptive (OC) use (1013), breastfeeding (1416) and tubal ligation (1719) have been shown to have a protective effect on ovarian cancer risk. Several theories have been proposed to explain the mechanisms by which these factors affect risk of ovarian cancer. The incessant ovulation hypothesis theorizes that the repeated damage and subsequent repair cycles that occur during ovulation on the epithelial surface of the ovary contributes to DNA damage and increases the risk of developing ovarian cancer (2023). The gonadotropin hypothesis postulates that exposure to high levels of circulating pituitary gonadotropins, which stimulates the ovarian surface epithelium, plays a role in the development of ovarian cancer (24, 25). Both of these theories suggest that the use of fertility drugs, which often contain gonadotropins and stimulate ovulation, may increase the risk of ovarian cancer.

Fertility drug use has increased markedly in the U.S. (26). Based on data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, 12% of the 61.6 million U.S. women between the ages of 16 and 44 sought infertility services. The use of infertility services was more common among older women, women with higher incomes, and women who were childless (27). The utilization of fertility drugs and other infertility services is expected to continue to rise as the percentage of women who postpone attempts to become pregnant until after the age of 35 increases. Stephen et al. projected that the number of infertile women will increase to between 5.4–7.7 million in 2025 (28). Despite the growing number of women seeking fertility treatment, the effects of fertility drug use on ovarian cancer risk remain uncertain. Several early studies reported an association between exposure to fertility drugs and the development of ovarian cancer, which spurred concern regarding the safety of these drugs (2931). Subsequent studies did not provide evidence of an increased risk of ovarian cancer with the use of fertility drugs (3237). However, concern regarding fertility drug use remains after other studies reported that women who were exposed to fertility drugs for more than 12 cycles were at an increased risk of ovarian cancer (38, 39). Nulliparous women who failed to conceive after treatment have also been reported to have an increased risk of ovarian cancer (29, 35). Finally, several studies have shown that fertility drug use may increase the risk of borderline ovarian tumors (30, 31, 4043).

The conflicting results from previous studies might be due to the generally small sample sizes and/or inability to control for important reproductive factors known to influence ovarian cancer risk. Establishing the relationship between fertility drug use and ovarian cancer risk is complicated by the fact that infertility itself increases the risk of ovarian cancer (10, 4446). It is also of particular importance to account for parity because the frequency of nulliparity is high among infertile women and nulliparity has been established as an important ovarian cancer risk factor (24, 47, 48). The increasing use of fertility drugs necessitates the separation of the effects of underlying infertility and other confounding factors from those of fertility drug use. Ours is one of the largest case-control studies of ovarian cancer conducted to date. Our objective was to contribute to the debate regarding whether fertility drug use significantly impacts ovarian cancer risk when taking into account parity, gravidity, and cause of infertility.

Material and Methods

Study Population and Data Collection

We used data from the Hormones and Ovarian Cancer Prediction (HOPE) study, a population-based case-control study of ovarian cancer described in detail elsewhere (13, 49). Briefly, subjects were residents of a contiguous region comprising Western Pennsylvania, Eastern Ohio, and Western New York State. All cases were histologically confirmed to have primary epithelial ovarian, peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancers diagnosed between 2003 and 2008. Eligible women were at least 25 years old and were within 9 months of initial diagnosis at the time of recruitment. A total of 902 cases were enrolled. Controls, N=1802, were frequency matched to cases (~2:1) by 5-year age group and telephone area code through random-digit dialing. Women who had undergone a bilateral oophorectomy were ineligible. All study participants provided informed consent. The study was approved by the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board and by the human subject committees at each hospital where cases were identified.

Trained interviewers collected questionnaire data that included detailed reproductive, gynecological, and medical histories as well as information regarding lifestyle and family medical history; a reference date of 9 months before the interview date was used for all participants.

Infertility and Fertility Drug Use

All study participants were asked if they had ever sought medical attention for problems becoming pregnant. Women who responded with “yes” to this question were asked whether their partner was tested, they were personally tested, they were both tested, or if neither of them were tested for infertility. They were also presented with a list of infertility causes and asked whether each was found to be a probable cause for their problems becoming pregnant. Women were able to respond “yes,” “no,” or “don’t know” to whether they were diagnosed with a problem involving: partner’s sperm, their ovaries, ovulation, their fallopian tubes, their cervix, cervical mucous, their uterus, scarring of the uterus, menstruation, endometriosis, or some other problem. For the current analyses, we collapsed the cervix and cervical mucous variables into one cervical problem variable. Similarly, we combined the variables for uterus problems and scarring of the uterus. We chose to collapse these variables because the mechanism affecting infertility is similar for both cervical variables as well as both uterine variables. Combining similar causes of infertility resulted in a greater number of exposed women and increased our power to determine whether uterine or cervical causes of infertility were significantly associated with ovarian cancer risk.

All study participants were asked if they had ever used fertility drugs. Women who responded with “yes” to this question were asked the name of the fertility drugs used. The majority of women used clomiphene citrate, which we defined as one group of fertility drugs (“clomiphene”). We pooled follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH), urofollitropin, and human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) drugs into one group of fertility drugs, “gonadotropins”, because they utilize the same method of stimulating ovulation. We also created a group for women who had used a combination of gonadotropins and clomiphene citrate (“clomiphene + gonadotropins”). Finally, we grouped together any other fertility drugs, such as progesterone and unknown hormone pills, into an “other” fertility drug group (“other fertility drug”). Women who reported taking fertility drugs were also asked how many months they took each fertility drug. This information was collected for the first four periods of fertility drug use. We do not have information regarding type of fertility drug or the duration of use for fertility drugs used after the first four time periods of fertility drug use; however, only 9 women reported using fertility drugs for more than four time periods.

