Epidemiology | Open Access | Published:

Infertility and incident endometrial cancer risk: a pooled analysis from the epidemiology of endometrial cancer consortium (E2C2)

British Journal of Cancer volume 112, pages 925933 (03 March 2015) | Download Citation

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background:

Nulliparity is an endometrial cancer risk factor, but whether or not this association is due to infertility is unclear. Although there are many underlying infertility causes, few studies have assessed risk relations by specific causes.

Methods:

We conducted a pooled analysis of 8153 cases and 11 713 controls from 2 cohort and 12 case-control studies. All studies provided self-reported infertility and its causes, except for one study that relied on data from national registries. Logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results:

Nulliparous women had an elevated endometrial cancer risk compared with parous women, even after adjusting for infertility (OR=1.76; 95% CI: 1.59–1.94). Women who reported infertility had an increased risk compared with those without infertility concerns, even after adjusting for nulliparity (OR=1.22; 95% CI: 1.13–1.33). Among women who reported infertility, none of the individual infertility causes were substantially related to endometrial cancer.

Conclusions:

Based on mainly self-reported infertility data that used study-specific definitions of infertility, nulliparity and infertility appeared to independently contribute to endometrial cancer risk. Understanding residual endometrial cancer risk related to infertility, its causes and its treatments may benefit from large studies involving detailed data on various infertility parameters.

Main

Epidemiologic studies have consistently observed that nulliparity is associated with an elevated risk of endometrial cancer, with increasing number of births associated with reduction in risk (Cook et al, 2006). The extent to which these associations are explained by infertility, which has also been related to increased risk (Escobedo et al, 1991; Venn et al, 1995; Modan et al, 1998; Althuis et al, 2005; Silva Idos et al, 2009; Lerner-Geva et al, 2012), remains unclear. It is plausible that increased endometrial cancer risk associated with infertility is simply attributable to relatively higher proportions of nulliparous women among those who report infertility concerns or vice versa. Many previous studies that reported on nulliparity in relation to endometrial cancer risk did not account for infertility (Mcpherson et al, 1996; Parazzini et al, 1998; Wernli et al, 2006; Brinton et al, 2007; Dossus et al, 2010; Setiawan et al, 2013); others showed that the inverse association between higher parity and endometrial cancer risk remained after adjustment for infertility (Henderson et al, 1983) or that that increased risk was limited to nulliparous women who sought medical advice for infertility-related issues (Brinton et al, 1992). Furthermore, most previous cohort studies estimated standardized incidence ratios, unadjusted for nulliparity, to measure infertility-associated endometrial cancer risk, comparing cancer risk in infertile women to the general population (Ron et al, 1987; Brinton et al, 1989; Venn et al, 1995; Modan et al, 1998; Dor et al, 2002; Doyle et al, 2002; Lerner-Geva et al, 2012). One previous cohort study found that a borderline-significant 29% increased risk associated with infertility was no longer apparent after adjustment for parity (Jensen et al, 2008). Thus, questions about the independence of nulliparity and infertility on endometrial cancer risk have not been adequately addressed.

Infertility can be attributable to number of different disorders (Cetin et al, 2008). Studies have suggested that infertility-associated endometrial cancer risk may be attributable to underlying reasons for infertility, however, a limited number of studies have assessed whether there are distinctive endometrial cancer risk relationships according to different infertility causes. Anovulatory problems, including polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), have been associated in a number of studies to elevated endometrial cancer risk, with a recent meta-analysis of four studies reporting an odds ratio (OR) for PCOS of 2.70 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00–7.29) (Chittenden et al, 2009). Relationships of endometrial cancer risk with other infertility causes such as endometriosis, fibroids and male infertility are less certain (Ron et al, 1987; Escobedo et al, 1991; Brinton et al, 2005a, 2005b; Zucchetto et al, 2009; Rowlands et al, 2011; Pollacco et al, 2012).

To increase the understanding of these putative associations, we conducted an investigation within a consortial context to evaluate endometrial cancer risk and: (1) the independent contribution of parity and infertility and (2) specific infertility diagnoses.

