Biomedical subjects

Brian Calingaert

Publications and source records attributed to Brian Calingaert.

21 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

PubMed2002

Impact of progestin and estrogen potency in oral contraceptives on ovarian cancer risk.

BACKGROUND: Oral contraceptive (OC) use is associated with a reduced risk of developing ovarian cancer, but the mechanism for the risk reduction has not been well defined. In this study, we investigate the relationship between the progestin and estrogen potency in combination OCs and the risk of developing ovarian cancer. METHODS: The study included 390 case subjects with epithelial ovarian cancer and 2865 control subjects, between 20 and 54 years of age, identified from the Cancer and Steroid Hormone Study. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations between ovarian cancer risk and combination OC formulations while controlling for potential confounders. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: With users of high-progestin/high-estrogen potency OC as the referent group, users of low-progestin/high-estrogen potency formulations (adjusted OR = 2.1; 95% CI = 1.2 to 3.7) and low-progestin/low-estrogen potency formulations (adjusted OR = 1.6; 95% CI = 0.9 to 3.0) had a higher risk of ovarian cancer than users of high-progestin/high-estrogen potency formulation. Low-progestin potency OC formulations were associated with a statistically significant higher risk than high-progestin potency formulations (adjusted OR = 2.2; 95% CI = 1.3 to 3.9). This association was seen even among users of short duration. CONCLUSION: The combination OC formulations with high-progestin potency appear to be associated with a greater reduction in ovarian cancer risk than those with low-progestin potency. Mechanisms underlying this reduction may include inhibition of ovulation and/or some direct biologic effects of the progestin.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Ovulation and ovarian cancer: a comparison of two methods for calculating lifetime ovulatory cycles (United States).

OBJECTIVE: To compare two methods for calculating lifetime ovulatory cycles (LOC) to determine if more detailed menstrual cycle information results in stronger associations with ovarian cancer. METHODS: Using data from 232 cases and 242 controls in a population-based study of ovarian cancer, we compared a standard method for calculating LOC with a second method that had more detailed information on menstrual characteristics. Odds ratios for ovarian cancer by number of LOC were estimated using unconditional logistic regression. RESULTS: The average number of LOC was 29 fewer for the second method that had more detailed menstrual cycle information, as compared to the standard method (p < 0.0001). The difference was due primarily to the second method considering episodes of missed/irregular periods. Associations between LOC and ovarian cancer were weaker for the second method than the standard method. Further analyses suggested that a reduced number of ovulatory cycles due to menstrual irregularity was associated with increased ovarian cancer risk, in contrast to the protective effects observed for fewer ovulatory cycles due to pregnancy or oral contraceptive use. CONCLUSION: Obtaining additional details on menstrual factors that affect LOC, particularly missed or irregular cycles, provides important information on ovarian cancer risk. Our data suggest that episodes of anovulation due to menstrual disturbances should be evaluated separately from anovulation due to pregnancy or oral contraceptive use.

Case-Control Studies↗

PubMed2002

Pre-counseling education materials for BRCA testing: does tailoring make a difference?

Although tailored print materials (TPMs) have been assessed for a variety of behavioral targets, their effectiveness as decision aids for genetic testing had not been evaluated at the time this study began. We compared TPMs and non-tailored print material (NPMs) that included similar content about genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility. TPMs were prepared especially for an individual based on information from and about her. We mailed baseline surveys to 461 women referred by physicians or identified through a tumor registry. All had personal and family histories of breast and/or ovarian cancer and, on the basis of these histories, an estimated > or =10% probability of carrying a mutation in the breast/ovarian cancer genes BRCA1 or BRCA2. The 325 (70%) who responded were randomly assigned to receive TPM or NPM. Followup surveys, mailed 2 weeks following receipt of print materials, were returned by 262 women (81% of baseline responders). Participants were predominately white (94%) and well-educated (50% college graduates). The mean age was 49 years. At follow-up, TPM recipients exhibited significantly greater improvement in percent of correct responses for the 13-item true/false measure of knowledge (24% increase for TPM vs. 16% for NPM; p < 0.0001) and significantly less over-estimation of risk of being a mutation carrier (40% TPM group overestimated vs. 70% NPM; p < 0.0001). Anxiety did not differ significantly between groups. Reactions to materials differed on two items: "seemed to be prepared just for me" (76% TPM vs. 52% NPM; p < 0.001) and "told me what I wanted to know about BRCA1 and 2 testing" (98% TPM vs. 91% NPM; p < 0.05). TPMs showed an advantage in increasing knowledge and enhancing accuracy of perceived risk. Both are critical components of informed decision making.

Adult↗