Covariates

Based on anthropometric data provided by the participants, we calculated body mass index (BMI) as weight (kg) at reference date divided by height (m) at reference date squared. Family history of ovarian and breast cancers was defined as having at least one reported diagnosis of, respectively, ovarian or breast cancer among a first-degree relative. Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) use was defined as the use of hormones for menopause, to treat osteoporosis, or after hysterectomy/removal of ovaries; any use of estrogen or estrogen plus progesterone among postmenopausal women was also classified as HRT use. Women were classified as postmenopausal if they were 55 years or older, reported natural menopause, had used HRT, or reported no menstrual periods in the 6 months prior to the reference date. Women were considered to be premenopausal if they had never taken HRT and reported having menstrual periods in the 6 months prior to the reference date, and were younger than 55 years old (50). All participants were asked if they had ever been pregnant. Women reporting at least 1 pregnancy were subsequently asked to provide information regarding the outcome of the pregnancy and the duration they breastfed. This information was repeated for up to four pregnancies. Duration of breastfeeding was calculated as the sum of the number of months they breastfed after each of their first four pregnancies. Information regarding pregnancy outcomes, and breastfeeding was not available for later pregnancies; however, women did report their total number of pregnancies and live births. Among women who reported more than four pregnancies, we calculated their average length of breastfeeding for their first four pregnancies, multiplied this average by the number of additional pregnancies resulting in live births, and added this to the total months of reported breastfeeding. Perineal talc use was defined as ever using dusting powder or deodorizing spray on: the genital or rectal areas, on sanitary napkins, on underwear, or on diaphragms or cervical caps.

Statistical Analysis

Associations between ovarian cancer risk and demographic and reproductive factors were evaluated using logistic regression models. These models were used to calculate odds ratios (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), as well as p-trend values for continuous factors.

Backward stepwise regression was used to determine which demographic and reproductive variables should be included as covariates in the regression models used to evaluate the effect of exposure to fertility drugs on ovarian cancer risk. Age was locked into the stepwise model as a continuous variable; a p-value criterion of 0.10 was used to identify additional covariates. The following variables were evaluated for inclusion: race (white, black, other), education (less than high school graduate, high school graduate, post-high school education), site (Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Buffalo), BMI (<25, 25–29.99, ≥30), family history (none, first-degree breast, first-degree ovarian, first-degree ovary and breast), tubal ligation (yes, no, missing), OC use (continuous), number of live births (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ≥5), breastfeeding (never, < 6, 6 < 12, ≥12 months), age at menarche (continuous), menopausal status (premenopausal, postmenopausal), perineal talc use (ever, never), and HRT use (ever, never). All models are adjusted for the covariates identified through this process with the exception of models in which collinearity occurred between these covariates and the variables of interest (indicated with the results).

Associations between ovarian cancer risk and ever versus never use of fertility drugs and also duration of use, which was evaluated as a continuous variable and as a categorical variable (never, < 6 months, ≥6 months), were evaluated among the total HOPE population and separately among women who reported seeking medical attention for infertility. We chose 6 months as the cutoff for duration of use because this was the median duration of fertility drug use among all women who had taken fertility drugs and using this grouping provided adequate sample size for each group when stratifying for parity and gravidity. Among women who reported seeking medical attention for infertility, we additionally evaluated associations between ovarian cancer risk and year medical attention was sought, who was tested, and underlying cause of infertility using unconditional logistic regression. We also determined whether the relationship between fertility drug use and ovarian cancer risk was modified by year medical attention was sought, age at which medical attention for infertility was sought, cause of infertility, and person tested for infertility problems by creating interaction terms between fertility drug use and these variables and including them in the adjusted model. Finally, we evaluated whether use of specific types of fertility drugs (clomiphene, gonadotropins, clomiphene + gonadotropins, other fertility drugs) was associated with ovarian cancer risk. These analyses were repeated separately for invasive and borderline ovarian tumors; analyses were also repeated using all cases and controls within the HOPE study population.

To examine the impact of parity and gravidity on the association between fertility drug use and ovarian cancer risk, we evaluated ever compared to never use of fertility drugs while stratifying by the following groups of women: parous, nulliparous-gravid, and nulligravid. These analyses were conducted among women who reported seeking medical attention for infertility and repeated using the total HOPE study population.

All significance tests were two-sided; P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. All analyses were conducted using Stata version 12.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

Results

Demographic and reproductive characteristics of the HOPE study population are presented in Table 1. Compared to Caucasians, African Americans had a significantly increased risk of ovarian cancer. High-school graduates and women with post-high school education had a significantly decreased risk of ovarian cancer compared to women with less than a high school education. The following variables were also significantly associated with ovarian cancer risk: age at menarche, OC use, parity, gravidity, duration of breastfeeding, perineal talc use, and tubal ligation. Seeking medical attention for infertility was not significantly associated with ovarian cancer risk (Table 1). Backward stepwise regression yielded a model that included age, race, education, age at menarche, OC use, parity, duration of breastfeeding, perineal talc use, and tubal ligation. First-degree family history of breast/ovarian cancers was associated with a p-value of 0.14 using this method but was nevertheless included in the model because of its known association with ovarian cancer risk.

Table 1.

Demographic and reproductive characteristics of the total HOPE population.