Materials and Methods

Study population

In response to an invitation to principal investigators of studies in the Epidemiology of Endometrial Cancer Consortium (E2C2; (Olson et al, 2009; Setiawan et al, 2012)), 14 studies with information on 1 infertility factors contributed individual-level data for this pooled analysis. Cohort studies were analysed as nested case-control studies, with up to four controls randomly selected among women at risk within each cohort (i.e., women alive with intact uteri and without endometrial cancer before the date of diagnosis of the index case) for each case based on the same year of birth, date of cohort entry (±6 months) and other criteria as appropriate for each study (e.g., race/ethnicity, study area). Cases in the cohort studies were identified through annual linkage to state or national cancer registries (Iowa Women Health Study (IWHS), Swedish Women’s Lifestyle Health Study (WLHS)) or through a combination of self-report confirmed through medical records review, linkage to cancer registries or the National Death Index (New York University Women’s Health Study (NYU)). One cohort study (NYU) collected infertility and parity information from a case-control interview and is henceforth labelled as a case-control study. In the case-control studies, hospital-based controls (Patient Epidemiologic Data System (PEDS), Turin Case-Control Study (TURIN)) or population-based controls were selected within each source population (Alberta Case-Control Study on Endometrial Cancer (ALBERTA), Australian National Endometrial Cancer Study (ANECS), Connecticut Endometrial Cancer Study (CECS), Estrogen, Diet, Genetics and Endometrial Cancer (EDGE), Hawaii Endometrial Cancer Study (HAW), Polish Endometrial Cancer Study (PECS), Shanghai Endometrial Cancer Study (SECS), US Endometrial Cancer Study (US) and USC LA Case-Control Study (USC)).

Informed consent was obtained from all study participants as part of the original studies in accordance with the requirements of each study’s institutional review board. In addition, NCI received approval from the Office of Human Subjects Research as the receiver of the pooled data set.

Data collection

De-identified data from the participating studies were centrally collected and initially harmonised at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC). Data on infertility (ever/never) were collected from all participating studies. Each study assessed a study participant’s infertility using a study-specific questionnaire with questions such as: ‘have you ever tried to become pregnant but were unable to’; ‘was there any time when you could have become pregnant but did not’; and ‘have you ever had regular sexual intercourse without any kind of birth control without getting pregnant’, except for one study (WLHS) which relied on clinical data from population-based national registries with complete coverage of the Swedish population. The duration of trying to become pregnant ranged from 6 months to 2 years across studies, while some studies did not specify such a time frame. The information on infertility presumably combined primary and secondary infertility, respectively, the inability to conceive or to get pregnant at all vs the inability after having been successful at least once.

We also requested from each study the following additional infertility variables: sought medical attention for infertility (yes/no, age at doctor visit), cause of infertility identified (yes/no, specific causes identified and age diagnosed with specific causes) and fertility treatment (yes/no, specific types of treatment, age start/stop treatment and number of cycles). For causes of infertility, we examined data for: (a) endometriosis, (b) anovulation or PCOS, (c) structural defects (e.g., fibroids, cervical stricture, tubal occlusion), (d) male factor and (e) other causes of infertility. For these causes, we did not have information on how the diagnoses were made (e.g. no information on whether endometriosis diagnosis was surgically confirmed). We employed a wider definition of PCOS, in which we included women with anovulation problems. This was based on a previous analysis of 12 193 women evaluated for infertility in 5 large US clinics, which found that a large number of women were anovulatory, although few women had hyperandrogenism or polycystic ovaries (Brinton et al, 2010). For infertility treatment, we collected data for: (a) in vitro fertilisation (IVF), (b) selective oestrogen receptor modulator (SERM, i.e., anti-oestrogen), (c) gonadotropin, (d) progesterone, (e) oestrogen and (f) other drug. Supplementary Table 1 lists the common infertility drugs by infertility treatment categories.

Each study also provided information regarding age at diagnosis (cases), age at interview or reference date (controls), interview year, race/ethnicity, anthropometric measures, reproductive and menstrual characteristics, menopausal hormone use, oral contraceptive use, smoking history and history of diabetes, in accordance with the E2C2 core data dictionary.

Case definition

Incident cases of endometrial cancer (primary site codes C54 and C55.9) were included in this analysis. All studies provided the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition, histology codes for each case, except for three studies (PECS, SECS and TURIN), which provided a summary histologic type for each case (i.e., endometrioid, serous, clear cell, adenocarcinoma not otherwise specified, etc.).

Exclusion criteria

For the analysis of the treatments of infertility, treatments identified in non-infertility sections of the questionnaire (SECS, USC) were excluded. The primary reason for this exclusion was the possibility that hormonal treatments were used for reasons unrelated to infertility concerns. Several infertility variables with >15% missing data, such as age at doctor visit for infertility and use of progesterone for infertility treatment, are not presented.

