口服避孕药用于卵巢癌的一级预防。

Laura J Havrilesky, Jennifer M Gierisch, Patricia G Moorman, Remy R Coeytaux, Rachel Peragallo Urrutia, William J Lowery, Michaela Dinan, Amanda J McBroom, Liz Wing, Michael D Musty, Kathryn R Lallinger, Vic Hasselblad, Gillian D Sanders, Evan R Myers
{"title":"口服避孕药用于卵巢癌的一级预防。","authors":"Laura J Havrilesky,&nbsp;Jennifer M Gierisch,&nbsp;Patricia G Moorman,&nbsp;Remy R Coeytaux,&nbsp;Rachel Peragallo Urrutia,&nbsp;William J Lowery,&nbsp;Michaela Dinan,&nbsp;Amanda J McBroom,&nbsp;Liz Wing,&nbsp;Michael D Musty,&nbsp;Kathryn R Lallinger,&nbsp;Vic Hasselblad,&nbsp;Gillian D Sanders,&nbsp;Evan R Myers","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To estimate the overall balance of harms and benefits from the potential use of oral contraceptives (OCs) for the primary prevention of ovarian cancer</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched PubMed®, Embase®, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov for English-language studies published from January 1990 to June 2012 that evaluated the potential benefits (reduction in ovarian, colorectal, and endometrial cancers) and harms (increase in breast and cervical cancer, and vascular complications) of OC use.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>Two investigators screened each abstract and full-text article for inclusion; the investigators abstracted data, and they performed quality ratings, applicability ratings, and evidence grading. Random-effects models were used to compute summary estimates of effects. A simulation model was used to estimate the effects of OC use on the overall balance of benefits and harms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We reviewed 55 studies relevant to ovarian cancer outcomes, 66 relevant to other cancers, and 50 relevant to vascular events. Ovarian cancer incidence was significantly reduced in OC users (OR [odds ratio], 0.73; 95% CI [confidence interval], 0.66 to 0.81), with greater reductions seen with longer duration of use. Breast cancer incidence was slightly but significantly increased in OC users (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.17), with a significant reduction in risk as time since last use increased. The risk of cervical cancer was significantly increased in women with persistent human papillomavirus infection who used OCs, but heterogeneity prevented a formal meta-analysis. Incidences of both colorectal cancer (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.95) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.76) were significantly reduced by OC use. The risk of vascular events was increased in current OC users compared with nonusers, although the increase in myocardial infarction was not statistically significant. The overall strength of evidence for ovarian cancer prevention was moderate to low, primarily because of the lack of randomized trials and inconsistent reporting of important characteristics of use, such as duration. The simulation model predicted that the combined increase in risk of breast and cervical cancers and vascular events was likely to be equivalent to or greater than the decreased risk in ovarian cancer, although the harm/benefit ratio was much more favorable when protection against endometrial and colorectal cancers was added, resulting in net gains in life expectancy of approximately 1 month.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the use of OCs solely for the primary prevention of ovarian cancer. Although the net effects of the current patterns of OC use likely result in increased life expectancy when other noncontraceptive benefits are included, the harm/benefit ratio for ovarian cancer prevention alone is uncertain, particularly when the potential quality-of-life impact of breast cancer and vascular events are considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":72991,"journal":{"name":"Evidence report/technology assessment","volume":" 212","pages":"1-514"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4781074/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Oral contraceptive use for the primary prevention of ovarian cancer.\",\"authors\":\"Laura J Havrilesky,&nbsp;Jennifer M Gierisch,&nbsp;Patricia G Moorman,&nbsp;Remy R Coeytaux,&nbsp;Rachel Peragallo Urrutia,&nbsp;William J Lowery,&nbsp;Michaela Dinan,&nbsp;Amanda J McBroom,&nbsp;Liz Wing,&nbsp;Michael D Musty,&nbsp;Kathryn R Lallinger,&nbsp;Vic Hasselblad,&nbsp;Gillian D Sanders,&nbsp;Evan R Myers\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To estimate the overall balance of harms and benefits from the potential use of oral contraceptives (OCs) for the primary prevention of ovarian cancer</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched PubMed®, Embase®, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov for English-language studies published from January 1990 to June 2012 that evaluated the potential benefits (reduction in ovarian, colorectal, and endometrial cancers) and harms (increase in breast and cervical cancer, and vascular complications) of OC use.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>Two investigators screened each abstract and full-text article for inclusion; the investigators abstracted data, and they performed quality ratings, applicability ratings, and evidence grading. Random-effects models were used to compute summary estimates of effects. A simulation model was used to estimate the effects of OC use on the overall balance of benefits and harms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We reviewed 55 studies relevant to ovarian cancer outcomes, 66 relevant to other cancers, and 50 relevant to vascular events. Ovarian cancer incidence was significantly reduced in OC users (OR [odds ratio], 0.73; 95% CI [confidence interval], 0.66 to 0.81), with greater reductions seen with longer duration of use. Breast cancer incidence was slightly but significantly increased in OC users (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.17), with a significant reduction in risk as time since last use increased. The risk of cervical cancer was significantly increased in women with persistent human papillomavirus infection who used OCs, but heterogeneity prevented a formal meta-analysis. Incidences of both colorectal cancer (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.95) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.76) were significantly reduced by OC use. The risk of vascular events was increased in current OC users compared with nonusers, although the increase in myocardial infarction was not statistically significant. The overall strength of evidence for ovarian cancer prevention was moderate to low, primarily because of the lack of randomized trials and inconsistent reporting of important characteristics of use, such as duration. The simulation model predicted that the combined increase in risk of breast and cervical cancers and vascular events was likely to be equivalent to or greater than the decreased risk in ovarian cancer, although the harm/benefit ratio was much more favorable when protection against endometrial and colorectal cancers was added, resulting in net gains in life expectancy of approximately 1 month.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the use of OCs solely for the primary prevention of ovarian cancer. Although the net effects of the current patterns of OC use likely result in increased life expectancy when other noncontraceptive benefits are included, the harm/benefit ratio for ovarian cancer prevention alone is uncertain, particularly when the potential quality-of-life impact of breast cancer and vascular events are considered.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72991,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence report/technology assessment\",\"volume\":\" 212\",\"pages\":\"1-514\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4781074/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence report/technology assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence report/technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估口服避孕药(OCs)用于卵巢癌一级预防的潜在危害和益处的总体平衡。我们检索了PubMed®、Embase®、Cochrane系统评价数据库和ClinicalTrials.gov网站,检索了1990年1月至2012年6月间发表的英语研究,这些研究评估了使用卵巢癌的潜在益处(减少卵巢癌、结直肠癌和子宫内膜癌)和危害(增加乳腺癌和宫颈癌以及血管并发症)。综述方法:两名研究者筛选每篇摘要和全文文章纳入;研究者提取数据,并进行质量评级、适用性评级和证据评级。随机效应模型用于计算效应的汇总估计。使用模拟模型来估计有机碳使用对总体利益和危害平衡的影响。结果:我们回顾了55项与卵巢癌结果相关的研究,66项与其他癌症相关的研究,50项与血管事件相关的研究。卵巢癌的发病率在口服避孕药使用者中显著降低(OR[优势比],0.73;95% CI[置信区间],0.66 ~ 0.81),使用时间越长,降低幅度越大。口服避孕药使用者的乳腺癌发病率轻微但显著增加(OR, 1.08;95% CI, 1.00 - 1.17),随着最后一次用药时间的增加,风险显著降低。持续感染人乳头瘤病毒的妇女使用OCs后患宫颈癌的风险显著增加,但异质性阻碍了正式的荟萃分析。两种结直肠癌的发病率(OR, 0.86;95% CI, 0.79 - 0.95)和子宫内膜癌(OR, 0.57;95% CI, 0.43 ~ 0.76),使用OC显著降低。虽然心肌梗死的增加没有统计学意义,但与非使用者相比,目前使用OC的血管事件的风险增加。卵巢癌预防证据的总体强度为中等至低,主要是因为缺乏随机试验和对重要使用特征(如持续时间)的不一致报告。模拟模型预测,乳腺癌、宫颈癌和血管事件风险的综合增加可能等于或大于卵巢癌风险的降低,尽管当增加对子宫内膜癌和结肠直肠癌的保护时,危害/收益比要有利得多,导致预期寿命的净收益约为1个月。结论:目前还没有足够的证据来推荐或反对单纯用于卵巢癌一级预防的口服避孕药。虽然目前口服避孕药使用模式的净效应可能导致预期寿命的增加,但如果考虑到其他非避孕益处,单独预防卵巢癌的危害/益处比是不确定的,特别是考虑到乳腺癌和血管事件对生活质量的潜在影响时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Oral contraceptive use for the primary prevention of ovarian cancer.