Cases (902) Controls (1802) OR (95% CI) a p-trend b
N % N %
Site
 Buffalo 251 27.8 476 26.4 1.0 (ref.) ---
 Cleveland 294 32.6 628 34.9 0.89 (0.72, 1.09) c
 Pittsburgh 357 39.6 698 38.7 0.97 (0.79, 1.18) c
Age (in years)
 < 30 13 1.4 24 1.3 1.0 (ref.) 0.01
 30 < 40 47 5.2 108 6.0 0.80 (0.38, 1.71) c
 40 < 50 164 18.2 393 21.8 0.77 (0.38, 1.55) c
 50 < 60 276 30.6 569 31.6 0.90 (0.45, 1.79) c
 60 < 70 211 23.4 403 22.4 0.97 (0.48, 1.94) c
 ≥70 191 21.2 305 16.9 1.16 (0.57, 2.33) c
Race
 White 856 94.9 1,758 97.6 1.0 (ref.) ---
 Black 35 3.9 29 1.6 2.48 (1.51, 4.08) c
 Other 11 1.2 15 0.8 1.51 (0.69, 3.29) c
Education
 Non-high school graduate 83 9.2 82 4.5 1.0 (ref.) ---
 High school graduate 303 33.6 535 29.7 0.59 (0.42, 0.83) d
 Post-high school 516 57.2 1,185 65.8 0.46 (0.33, 0.64) d
Smoking Status
 Never Smoker 458 50.8 913 50.7 1.0 (ref.) ---
 Former Smoker 286 31.7 545 30.2 1.02 (0.84, 1.22)
 Current Smoker 158 17.5 344 19.1 0.86 (0.69, 1.08)
Body Mass Index (in kg/m2) e
 < 25 300 33.3 671 37.2 1.0 (ref.) 0.08
 25 – 29.99 267 29.6 528 29.3 1.09 (0.89, 1.33)
 ≥30 334 37.0 602 33.4 1.18 (0.97, 1.43)
Family History (1st degree)
 No 715 79.3 1,491 82.7 1.0 (ref.) ---
 Breast Cancer Only 147 16.3 255 14.2 1.21 (0.96, 1.51)
 Ovarian Cancer Only 32 3.5 44 2.4 1.51 (0.95, 2.42)
 Breast and Ovarian Cancers 8 0.9 12 0.7 1.21 (0.48, 3.00)
Age at Menarche (in years)
 <12 182 20.2 444 24.6 1.0 (ref.) 0.22
 12 257 28.5 463 25.7 1.38 (1.09, 1.74)
 13 243 26.9 484 26.9 1.26 (0.99, 1.59)
 ≥14 220 24.4 411 22.8 1.27 (1.00, 1.62)
Menopausal Status
 Premenopausal 234 25.9 482 26.8 1.0 (ref.) ---
 Postmenopausal 668 74.1 1,320 73.2 0.80 (0.63, 1.03)
Oral Contraceptive Use (in months) f
 Never 367 40.7 531 29.5 1.0 (ref.) < 0.01
 < 6 96 10.6 161 8.9 0.88 (0.65, 1.18)
 6 < 24 135 15.0 282 15.6 0.69 (0.53, 0.89)
 24 < 60 122 13.5 297 16.5 0.61 (0.47, 0.79)
 60 < 120 123 13.6 299 16.6 0.63 (0.48, 0.82)
 ≥ 120 58 6.4 232 12.9 0.37 (0.27, 0.52)
Hormone Replacement Therapy Use
 Never 543 60.2 1039 57.7 1.0 (ref.) ---
 Ever 359 39.8 763 42.3 0.87 (0.73, 1.03)
Number of Pregnancies
 0 167 18.5 167 9.3 1.0 (ref.) < 0.01
 1 114 12.6 188 10.4 0.57 (0.41, 0.78)
 2 216 24.0 458 25.4 0.44 (0.33, 0.58)
 3 167 18.5 426 23.6 0.36 (0.27, 0.47)
 4 112 12.4 284 15.8 0.34 (0.25, 0.46)
 ≥5 126 14.0 279 15.5 0.34 (0.25, 0.47)
Number of Live Births
 0 213 23.6 230 12.8 1.0 (ref.) < 0.01
 1 117 13.0 228 12.7 0.51 (0.38, 0.68)
 2 263 29.2 593 32.9 0.45 (0.35, 0.57)
 3 170 18.8 418 23.2 0.39 (0.30, 0.51)
 4 73 8.1 190 10.5 0.32 (0.23, 0.45)
 ≥5 66 7.3 143 7.9 0.32 (0.22, 0.47)
Duration of Breastfeeding (in months)
 Never 610 67.6 928 51.5 1.0 (ref.) < 0.01
 < 6 117 13.0 296 16.4 0.60 (0.47, 0.76)
 6 < 12 66 7.3 199 11.0 0.54 (0.40, 0.72)
 ≥ 12 109 12.1 379 21.0 0.46 (0.36, 0.59)
Perineal Talc Use
 No 653 72.4 1426 79.1 1.0 (ref.) ---
 Yes 249 27.6 376 20.9 1.40 (1.16, 1.69)
Tubal Ligation
 No 666 73.8 1162 64.5 1.0 (ref.) ---
 Yes 201 22.3 616 34.2 0.55 (0.46, 0.67)
 Unknown 35 3.9 24 1.3 2.66 (1.57, 4.53)
Sought Medical Attention for Infertility
 Never 747 82.8 1512 83.9 1.0 (ref.) ---
 Ever 155 17.2 290 16.1 1.15 (0.93, 1.43)
a

Odds ratios and corresponding confidence intervals are adjusted for age (continuous), race (white, black, other), and education (non-high school graduate, high school graduate, post high-school), unless otherwise noted.

b

P-trend values were obtained from logistic regression models by using continuous versions of these factors; all models were adjusted for age, race, and education with the exception of age, which was unadjusted.

c

Unadjusted.

d

Adjusted for age and race.

e

1 case and 1 control were missing weight information.

f

1 case was missing oral contraceptive use information.

Table 2 provides medical information for the 445 women who reported seeking medical attention for infertility. No statistically significant association with ovarian cancer was observed for age at which women sought medical attention, year medical attention was initially sought or with person tested for infertility problems. None of the causes of infertility were significantly associated with ovarian cancer risk; however, borderline significant associations were observed for ovulation problems and menstrual problems. Among the 47 women who reported ovulation problems, 11 had also reported an issue with their menstrual cycles.