Statistical analysis

Except for the main infertility variable (ever/never), all other analyses were analysed as one combined data set rather than performing a meta-analysis of study-specific estimates given the small numbers of exposed cases and controls for each study. Associations between infertility factors and endometrial cancer risk were assessed by estimating pooled ORs and 95% CIs using unconditional logistic regression adjusted for age (continuous), study site, race (White, Black, Asian, mixed, other), oral contraceptive use (never, ever), menopausal hormone use (never, ever), parity (no births, one or more births), interview year (continuous) and body mass index (<25, 25–29,≥30 kg m2). Missing values were coded as a separate category for each variable. Sensitivity analysis stratifying by study site was performed and the results did not appreciably change.

We also performed stratified analyses by histological subtype (endometrioid vs others), study design (case-control vs cohort), study location (North America, Europe, vs others), by study period (before vs after 2000) and by the various limited definitions of infertility (e.g., tried to conceive without success for <1+ year, 1+ year, 2+ years, vs time period not specified).

Tests for trend were performed by entering the ordinal values representing categories of variables as a continuous variable in the models. Tests for interaction were assessed using log-likelihood test statistics, where models with and without interaction terms were compared. For all analyses, P-values<0.05 were considered statistically significant. All statistical tests (P-values quoted) were two sided. Statistical analyses were performed in Stata 13 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).

Results

Table 1 describes the characteristics of the 12 case-control and two cohort studies that contributed 8153 cases and 11 713 controls to the pooled analysis. Comparison of established endometrial cancer risk factors in this study population generally reflected those found in a previous E2C2 pooling study (Setiawan et al, 2013). Across studies, the prevalence of infertility among controls ranged from 5 to 60%, according to their varying definitions of infertility as presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Characteristics of 14 studies included in the E2C2 pooled analysis

Table 2 describes the risks associated with parity and infertility. Based on mainly self-reported infertility data that used study-specific definitions of infertility, nulliparous women had an elevated endometrial cancer risk compared with parous women (OR=1.82; 95% CI: 1.65–2.00), with a similar risk after adjustment for infertility (OR=1.76; 95% CI: 1.59–1.94). Relative to women who gave birth to three or more children, there were significantly elevated risks associated with having had fewer births that was greatest in magnitude for nulliparous women.

Table 2: Adjusted odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for endometrial cancer in relation to parity and infertility in the E2C2 pooled analysis

Based on 7877 cases and 11 466 controls with infertility data, the OR for ever infertility and endometrial cancer risk was 1.31 (95% CI: 1.21–1.42), with risk slightly attenuated after adjustment for parity (adjusted for nulliparity: OR=1.22; 95% CI: 1.13–1.33; adjusted for number of births: OR=1.20; 95% CI: 1.11–1.30). Infertility was associated with similar risks among parous (OR=1.22; 95% CI: 1.12–1.34) and nulliparous (OR=1.26; 95% CI: 1.03–1.55) women (P-interaction=0.44; Table 3). In additional analyses evaluating the infertility–endometrial cancer association stratified by number of births (nulliparous, 1, 2, 3+), the only significantly increased risk associated with infertility was for those who gave birth to less than three children (P-interaction=0.001; P-interaction remained significant with the addition of an interaction term for nulliparity and infertility; Table 3).

Table 3: Adjusted odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for endometrial cancer in relation to infertility by nulliparity and number of live births in the E2C2 pooled analysis

When parity and infertility were examined jointly and risks compared with women who were parous and did not report infertility, a significantly elevated risk was observed among nulliparous women who reported infertility (OR=2.21, 95% CI: 1.90–2.56), a risk that was somewhat higher than that among nulliparous women without infertility problems (OR=1.68, 95% CI: 1.48–1.92) and parous women who reported infertility (OR=1.21, 95% CI: 1.11–1.32; data not tabled). Further, using as a referent group women who had given birth to three or more children and did not report fertility problems, we observed that the adjusted OR for nulliparous women who reported infertility was 2.44 (95% CI: 2.09–2.86), a risk somewhat higher than that of nulliparous women without infertility problems (adjusted OR=1.86, 95% CI: 1.61–2.14; data not tabled). We further assessed whether the infertility associations were modified by other endometrial cancer risk factors (Supplementary Table 2) and we did not observe any significant interactions (P-interaction0.10).

Infertility was a risk factor regardless of whether medical attention for infertility was sought (OR=1.24; 95% CI: 1.13–1.37) or not (OR=1.16; 95% CI: 1.02–1.31) (Table 4). Among women whose cause of infertility was investigated, both those with self-identified causes and those without identified causes showed increased risks, OR=1.31 and 1.22, respectively, whereas women who were not investigated showed no altered risk. When women with identified causes were compared for each cause of infertility with women who never reported having infertility concerns, we observed significant risks for women both with and without endometriosis, although the risk was substantially higher for those with endometriosis (OR=1.80 vs 1.28; P-het<0.0001) (Table 4). Significantly elevated risks were also observed for both those with and without structural defects (OR=1.35 vs 1.15; P-het=0.001). However endometriosis and structural defects were no longer associated with endometrial cancer risk when we limited our analysis to women reporting infertility concerns and used women who did not have the indicated cause of infertility as the referent group (data not tabled).

