MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3181444527 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2021-878

Abstract 878: Contraceptive use and ovarian cancer risk in <i>BRCA1</i> and <i>BRCA2</i> mutation carriers: A prospective cohort study

2021· article· en· W3181444527 on OpenAlexaff
Yue Xia, Jan Lubiński, Barry P. Rosen, Pål Møller, Andrea Eisen, Peter Ainsworth, Leigha Senter, Louise Bordeleau, Susan L. Neuhausen, Christian F. Singer, Jennifer D. Brooks, Ping Sun, Steven A. Narod, Joanne Kotsopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversitySunnybrook Health Science CentreWomen's College HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOvarian cancerProspective cohort studyHazard ratioBRCA mutationGynecologyProportional hazards modelCancerObstetricsPopulationCohortCohort studyOncologyConfidence intervalInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Oral contraceptive use is associated with a significantly reduced risk of ovarian cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. To date, there have been no prospective analyses of this relationship, and the impact of other types of contraception (e.g. intrauterine device (IUD), implant, patch, injection) on BRCA-associated ovarian cancer risk is unknown. The goal of this study is to prospectively evaluate the relationship between types of contraception and ovarian cancer incidence in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Methods: The longitudinal study included 3,298 eligible BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Self-reported information regarding contraceptive use, including medication name, start year, end year, duration of use and method of administration were collected by biennial questionnaire. Women were classified according to history of contraceptive use (ever/never), duration of use, contraceptive method, calendar year of initiation and time since last use. Time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of ovarian cancer associated with each contraceptive method. Results: There were 84 incident ovarian cancer cases diagnosed over a mean follow-up period of 5.1 years. There was no significant association between ever use of an IUD (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.28-2.14) and risk of ovarian cancer compared to IUD never users. Ongoing analyses will focus on the relationships between other contraceptive methods, formulations and duration of use on ovarian cancer risk, further stratified by histology and site of origin. Conclusions: Preliminary findings from this prospective analysis suggest that IUD use may not be protective among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Ongoing results will elucidate the impact of contraceptive formulation and method on ovarian cancer risk to inform clinical recommendations surrounding the use of contraceptive agents for chemoprevention in high risk women. Citation Format: Yue Yin Xia, Jan Lubinski, Barry Rosen, Pal Moller, Andrea Eisen, Peter Ainsworth, Leigha Senter, Louise Bordeleau, Susan L. Neuhausen, Christian F. Singer, Jennifer Brooks, Ping Sun, Steven A. Narod, Joanne Kotsopoulos. Contraceptive use and ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: A prospective cohort study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr 878.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment→French-language works237,207→