Table 2.

Medical information, infertility causes, and ovarian cancer risk among HOPE participants seeking medical attention for infertility (N=445).

Cases (155) Controls (290) OR (95% CI) a
N % N %
Year Medical Attention was Sought
 ≤1970 55 35.5 97 33.5 1.0 (ref.)
 1970≤1980 39 25.2 76 26.2 1.13 (0.55, 2.31) b
 1980≤1990 31 20.0 74 25.5 0.77 (0.31, 1.91) b
 After 1990 30 19.3 43 14.8 1.09 (0.34, 3.47) b
Age at Which Medical Attention was Sought (in years)
 < 25 47 30.3 86 29.7 1.0 (ref.)
 25 < 30 52 33.5 110 37.9 0.94 (0.55, 1.61) b
 30 < 35 35 22.6 68 23.4 0.89 (0.48, 1.66) b
 35 < 40 17 11.0 18 6.2 2.00 (0.84, 4.75) b
 ≥40 4 2.6 8 2.8 0.84 (0.21, 3.37) b
Fertility Testing Done
 None 20 12.9 50 17.2 1.0 (ref.)
 Partner 12 7.7 17 5.9 1.41 (0.53, 3.75)
 Self 55 35.5 84 29.0 1.32 (0.66, 2.67)
 Both 68 43.9 139 47.9 0.92 (0.47, 1.81)
Fertility Drug Use
 Never 105 67.7 192 66.2 1.0 (ref.)
 Ever 50 32.3 98 33.8 0.87 (0.54, 1.40)
Type of Fertility Drug
 Never 105 67.7 192 66.2 1.0 (ref.)
 Clomiphene Only 28 18.1 55 19.0 0.87 (0.49, 1.56) b
 Gonadotropin Only 7 4.5 20 6.9 0.51 (0.20, 1.32) b
 Gonadotropin + Clomiphene Only 9 5.8 17 5.8 0.94 (0.37, 2.42) b
 Other Only c 6 3.9 6 2.1 1.87 (0.53, 6.65) b
Duration of Fertility Drug Use (in months) d
 Never 105 67.7 192 66.2 1.0 (ref.)
 < 6 22 14.2 41 14.1 0.92 (0.48, 1.74) b
 ≥6 27 17.4 57 19.7 0.75 (0.42, 1.34) b
Low Sperm Count e
 No 130 83.9 229 79.0 1.0 (ref.)
 Yes 25 16.1 55 19.0 0.68 (0.39, 1.18) b
Problems with ovaries (cysts) e
 No 141 91.0 264 91.0 1.0 (ref.)
 Yes 14 9.0 21 7.2 1.32 (0.61, 2.84) b
Ovulation Problems e
 No 144 92.9 248 85.5 1.0 (ref.)
 Yes 11 7.1 36 12.4 0.51 (0.24, 1.09) b
Tubal Problems e
 No 137 88.4 245 83.5 1.0 (ref.)
 Yes 18 11.6 40 13.8 0.62 (0.33, 1.18) b
Uterine Problems e
 No 147 94.8 274 94.5 1.0 (ref.)
 Yes 8 5.2 11 3.8 1.04 (0.38, 2.83) b
Menstrual Problems e
 No 146 94.2 254 87.6 1.0 (ref.)
 Yes 9 5.8 30 10.3 0.48 (0.20, 1.11) b
Endometriosis e
 No 141 91.0 259 89.3 1.0 (ref.)
 Yes 13 8.4 25 8.6 0.75 (0.35, 1.59) b
Cervical Problems e
 No 152 98.1 277 95.5 1.0 (ref.)
 Yes 3 1.9 8 2.8 0.53 (0.11, 2.59) b
Other Diagnosis e
 No 126 81.3 240 82.8 1.0 (ref.)
 Yes 29 18.7 46 15.9 1.56 (0.87, 2.79) b
a

ORs and corresponding 95% CIs are adjusted for age, race, education, tubal ligation, age of menarche, duration of oral contraceptive use, number of live births, duration of breastfeeding, perineal talc use, and family history of breast/ovary cancers.

b

Due to collinearity, family history of breast/ovarian cancer was omitted from the adjusted logistic regression model. These ORs and corresponding 95% CIs are adjusted for all other variables listed in a.

c

Includes the following fertility drugs: roloxifene, danazol, unknown hormone pills, bromocriptine, progesterone, and metformin.

d

Duration of fertility drug use was missing for one case and was therefore not included in the logistic regression model; percentages correspond to the entire population of women who sought medical attention for problems getting pregnant.

e

These variables exclude women who responded “don’t know” when asked if they were diagnosed with a particular infertility problem and these women were also not included in logistic regression models. Percentages correspond to the entire population of women who sought medical attention for problems getting pregnant.

Use of fertility drugs was reported by 148 (33%) of the women seeking medical attention for infertility (Table 2). The majority used fertility drugs for less than 12 months (66.7%); mean duration was 11.4 months (range: 1–134 months). Ever use of fertility drugs was not significantly associated with ovarian cancer risk (Table 2) and remained non-significant after additional adjustment for cause of infertility (OR: 0.66, 95%CI: 0.36–1.22), age medical attention was sought (OR: 0.86, 95%CI: 0.53–1.40), year attention was sought (OR: 0.90, 95%CI: 0.58–1.38), and who was tested for infertility problems (no one tested or partner-only tested compared to self tested or partner and self tested, OR: 0.90, 95%CI: 0.54–1.49) (not in table). No significant interactions between fertility drug use and these variables were observed (data not shown). Similar results were observed for duration of fertility drug use (Table 2 and data not shown). Regarding specific types of fertility drugs, the majority of women who ever used fertility drugs reported using only clomiphene citrate (56.1%). None of the drugs evaluated were significantly associated with ovarian cancer risk when looking at ever compared to never use (Table 2) or duration of use (data not shown). Analyses were repeated excluding the 12 cases and controls that reported using unknown or other fertility drugs and the results were unchanged. Additionally, no significant associations between ever use of fertility drugs and ovarian cancer risk were observed when separately assessing borderline (OR: 0.96, 95%CI: 0.31–2.94; adjusted for age, duration of OC use, talc, and age at menarche) and invasive tumors (OR: 0.85, 95%CI: 0.52–1.39; adjusted for all covariates identified by stepwise regression).