Table 4: Adjusted odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for endometrial cancer in relation to causes of infertility in the E2C2 pooled analysis

We further assessed whether associations with infertility causes were modified by endometrial cancer risk factors (Supplementary Table 3). Although an interaction with parity was not significant, we found that the significant risk associated with anovulation/PCOS was limited to nulliparous women (P-interaction=0.27). In addition, we found that the non-significant positive association between endometriosis and endometrial cancer was limited to oral contraceptive users (P-interaction=0.02).

We had relatively small number of women who reported ever having used fertility treatments (n=203 cases with any fertility treatment). We found that fertility treatment overall was not associated with endometrial cancer risk after adjustment for other risk factors (data not tabled). Based on even smaller numbers (n=3–71 cases using individual treatments), none of the individual treatments (IVF, SERMs, gonadotropins and oestrogen) were substantially related to risk when compared with women who did not report infertility concerns or those with infertility concerns who had not been treated.

Sensitivity analyses

Given that infertility definition varied across individual studies, we created a forest plot of the endometrial cancer risk estimates for infertility adjusted for nulliparity stratified by study (Figure 1). Estimates of this association were not significantly heterogeneous between studies (P<0.22; I2=20.7%), with ORs ranging between 1.03 (95% CI: 0.80–1.34) and 2.30 (95% CI: 1.50–3.55). We also conducted sensitivity analyses using varying definitions of infertility (i.e., tried to conceive without success for <1+ year, 1+ year, 2+ years, time frame of trying not specified) and we found the strongest associations among studies that defined infertility as unsuccessfully trying to conceive for 2 years (OR=1.33, 95% CI: 1.09–1.63) and for an unspecified time frame (OR=1.72, 95% CI: 1.33–2.21; Supplementary Figure 1). Subsequently, we examined the association between nulliparity, number of births and infertility in eight studies that defined infertility as trying to get pregnant for 1+ year and found that the results did not appreciably change, although the associations were slightly attenuated towards the null (data not tabled).

Figure 1
Figure 1

Study-specific adjusted odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for endometrial cancer in relation to infertility in the E2C2 pooled analysis, ordered by standard error. aAdjusted for age, race, ever oral contraceptive use, ever menopausal hormone therapy use, parity, interview year, body mass index, and nulliparity. Missing set as a separate category for each covariate.

Pooled ORs were also not significantly heterogeneous (P>0.05) by histology (endometrioid vs others), study design (case-control vs cohort studies), study location (North America, Europe vs others) or study period (before vs after 2000) (data not tabled). In addition, for the cause-specific analysis, we examined risk among women identified with only a single cause (i.e., endometriosis only, anovulation/PCOS only, structural defects only and male factor only) compared with women who never reported infertility concerns, and found similar results as the main analysis (data not tabled).

Discussion

In this large pooled analysis, based on mainly self-reported infertility data that used study-specific definitions of infertility, we observed an elevated risk of endometrial cancer in relation to history of nulliparity, even after adjusting for infertility and of infertility, even after adjusting for nulliparity. Infertility appeared to be associated with similar risks among nulliparous and parous women. Among women who reported infertility concerns, none of the individual infertility causes were substantially related to endometrial cancer risk.

We found that parity and infertility independently contribute to endometrial cancer risk. Our observation that nulliparous women are at increased risk of endometrial cancer, as compared with parous women, may be related to the increased number of menstrual cycles associated with the absence of pregnancy and lactation and subsequent uninterrupted exposure to oestrogen for long durations (Ali, 2014). The magnitude of the effect estimate for the infertility-adjusted nulliparity association (OR=1.76; 95% CI=1.59–1.94) was greater than the effect estimate for the nulliparity-adjusted infertility association (OR=1.22; 95% CI=1.13–1.33). This finding suggests that nulliparity is a stronger risk predictor than infertility. In agreement with these results, a previous report from a Los Angeles case-control study, which is included in the pooled analysis, described that nulliparity remained significant after adjusting for infertility, but that the association with infertility diminished after adjusting for parity (Henderson et al, 1983). Other previous investigations have similarly shown that infertility associations diminished after adjustment for parity, based on relatively small number of endometrial cancer cases (n=52 (Brinton et al, 2007) and n=64 (Jensen et al, 2008)) who reported having infertility concerns.

