Person:

Terry, Kathryn

Background: Several dietary indices have been developed to measure overall diet quality, including the Healthy Eating Index-2005 (HEI-2005), which measures adherence to the 2005 Dietary Guidelines from the USDA; the Alternative Healthy Eating Index-2010 (AHEI-2010), which is based on foods and nutrients predictive of chronic disease risk; and the Alternate Mediterranean Diet Score (aMDS), which is an index that characterizes traditional food patterns of Mediterranean countries. Few studies have evaluated diet quality and ovarian cancer risk. Methods: We assessed the associations of the HEI-2005, AHEI-2010, and aMDS with risk of epithelial ovarian cancer prospectively among women in the Nurses’ Health Study. We used Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for known ovarian cancer risk factors. Results: During 24 years of follow-up, we documented 696 incident epithelial ovarian cancer cases among 82,948 women with diet information. The multivariate adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval; Ptrend) of epithelial ovarian cancer comparing the highest with the lowest quintile were 1.03 (0.80-1.34; 0.77) for the AHEI-2010, 0.85 (0.65-1.12; 0.57) for the HEI-2005, and 0.91 (0.71-1.18; 0.44) for the aMDS. Conclusions: We did not observe any clear association of three diet quality scores with ovarian cancer risk. Further work should other metrics of evaluating diet quality that may be more relevant cancer risk. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13048-014-0112-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective: To examine single nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs) in MUC16 (CA125) and MUC1 (CA15.3) in relation to ovarian cancer risk and survival. Methods: We genotyped germline variants of MUC16 (rs2547065, rs1559168, rs12984471, rs2121133) and MUC1 (rs2070803, rs4072037, rs1045253) using samples collected from 758 ovarian cancer cases and 788 controls enrolled in the New England Case-Control Study between 2003 and 2008. We calculated age-adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for disease risk using unconditional and polytomous logistic regression and hazard ratios (HR) for survival using Cox proportional hazard ratios. In a subset of cases, we compared log-normalized CA125 values by genotype using generalized linear models. Results: Cases homozygous for the variant allele of MUC16 SNP, rs12984471, had poorer overall survival (log-rank p = 0.03) and higher CA125 levels, especially cases over age 65 (p = 0.01). For MUC1 SNP, rs4072037, women homozygous for the G variant had a non-significantly decreased risk for serous invasive types but elevated risk for serous borderline tumors, mucinous borderline and invasive tumors, and endometrioid tumors. Women with the variant allele of MUC16 SNP, rs2547065, especially those who were homozygous had an elevated risk for ovarian cancer; but this association was not confirmed in an independent dataset. Conclusion: This targeted screen of seven polymorphisms of MUC16 and MUC1 genes failed to identify and confirm effects on ovarian cancer risk overall. However, there may be effects of MUC16 rs12984471 on survival and MUC1 rs4072037 on risk for histologic types of ovarian cancer other than invasive serous. Further study is warranted.

PURPOSE: Socioeconomic status (SES) is a known predictor of survival for several cancers and it has been suggested that SES differences affecting tumour stage at diagnosis may be the most important explanatory factor for this. However, only a limited number of studies have investigated SES differences in tumour stage at diagnosis of ovarian cancer. In a pooled analysis, we investigated whether SES as represented by level of education is predictive for advanced tumour stage at diagnosis of ovarian cancer, overall and by histotype. The effect of cigarette smoking and body mass index (BMI) on the association was also evaluated. METHODS: From 18 case-control studies, we obtained information on 10,601 women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. Study specific odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were obtained from logistic regression models and combined into a pooled odds ratio (pOR) using a random effects model. RESULTS: Overall, women who completed ≤high school had an increased risk of advanced tumour stage at diagnosis compared with women who completed >high school (pOR 1.15; 95% CI 1.03-1.28). The risk estimates for the different histotypes of ovarian cancer resembled that observed for ovarian cancers combined but did not reach statistical significance. Our results were unchanged when we included BMI and cigarette smoking. CONCLUSION: Lower level of education was associated with an increased risk of advanced tumour stage at diagnosis of ovarian cancer. The observed socioeconomic difference in stage at diagnosis of ovarian cancer calls for further studies on how to reduce this diagnostic delay.