Among all 2704 HOPE participants, 152 (5.6%) women reported ever using fertility drugs, this included the 148 women who reported seeking medical attention for infertility and 4 women who had used fertility drugs but had never sought medical attention for fertility issues. All 4 of these latter women were controls; 2 reported taking clomiphene only and 2 reported taking gonadotropins only. Data regarding why these four women reported taking fertility drugs without ever seeking medical attention for infertility were not collected. Ever use of fertility drugs was not significantly associated with ovarian cancer risk in the total HOPE population (OR: 0.93, 95%CI: 0.65–1.35), nor was duration of use (never compared to <6 months of use, OR: 1.05, 95%CI: 0.61–1.80; never compared to ≥6 months of use, OR: 0.82, 95%CI: 0.50–1.34), adjusting for age, race, education, tubal ligation, age of menarche, duration of OC use, number of live births, duration of breastfeeding, perineal talc use, and family history. Adjusting for the same covariates, no significant associations between ovarian cancer risk and ever use of fertility drugs were observed when separately evaluating borderline (OR: 0.64, 95%CI: 0.26–1.55) and invasive tumors (OR: 1.02, 95%CI: 0.69–1.50).

Table 3 presents results of the evaluation of associations between fertility drug use and ovarian cancer risk stratified by parity and gravidity. Among those seeking medical attention for infertility, nulligravid women who used fertility drugs were significantly more likely to develop ovarian cancer than nulligravid women who had never used fertility drugs. However, fertility drug use among parous and nulliparous-gravid women was not significantly associated with ovarian cancer risk among this group of women. Within the total HOPE study population, the association between ovarian cancer risk and ever use of fertility drugs was non-significant among parous and nulliparous-gravid women. Ovarian cancer risk was elevated among nulligravid fertility drug users; however, this was not significant (Table 3).

Table 3.

Ovarian cancer risk according to parity, gravidity, and fertility drug use in total HOPE population and separately among HOPE participants that sought medical attention for infertility.

Parity Gravidity Women Who Sought Medical Attention for Infertility
Total HOPE Population
Fertility Drug Use Cases (N=155)
N(%)
Controls (N=290) OR (95% CI) Fertility Drug Use Cases (N=902) Controls (N=1802) OR (95% CI)
Parous No 80 (51.6) 156 (53.8) 1.0 (ref.) No 666 (73.8) 1493 (82.8) 1.0 (ref.)
Yes 23 (14.8) 75 (25.9) 0.57 (0.31, 1.05) a Yes 23 (2.6) 79 (4.4) 0.72 (0.44, 1.19) a
Nulliparous Ever Pregnant No 8 (5.2) 9 (3.1) 1.0 (ref.) No 37 (4.1) 52 (2.9) 1.0 (ref.)
Yes 9 (5.8) 11 (3.8) 0.47 (0.09, 2.53) b Yes 9 (1.0) 11 (0.6) 0.77 (0.26, 2.25) d
Nulliparous Never Pregnant No 17 (11.0) 27 (9.3) 1.0 (ref.) No 149 (16.5) 155 (8.6) 1.0 (ref.)
Yes 18(11.6) 12 (4.1) 3.13 (1.01, 9.67) c Yes 18 (2.0) 12 (0.7) 1.52 (0.68, 3.41) e
a

Adjusted for: age, age of menarche, duration of OC use, perineal talc use, education, family history of breast/ovarian cancers, tubal ligation, race, duration of breastfeeding, and number of live births.

b

Adjusted for: age, age of menarche, duration of OC use, and perineal talc use.

c

Adjusted for: age, age of menarche, duration of OC use, perineal talc use, education, and family history of breast/ovarian cancers.

d

Adjusted for: age, age of menarche, duration of OC use, perineal talc use, education, family history of breast/ovarian cancers, and tubal ligation.

e

Adjusted for: age, age at menarche, duration of OC use, perineal talc use, education, and tubal ligation.

Discussion

In this large case-control study, we evaluated whether fertility drug use significantly affects ovarian cancer risk when taking into account, parity, gravidity, and cause of infertility. Consistent with results from previous studies, OC use, breastfeeding, and tubal ligation significantly decreased ovarian cancer risk in our study population while nulliparity, and perineal talc use increased risk (19, 24, 36, 40, 51). Ever use of fertility drugs was not significantly associated with ovarian cancer risk within the total HOPE population or among women who reported seeking medical attention for infertility. Risk did not differ significantly according to duration of use or type of fertility drug. However, we did observe a statistically significant increased risk of ovarian cancer for ever use of fertility drugs among women who, despite seeking medical attention for problems getting pregnant, remained nulligravid.

When examining specific causes of infertility among those seeking medical attention for infertility, none of the evaluated causes were significantly associated with ovarian cancer risk. Specifically, we observed no significant association between ovarian cancer and endometriosis even though previous studies have reported an increased risk (40, 5254). Endometriosis was also not significantly associated with ovarian cancer risk in the total HOPE population (data not shown). The mechanism by which endometriosis may affect ovarian cancer risk is poorly understood; however, several studies have shown that endometriosis-associated tumors are most commonly linked to clear cell and endometrioid tumors (5558). The small number of women who reported being diagnosed with endometriosis among those who sought medical attention for infertility in addition to the homogeneity of tumor histologic subtypes among these women may have contributed to the null relationship we observed here. Interestingly, we observed a decreased risk of ovarian cancer among women who reported an ovulation problem as their cause of infertility. Although this observation was of borderline significance, it suggests that women who ovulate less frequently throughout their lifetime may have a decreased risk of ovarian cancer and provides further evidence for the incessant ovulation theory.