We also observed in our pooled analysis that the infertility-associated elevation in endometrial cancer risk was similar for nulliparous and parous women, although women who gave birth to three or more children had no elevation in risk. The diminished risk among these women might be a chance finding or could be related to misclassification since it is unclear what infertility means among women who sought advice for infertility but were able to have multiple births. It is also possible that women who had infertility problems and never conceived had more recalcitrant infertility that led to their higher risks. Additional information about primary vs secondary infertility might help clarify how infertility-associated endometrial cancer risk may vary by different parity categories as previous studies have reported differential risk for primary vs secondary infertility as it relates to endometrial cancer risk (Brinton et al, 2010). To some degree, we attempted to do this by considering nulliparity, but the number of cases with available information on age at first birth and age at seeking advice for infertility were too small to properly distinguish between primary vs secondary infertility.

Compared with women not reporting infertility concerns, increased risks were noted for those with infertility from identified causes and for those with unidentified causes. Previous investigations have shown increased endometrial cancer risk among women with unexplained infertility (Venn et al, 1995, 1999). This result could be explained by the fact that 25–40% of infertile couples have no identifiable cause of infertility after standard investigations, such as tests of ovulation, tubal patency and semen analysis (Ray et al, 2012).

When we examined risk relations among women with identified causes of infertility, we found that the highest risk among those with diagnoses of endometriosis, although even those with other causes were at some elevated risk, suggesting that infertility per se may confer some predisposition towards development of endometrial cancer. In attempts to disentangle the effects of generalised infertility from that of the specific causes, we limited our analysis to women who reported ever having infertility and defined the referent group as infertile women not diagnosed with the indicated cause of infertility. Here, among women who reported being infertile, none of the individual causes were associated with endometrial cancer risk.

Previous epidemiological data supporting the link between endometriosis and endometrial cancer have been conflicting, with risks ranging from a decreased risk in one nested case-control study (OR=0.58; 95% CI: 0.42, 0.81) (Borgfeldt and Andolf, 2004) to a substantially increased risk (OR=4.0; 95% CI: 1.1, 6.4) in a large hospital-based case-control study (Zucchetto et al, 2009). Cohort studies based on relatively small number of endometrial cancer cases, ranging from 7 to 97, have generally found no significant associations between endometriosis and endometrial cancer (Brinton et al, 1997; Olson et al, 2002; Brinton et al, 2005b; Melin et al, 2006, 2007). A possible explanation for the conflicting results across previous studies and with our pooled analysis may relate to detection bias associated with the asymptomatic nature of endometriosis (Rowlands et al, 2011) or that many older women with endometriosis may subsequently have their uteri removed. Among a small subset of women for whom data on age at diagnosis of endometriosis information were available, we found that the risk association with endometriosis remained statistically significant after excluding endometriosis diagnosed in the year prior to the reference year. Furthermore, the risk was mainly limited to younger age groups (data not tabled). We also observed that the increased risk associated with endometriosis was limited to users of oral contraceptives, which may have been taken to alleviate pelvic pain associated with more severe endometriosis (The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), 2010). We also found that the significant risk associated with anovulation/PCOS was limited to nulliparous women, possibly also indicating more severe forms of this disorder.

Although gynaecological diseases, such as fibroids (Escobedo et al, 1991; Brinton et al, 2005a; Zucchetto et al, 2009; Rowlands et al, 2011), and other medical conditions, such as PCOS (Navaratnarajah et al, 2008; Chittenden et al, 2009), have been previously reported as endometrial cancer risk factors in some studies, epidemiological evidence supporting their associations in the context of infertility have been limited. In a population-based case-control study, Escobedo et al (1991) found that self-reported ovarian factors (based on seven endometrial cancer cases with this cause) were associated with significant elevations in endometrial cancer risk as compared with fertile women. In a retrospective cohort study of infertile women, in whom 40 endometrial cancer cases developed, Brinton et al (2005b, 2010) found that primary infertility due to androgen excess, menstrual disorders and male factor causes of infertility were associated with an increased risk when compared with women with secondary infertility without these conditions, suggesting that only severe forms of these conditions might increase endometrial cancer risk. Thus, it is possible that previous studies with relatively small number of subjects observed risk associations with various infertility causes by chance alone or that self-reported definitions used in our analysis might have led to non-differential misclassification, tending to attenuate associations towards the null. Studies with clinically confirmed infertility causes, along with details such as the severity of the disorders, may further elucidate our understanding.