Objective: To estimate the overall balance of harms and benefits from the potential use of oral contraceptives (OCs) for the primary prevention of ovarian cancer

Data sources: We searched PubMed®, Embase®, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov for English-language studies published from January 1990 to June 2012 that evaluated the potential benefits (reduction in ovarian, colorectal, and endometrial cancers) and harms (increase in breast and cervical cancer, and vascular complications) of OC use.

Review methods: Two investigators screened each abstract and full-text article for inclusion; the investigators abstracted data, and they performed quality ratings, applicability ratings, and evidence grading. Random-effects models were used to compute summary estimates of effects. A simulation model was used to estimate the effects of OC use on the overall balance of benefits and harms.

Results: We reviewed 55 studies relevant to ovarian cancer outcomes, 66 relevant to other cancers, and 50 relevant to vascular events. Ovarian cancer incidence was significantly reduced in OC users (OR [odds ratio], 0.73; 95% CI [confidence interval], 0.66 to 0.81), with greater reductions seen with longer duration of use. Breast cancer incidence was slightly but significantly increased in OC users (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.17), with a significant reduction in risk as time since last use increased. The risk of cervical cancer was significantly increased in women with persistent human papillomavirus infection who used OCs, but heterogeneity prevented a formal meta-analysis. Incidences of both colorectal cancer (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.95) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.76) were significantly reduced by OC use. The risk of vascular events was increased in current OC users compared with nonusers, although the increase in myocardial infarction was not statistically significant. The overall strength of evidence for ovarian cancer prevention was moderate to low, primarily because of the lack of randomized trials and inconsistent reporting of important characteristics of use, such as duration. The simulation model predicted that the combined increase in risk of breast and cervical cancers and vascular events was likely to be equivalent to or greater than the decreased risk in ovarian cancer, although the harm/benefit ratio was much more favorable when protection against endometrial and colorectal cancers was added, resulting in net gains in life expectancy of approximately 1 month.

Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the use of OCs solely for the primary prevention of ovarian cancer. Although the net effects of the current patterns of OC use likely result in increased life expectancy when other noncontraceptive benefits are included, the harm/benefit ratio for ovarian cancer prevention alone is uncertain, particularly when the potential quality-of-life impact of breast cancer and vascular events are considered.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信