In a 2004 case-control study, Rossing et al. observed that women whose infertility manifested past the age of 30 were at increased risk of ovarian cancer (36). We found no significant association between ovarian cancer risk and the age at which women sought medical attention for infertility in our population; however, women who sought help between the ages of 35 and 45 did exhibit a non-significant increased risk compared to women who sought help before they were 25. Women who seek treatment for infertility past the age of 30 have a lower likelihood of success compared to women who seek infertility treatments at younger ages (59) and ovarian cancer risk associated with infertility among older women may reflect additional risk associated with low parity among these women.

Although we did not observe any significant associations between fertility drug use and ovarian cancer risk within the total HOPE study population or among the subset of women who reported seeking medical attention for infertility, we did observe, similar to previous reports, a statistically significant increased risk of ovarian cancer associated with ever fertility drug use among nulligravid women who had infertility problems (29, 35, 40). This suggests that women who never became pregnant despite efforts to conceive are at uniquely increased risk of ovarian cancer. This is further supported by the fact that we found no significant association between fertility drug use and ovarian cancer risk among nulliparous women who had at least one pregnancy. Although our results are in line with those from previous studies, it should be noted that the number of nulligravid women who sought medical attention for infertility was relatively small (N=74). Therefore, confirmation of our results by other studies is necessary.

Our finding that fertility drug use does not significantly contribute to ovarian cancer risk among the majority of women is in line with results from other, recent studies (34, 36, 40, 52). Early studies that reported an increased risk of ovarian cancer among fertility drug users included small numbers of ovarian cancer patients exposed to fertility drugs and were unable to adjust for risk factors known to impact ovarian cancer risk (29, 30). We observed no risk difference between borderline and invasive tumors; these results are in agreement with a recent case-control study (60) but disagree with several previous studies (30, 31, 4043).

The strengths of this study include a large sample size and availability of detailed reproductive and medical histories of women included in the study. The ability to stratify and adjust for factors linked to ovarian cancer risk allowed us to disentangle risk associated with these factors from risk associated with fertility drug use. A limitation of our study is that we were unable to identify women who were infertile but never sought medical attention. This differential misclassification may have attenuated the associations between infertility and ovarian cancer risk. However, our ability to analyze associations between fertility drug use and ovarian cancer risk in a relatively large subset of women who had sought medical attention for infertility greatly improved the comparability of fertility drug users to non-users. Being able to reduce the study population to only these women also limited biases associated with comparing fertility drug users with infertility issues to non-fertility drug users with no history of infertility issues. Our study is also limited by its reliance on self-reported use of fertility drugs; however, the use of a life calendar during interviews may have improved the accuracy of recalling details about fertility drug use. This study includes a greater number of ovarian cancer cases exposed to fertility drugs than previous studies. Despite this, our study had limited power when completing stratified analyses for fertility drug use and ovarian cancer risk, which resulted in small subgroups and subsequently wide confidence intervals.

Our results build upon previous research and provide further evidence that fertility drug use does not significantly contribute to overall risk of ovarian cancer when adjusting for known confounding factors. Our observation that fertility drug use was only significantly associated with increased ovarian cancer risk among nulligravid women who had ever sought medical attention for infertility suggests that a biological mechanism associated with the inability to conceive may impact ovarian cancer risk to a greater extent than fertility medications do.

To conclude, these results are reassuring for women and clinicians embarking on fertility drug usage in the setting of infertility treatment.

Acknowledgments

Grant support: This research was supported by National Institutes of Health grants R01 CA095023, P30 CA047904 and R25 CA057703.

Abbreviations used

CI

confidence intervals

FSH

follicle stimulating hormone

GnRH

gonadotropin-releasing hormone

hCG

human chorionic gonadotropin

hMG

human menopausal gonadotropin

LH

luteinizing hormone

OC

oral contraceptive

OR

odds ratio

Footnotes

Conflict of interest: We, the authors of this manuscript, have no conflicts of interest to report.