In our large pooled analysis, we were limited by the relatively small number of women using infertility treatments (<3% of study population) and even smaller number of women with information regarding specific types of infertility treatments, limiting our ability to examine and disentangle the effects associated with treatment-related factors such as treatment type, dose, duration and age at treatment. This demonstrates the need for larger studies based on samples of cases selected from groups of infertile women rather than endometrial cancer cases from the general population, as were those included in our analysis (Brinton et al, 2012).

Major strengths of this pooled analysis include the large sample size and the detailed reproductive and medical histories that permitted a comprehensive assessment of confounding and effect modification. The main limitation was the reliance on self-reports of infertility, which raises concern of potential recall bias and other misclassification issues. Furthermore, fertility definitions used across these studies varied widely with regard to the length of time of unsuccessful efforts to conceive, thereby complicating the comparisons across studies. We attempted to address this issue by conducting sensitivity analyses with different definitions of infertility. We observed one of the highest risks when we used the most stringent definition, although we did observe an increased risk for all definitions. Another source of misclassification could have been introduced by nulliparous women that never attempted to have children and thus that reported no difficulties with conception. However, we observed similar overall infertility–endometrial cancer risk associations for nulliparous and parous women. Our definition of infertility did not distinguish between primary and secondary infertility, which might be considered as two distinct risk factors with different pathologies (Lunenfeld et al, 2004; Mascarenhas et al, 2012). Studies with large numbers of infertile and treated women, with improved measures of infertility parameters are needed. An international pooled analysis of data from large infertility clinics, which would have well-documented information about various parameters, including ages at pregnancies and infertility diagnosis and treatment modalities, is warranted.

In conclusion, our pooled analysis, based on mainly self-reported infertility data with varying definitions across studies, provides epidemiologic evidence that nulliparity and infertility may independently contribute to endometrial cancer risk. Our data also suggest that specific causes of infertility examined, per se, do not elevate endometrial cancer risk. Understanding residual endometrial cancer relationships of infertility, its causes and its treatments may benefit from large studies that utilise documented information to clarify relationships.

Change history

  • 03 March 2015

References

  1. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) (2010) ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 110: noncontraceptive uses of hormonal contraceptives. Obstet Gynecol 115: 206–218.

  2. (2014) Reproductive factors and the risk of endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 24: 384–393.

  3. , , , , , , (2005) Uterine cancer after use of clomiphene citrate to induce ovulation. Am J Epidemiol 161: 607–615.

  4. , (2004) Cancer risk after hospital discharge diagnosis of benign ovarian cysts and endometriosis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 83: 395–400.

  5. , , , , , , , (1992) Reproductive, menstrual, and medical risk factors for endometrial cancer: results from a case-control study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 167: 1317–1325.

  6. , , , , (1997) Cancer risk after a hospital discharge diagnosis of endometriosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 176: 572–579.

  7. , , , , (1989) Cancer risk after evaluation for infertility. Am J Epidemiol 129: 712–722.

  8. , , , , (2010) Cancer risk among infertile women with androgen excess or menstrual disorders (including polycystic ovary syndrome). Fertil Steril 94: 1787–1792.

  9. , , (2012) Fertility drugs and the risk of breast and gynecologic cancers. Semin Reprod Med 30: 131–145.

  10. , , , , , , , , (2007) Reproductive risk factors for endometrial cancer among Polish women. Br J Cancer 96: 1450–1456.

  11. , , , , , , , (2005a) Relationship of benign gynecologic diseases to subsequent risk of ovarian and uterine tumors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14: 2929–2935.

  12. , , , , , , (2005b) Causes of infertility as predictors of subsequent cancer risk. Epidemiology 16: 500–507.

  13. , , (2008) Infertility as a cancer risk factor—a review. Placenta 29(Suppl B): 169–177.

  14. , , , (2009) Polycystic ovary syndrome and the risk of gynaecological cancer: a systematic review. Reprod Biomed Online 19: 398–405.

  15. , , , (2006) Endometrial cancer. In: Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, Schottenfeld D, Fraumeni JF, (eds) pp 1027–1043. Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA.

  16. , , , , , , , (2002) Cancer incidence in a cohort of infertile women who underwent in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 77: 324–327.

  17. , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (2010) Reproductive risk factors and endometrial cancer: the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Int J Cancer 127: 442–451.

  18. , , , , (2002) Cancer incidence following treatment for infertility at a clinic in the UK. Hum Reprod 17: 2209–2213.

  19. , , , (1991) Infertility-associated endometrial cancer risk may be limited to specific subgroups of infertile women. Obstet Gynecol 77: 124–128.

  20. , , , , , (1983) The epidemiology of endometrial cancer in young women. Br J Cancer 47: 749–756.

  21. , , , (2008) Risk of breast cancer and gynecologic cancers in a large population of nearly 50,000 infertile Danish women. Am J Epidemiol 168: 49–57.

  22. , , , , , (2012) Are infertility treatments a potential risk factor for cancer development? Perspective of 30 years of follow-up. Gynecol Endocrinol 28: 809–814.

  23. , , (2004) Infertility in the third millennium: implications for the individual, family and society: condensed meeting report from the Bertarelli Foundation's second global conference. Hum Reprod Update 10: 317–326.

  24. , , , , (2012) National, regional, and global trends in infertility prevalence since 1990: a systematic analysis of 277 health surveys. PLoS Med 9: e1001356.

  25. , , , , (1996) Reproductive factors and risk of endometrial cancer. The Iowa Women's Health Study. Am J Epidemiol 143: 1195–1202.

  26. , , (2007) The risk of cancer and the role of parity among women with endometriosis. Hum Reprod 22: 3021–3026.

  27. , , , (2006) Endometriosis and the risk of cancer with special emphasis on ovarian cancer. Hum Reprod 21: 1237–1242.

  28. , , , , , , , , , (1998) Cancer incidence in a cohort of infertile women. Am J Epidemiol 147: 1038–1042.

  29. , , (2008) Polycystic ovary syndrome and endometrial cancer. Semin Reprod Med 26: 62–71.

  30. , , , , , (2002) Postmenopausal cancer risk after self-reported endometriosis diagnosis in the Iowa Women's Health Study. Cancer 94: 1612–1618.

  31. , , , , , , , , , , , (2009) Maximizing resources to study an uncommon cancer: E2C2—Epidemiology of Endometrial Cancer Consortium. Cancer Causes Control 20: 491–496.

  32. , , , , , , (1998) Role of reproductive factors on the risk of endometrial cancer. Int J Cancer 76: 784–786.

  33. , , , , (2012) Molecular links between endometriosis and cancer. Gynecol Endocrinol 28: 577–581.

  34. , , , (2012) Unexplained infertility: an update and review of practice. Reprod Biomed Online 24: 591–602.

  35. , , , , , , (1987) Cancer incidence in a cohort of infertile women. Am J Epidemiol 125: 780–790.

  36. , , , Australian National Endometrial Cancer Study, G.Australian Ovarian Cancer Study, G. (2011) Gynecological conditions and the risk of endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 123: 537–541.

  37. , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Australian National Endometrial Cancer Study, G. (2012) Age at last birth in relation to risk of endometrial cancer: pooled analysis in the epidemiology of endometrial cancer consortium. Am J Epidemiol 176: 269–278.

  38. , , , , , , , , , , , , . Australian National Endometrial Cancer Study, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (2013) Type I and II endometrial cancers: have they different risk factors? J Clin Oncol 31: 2607–2618.

  39. , , , , , , , , , (2009) Ovulation-stimulation drugs and cancer risks: a long-term follow-up of a British cohort. Br J Cancer 100: 1824–1831.

  40. , , , , (1999) Risk of cancer after use of fertility drugs with in-vitro fertilisation. Lancet 354: 1586–1590.

  41. , , , , , (1995) Breast and ovarian cancer incidence after infertility and in vitro fertilisation. Lancet 346: 995–1000.

  42. , , , , , (2006) Menstrual and reproductive factors in relation to risk of endometrial cancer in Chinese women. Cancer Causes Control 17: 949–955.

  43. , , , , , , , , , (2009) Hormone-related factors and gynecological conditions in relation to endometrial cancer risk. Eur J Cancer Prev 18: 316–321.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank many individuals who participated and the numerous institutions and their staff who supported the individual studies. We also thank Dr Leah Mechanic at NCI’s Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences for her support in the E2C2 activities. Individual studies were funded by the following grants and agencies: ALBERTA (Cancer Institute of Canada with funds from the Canadian Cancer Society and the Canadian Institute for Health Research, NIH R01 CA082838, CMF is supported by career awards from Alberta Innovates-Health Solutions and the Alberta Cancer Foundation through the Weekend to End Women’s Cancers Breast Cancer Chair, LSC was supported through the Canada Research Chairs program); ANECS (National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC, grant #339435) of Australia and the Cancer Councils of Queensland and Tasmania; PMW and ABS are supported by Fellowships from the NHMRC); CECS (NIH R01 CA098346); EDGE (NIH R01 CA83918; P30CA008748); HAW (NIH P01 CA33619, R01 CA58598, N01 CN67001, N01 PC35137); IWHS (NIH R01 CA39742); NYU (NIH/NCI grants R01 CA098661 and R01 CA08121, and Center grant P30 CA016087); PECS (Intramural Research Funds of the NCI, NIH, Department of Health and Human Services); PEDS; SECS (NIH Grant No. R01 CA092585); TURIN (Italian Association for Research on Cancer and Ricerca Finalizzata Regione Piemonte); US (Intramural Research Funds of the NCI, NIH, the Department of Health and Human Services); USC (NIH R01 CA48774 and P30 CA14089); WLHS (the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society and the Hans-Olov Distinguished Professor Award at Karolinska Institutet (Dnr:2368-10-221).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA

    • H P Yang
    • , A S Felix
    • , B Trabert
    • , N Wentzensen
    •  & L A Brinton
  2. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA

    • L S Cook
  3. Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden

    • E Weiderpass
    •  & H-O Adami
  4. Department of Genetic Epidemiology, Folkhälsan Research Center, 00014 Helsinki, Finland

    • E Weiderpass
  5. Department of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, N-0304 Oslo, Norway

    • E Weiderpass
  6. Department of Community Medicine, University of Tromsø, The Arctic University of Norway, 90109 Tromsø, Norway

    • E Weiderpass
  7. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA

    • H-O Adami
  8. School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55454, USA

    • K E Anderson
  9. Department of Medicine, Division of Epidemiology, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN 37232, USA

    • H Cai
    •  & X O Shu
  10. Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA

    • J R Cerhan
  11. Department of Population Health and NYU Perimutter Cancer Center, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, USA

    • T V Clendenen
    •  & A Zeleniuch-Jacquotte
  12. Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta T2T 5C7, Canada

    • C M Friedenreich
  13. Institute of Cancer Research, Surrey SM2 5NG, UK

    • M Garcia-Closas
  14. Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA 90048, USA

    • M T Goodman
  15. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA

    • X Liang
    • , S H Olson
    • , S Petruzella
    • , M C Pike
    •  & Y Xu
  16. M. Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, 02-781 Warsaw, Poland

    • J Lissowska
  17. Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT 06510, USA

    • L Lu
    •  & H A Risch
  18. H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL33612, USA

    • A M Magliocco
  19. Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA

    • S E McCann
    •  & K B Moysich
  20. Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA

    • M C Pike
    •  & V W Setiawan
  21. Human Genetics Foundation, 10126 Turin, Italy

    • S Polidoro
    • , F Ricceri
    •  & C Sacerdote
  22. Unit of Cancer Epidemiology, University of Turin and Center for Cancer Prevention, 10124 Turin, Italy

    • C Sacerdote
  23. QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Queensland 4029, Australia

    • A B Spurdle
    •  & P M Webb
  24. Shanghai Cancer Institute, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China

    • Y-B Xiang
  25. University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, HI 96813, USA

    • H Yu

Authors

  1. Search for H P Yang in:

  2. Search for L S Cook in:

  3. Search for E Weiderpass in:

  4. Search for H-O Adami in:

  5. Search for K E Anderson in:

  6. Search for H Cai in:

  7. Search for J R Cerhan in:

  8. Search for T V Clendenen in:

  9. Search for A S Felix in:

  10. Search for C M Friedenreich in:

  11. Search for M Garcia-Closas in:

  12. Search for M T Goodman in:

  13. Search for X Liang in:

  14. Search for J Lissowska in:

  15. Search for L Lu in:

  16. Search for A M Magliocco in:

  17. Search for S E McCann in:

  18. Search for K B Moysich in:

  19. Search for S H Olson in:

  20. Search for S Petruzella in:

  21. Search for M C Pike in:

  22. Search for S Polidoro in:

  23. Search for F Ricceri in:

  24. Search for H A Risch in:

  25. Search for C Sacerdote in:

  26. Search for V W Setiawan in:

  27. Search for X O Shu in:

  28. Search for A B Spurdle in:

  29. Search for B Trabert in:

  30. Search for P M Webb in:

  31. Search for N Wentzensen in:

  32. Search for Y-B Xiang in:

  33. Search for Y Xu in:

  34. Search for H Yu in:

  35. Search for A Zeleniuch-Jacquotte in:

  36. Search for L A Brinton in:

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H P Yang.

Supplementary information

About this article

Publication history

Received

Revised

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.24

This work is published under the standard license to publish agreement. After 12 months the work will become freely available and the license terms will switch to a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 Unported License.

Supplementary Information accompanies this paper on British Journal of Cancer website (http://www.nature.com/bjc)

Further reading