References

  • 1.Titus-Ernstoff L, Perez K, Cramer DW, Harlow BL, Baron JA, Greenberg ER. Menstrual and reproductive factors in relation to ovarian cancer risk. Br J Cancer. 2001;84(5):714–21. doi: 10.1054/bjoc.2000.1596. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Vachon CM, Mink PJ, Janney CA, Sellers TA, Cerhan JR, Hartmann L, et al. Association of parity and ovarian cancer risk by family history of breast or ovarian cancer in a population-based study of postmenopausal women. Epidemiology. 2002;13(1):66–71. doi: 10.1097/00001648-200201000-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Moorman PG, Palmieri RT, Akushevich L, Berchuck A, Schildkraut JM. Ovarian cancer risk factors in African-American and white women. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170(5):598–606. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwp176. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Tung KH, Goodman MT, Wu AH, McDuffie K, Wilkens LR, Kolonel LN, et al. Reproductive factors and epithelial ovarian cancer risk by histologic type: a multiethnic case-control study. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158(7):629–38. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwg177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Braem MG, Onland-Moret NC, van den Brandt PA, Goldbohm RA, Peeters PH, Kruitwagen RF, et al. Reproductive and hormonal factors in association with ovarian cancer in the Netherlands cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(10):1181–9. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwq264. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Tsilidis KK, Allen NE, Key TJ, Dossus L, Lukanova A, Bakken K, et al. Oral contraceptive use and reproductive factors and risk of ovarian cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Br J Cancer. 2011;105(9):1436–42. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Cook LS, Kamb ML, Weiss NS. Perineal powder exposure and the risk of ovarian cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;145(5):459–65. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Cramer DW, Welch WR, Scully RE, Wojciechowski CA. Ovarian cancer and talc: a case-control study. Cancer. 1982;50(2):372–6. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19820715)50:2<372::aid-cncr2820500235>3.0.co;2-s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Harlow BL, Cramer DW, Bell DA, Welch WR. Perineal exposure to talc and ovarian cancer risk. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;80(1):19–26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Tworoger SS, Fairfield KM, Colditz GA, Rosner BA, Hankinson SE. Association of oral contraceptive use, other contraceptive methods, and infertility with ovarian cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166(8):894–901. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwm157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Beral V, Doll R, Hermon C, Peto R, Reeves G. Ovarian cancer and oral contraceptives: collaborative reanalysis of data from 45 epidemiological studies including 23,257 women with ovarian cancer and 87,303 controls. Lancet. 2008;371(9609):303–14. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60167-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Siskind V, Green A, Bain C, Purdie D. Beyond ovulation: oral contraceptives and epithelial ovarian cancer. Epidemiology. 2000;11(2):106–10. doi: 10.1097/00001648-200003000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ness RB, Dodge RC, Edwards RP, Baker JA, Moysich KB. Contraception methods, beyond oral contraceptives and tubal ligation, and risk of ovarian cancer. Ann Epidemiol. 2011;21(3):188–96. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2010.10.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Danforth KN, Tworoger SS, Hecht JL, Rosner BA, Colditz GA, Hankinson SE. Breastfeeding and risk of ovarian cancer in two prospective cohorts. Cancer Causes Control. 2007;18(5):517–23. doi: 10.1007/s10552-007-0130-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Jordan SJ, Siskind V, ACG, Whiteman DC, Webb PM. Breastfeeding and risk of epithelial ovarian cancer. Cancer Causes Control. 2011;21(1):109–16. doi: 10.1007/s10552-009-9440-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Zhang M, Xie X, Lee AH, Binns CW. Prolonged lactation reduces ovarian cancer risk in Chinese women. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2004;13(6):499–502. doi: 10.1097/00008469-200412000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Cibula D, Widschwendter M, Majek O, Dusek L. Tubal ligation and the risk of ovarian cancer: review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(1):55–67. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmq030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kjaer SK, Mellemkjaer L, Brinton LA, Johansen C, Gridley G, Olsen JH. Tubal sterilization and risk of ovarian, endometrial and cervical cancer. A Danish population-based follow-up study of more than 65 000 sterilized women. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33(3):596–602. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyh046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ness RB, Grisso JA, Cottreau C, Klapper J, Vergona R, Wheeler JE, et al. Factors related to inflammation of the ovarian epithelium and risk of ovarian cancer. Epidemiology. 2000;11(2):111–7. doi: 10.1097/00001648-200003000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Fathalla MF. Incessant ovulation--a factor in ovarian neoplasia? Lancet. 1971;2(7716):163. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(71)92335-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Casagrande JT, Louie EW, Pike MC, Roy S, Ross RK, Henderson BE. “Incessant ovulation” and ovarian cancer. Lancet. 1979;2(8135):170–3. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(79)91435-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Godwin AK, Testa JR, Handel LM, Liu Z, Vanderveer LA, Tracey PA, et al. Spontaneous transformation of rat ovarian surface epithelial cells: association with cytogenetic changes and implications of repeated ovulation in the etiology of ovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1992;84(8):592–601. doi: 10.1093/jnci/84.8.592. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tung KH, Wilkens LR, Wu AH, McDuffie K, Nomura AM, Kolonel LN, et al. Effect of anovulation factors on pre- and postmenopausal ovarian cancer risk: revisiting the incessant ovulation hypothesis. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;161(4):321–9. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwi046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Cramer DW, Welch WR. Determinants of ovarian cancer risk. II. Inferences regarding pathogenesis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1983;71(4):717–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mohle J, Whittemore A, Pike M, Darby S. Gonadotrophins and ovarian cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1985;75(1):178–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wysowski DK. Use of fertility drugs in the United States, 1973 through 1991. Fertil Steril. 1993;60(6):1096–8. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)56417-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Chandra A, Martinez GM, Mosher WD, Abma JC, Jones J. Fertility, family planning, and reproductive health of U.S. women: data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Vital Health Stat. 2005;23(25):1–160. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Stephen EH, Chandra A. Updated projections of infertility in the United States: 1995–2025. Fertil Steril. 1998;70(1):30–4. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(98)00103-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Whittemore AS, Harris R, Itnyre J. Characteristics relating to ovarian cancer risk: collaborative analysis of 12 US case-control studies. II. Invasive epithelial ovarian cancers in white women. Collaborative Ovarian Cancer Group. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;136(10):1184–203. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116427. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Rossing MA, Daling JR, Weiss NS, Moore DE, Self SG. Ovarian tumors in a cohort of infertile women. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(12):771–6. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199409223311204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Shushan A, Paltiel O, Iscovich J, Elchalal U, Peretz T, Schenker JG. Human menopausal gonadotropin and the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer. Fertil Steril. 1996;65(1):13–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Modan B, Ron E, Lerner-Geva L, Blumstein T, Menczer J, Rabinovici J, et al. Cancer incidence in a cohort of infertile women. Am J Epidemiol. 1998;147(11):1038–42. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009397. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Brinton LA, Lamb EJ, Moghissi KS, Scoccia B, Althuis MD, Mabie JE, et al. Ovarian cancer risk after the use of ovulation-stimulating drugs. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103(6):1194–203. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000128139.92313.74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Jensen A, Sharif H, Frederiksen K, Kjaer SK. Use of fertility drugs and risk of ovarian cancer: Danish Population Based Cohort Study. BMJ. 2009;338:b249. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Mosgaard BJ, Lidegaard O, Kjaer SK, Schou G, Andersen AN. Infertility, fertility drugs, and invasive ovarian cancer: a case-control study. Fertil Steril. 1997;67(6):1005–12. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(97)81431-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Rossing MA, Tang MT, Flagg EW, Weiss LK, Wicklund KG. A case-control study of ovarian cancer in relation to infertility and the use of ovulation-inducing drugs. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;160(11):1070–8. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwh315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Doyle P, Maconochie N, Beral V, Swerdlow AJ, Tan SL. Cancer incidence following treatment for infertility at a clinic in the UK. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(8):2209–13. doi: 10.1093/humrep/17.8.2209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Brinton LA, Moghissi KS, Scoccia B, Westhoff CL, Lamb EJ. Ovulation induction and cancer risk. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(2):261–74. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.09.016. quiz 525-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hughes E, Collins J, Vandekerckhove P. Clomiphene citrate for unexplained subfertility in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(3):CD000057. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ness RB, Cramer DW, Goodman MT, Kjaer SK, Mallin K, Mosgaard BJ, et al. Infertility, fertility drugs, and ovarian cancer: a pooled analysis of case-control studies. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;155(3):217–24. doi: 10.1093/aje/155.3.217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Harris R, Whittemore AS, Itnyre J. Characteristics relating to ovarian cancer risk: collaborative analysis of 12 US case-control studies. III. Epithelial tumors of low malignant potential in white women. Collaborative Ovarian Cancer Group. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;136(10):1204–11. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116428. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Mosgaard BJ, Lidegaard O, Kjaer SK, Schou G, Andersen AN. Ovarian stimulation and borderline ovarian tumors: a case-control study. Fertil Steril. 1998;70(6):1049–55. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(98)00337-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Sanner K, Conner P, Bergfeldt K, Dickman P, Sundfeldt K, Bergh T, et al. Ovarian epithelial neoplasia after hormonal infertility treatment: long-term follow-up of a historical cohort in Sweden. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(4):1152–8. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.01.073. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Risch HA, Marrett LD, Howe GR. Parity, contraception, infertility, and the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;140(7):585–97. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Brinton LA, Lamb EJ, Moghissi KS, Scoccia B, Althuis MD, Mabie JE, et al. Ovarian cancer risk associated with varying causes of infertility. Fertil Steril. 2004;82(2):405–14. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.02.109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Mosgaard BJ, Lidegaard O, Andersen AN. The impact of parity, infertility and treatment with fertility drugs on the risk of ovarian cancer. A survey. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1997;76(2):89–95. doi: 10.3109/00016349709050061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Adami HO, Hsieh CC, Lambe M, Trichopoulos D, Leon D, Persson I, et al. Parity, age at first childbirth, and risk of ovarian cancer. Lancet. 1994;344(8932):1250–4. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(94)90749-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Wittenberg J, Cook LS, Rossing MA, Weiss NS. Reproductive risk factors for mucinous and non-mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer. Epidemiology. 1999;10(6):761–3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Lo-Ciganic WH, Zgibor JC, Bunker CH, Moysich KB, Edwards RP, Ness RB. Aspirin, Nonaspirin Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs, or Acetaminophen and Risk of Ovarian Cancer. Epidemiology. 2012;23(2):311–9. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3182456ad3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Phipps AI, Ichikawa L, Bowles EJ, Carney PA, Kerlikowske K, Miglioretti DL, et al. Defining menopausal status in epidemiologic studies: A comparison of multiple approaches and their effects on breast cancer rates. Maturitas. 2010;67(1):60–6. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2010.04.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Jordan SJ, Green AC, Nagle CM, Olsen CM, Whiteman DC, Webb PM. Beyond parity: association of ovarian cancer with length of gestation and offspring characteristics. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170(5):607–14. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwp185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Brinton LA, Sakoda LC, Sherman ME, Frederiksen K, Kjaer SK, Graubard BI, et al. Relationship of benign gynecologic diseases to subsequent risk of ovarian and uterine tumors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14(12):2929–35. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0394. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Olson JE, Cerhan JR, Janney CA, Anderson KE, Vachon CM, Sellers TA. Postmenopausal cancer risk after self-reported endometriosis diagnosis in the Iowa Women’s Health Study. Cancer. 2002;94(5):1612–8. doi: 10.1002/cncr.10370. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Modugno F, Ness RB, Allen GO, Schildkraut JM, Davis FG, Goodman MT. Oral contraceptive use, reproductive history, and risk of epithelial ovarian cancer in women with and without endometriosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(3):733–40. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.03.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Rossing MA, Cushing-Haugen KL, Wicklund KG, Doherty JA, Weiss NS. Risk of epithelial ovarian cancer in relation to benign ovarian conditions and ovarian surgery. Cancer Causes Control. 2008;19(10):1357–64. doi: 10.1007/s10552-008-9207-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Stern RC, Dash R, Bentley RC, Snyder MJ, Haney AF, Robboy SJ. Malignancy in endometriosis: frequency and comparison of ovarian and extraovarian types. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2001;20(2):133–9. doi: 10.1097/00004347-200104000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Modesitt SC, Tortolero-Luna G, Robinson JB, Gershenson DM, Wolf JK. Ovarian and extraovarian endometriosis-associated cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100(4):788–95. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(02)02149-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Pearce CL, Templeman C, Rossing MA, Lee A, Near AM, Webb PM, et al. Association between endometriosis and risk of histological subtypes of ovarian cancer: a pooled analysis of case-control studies. Lancet Oncol. 2012 doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70404-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Aging and infertility in women: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2002;78(1):215–9. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(02)03212-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Cusido M, Fabregas R, Pere BS, Escayola C, Barri PN. Ovulation induction treatment and risk of borderline ovarian tumors. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2007;23(7):373–6. doi: 10.1080/09513590701350341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES