Search

Background Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the eighth most common cancer in women, with poor survival outcomes. Observational evidence suggests that nitrogen-based bisphosphonate (NBB) use may be associated with reduced risk of EOC, particularly the endometrioid and serous histotypes; however, confounding by indication is a concern. An alternative approach to investigate the chemo-preventive potential of NBBs is to emulate a target trial by identifying all women who initiate use of NBBs and investigate the risk of EOC for continued users compared with discontinued users. Methods Using population-based linked data, we identified all Australian women aged over 50 years who first used NBBs over 2004–12. We used the year after first use to define treatment for each woman as either continued or discontinued use. We emulated randomization using stabilized inverse probability weights to balance the treatment groups using covariates including age, comorbidities and socioeconomic status. We followed women from treatment assignment until EOC diagnosis, death or 31 December 2013. We assessed the risk of EOC (overall and by histotype) using flexible parametric time-to-event models allowing for time-varying effects, and produced time-varying coefficients. Results Of the 313 383 women in the study, 472 were diagnosed with EOC during follow-up (261 serous EOC), with an average age at diagnosis of 72 years. Continued use of NBBs was associated with reduced risk of EOC overall (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.69, 1.10), and serous EOC (HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.53, 0.96), compared with discontinued treatment, with estimates remaining constant over the 9-year follow-up. Conclusions Results from our emulated trial suggest that in women who initiated NBB treatment, those who continued use had 13% and 29% lower hazards of being diagnosed with EOC overall and serous EOC, respectively, compared with women who discontinued use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are few readily modifiable risk factors for epithelial ovarian cancer; preclinical studies suggest bisphosphonates could have chemopreventive actions. Our study aimed to assess the association between use of nitrogen-based bisphosphonate medicine and risk of epithelial ovarian cancer, overall and by histotype.Methods: We conducted a case-control study nested within a large, linked administrative dataset including all Australian women enrolled for Medicare, Australia's universal health insurance scheme, between July 2002 and December 2013. We included all women with epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosed at age 50 years and older between July 1, 2004, and December 31, 2013 (n = 9367) and randomly selected up to 5 controls per case, individually matched to cases by age, state of residence, area-level socioeconomic status, and remoteness of residence category (n = 46 830). We used prescription records to ascertain use of nitrogen-based bisphosphonates (ever use and duration of use), raloxifene, and other osteoporosis medicines (no nitrogen-based bisphosphonates, strontium and denosumab). We calculated adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using conditional logistic regression.Results: Ever use of nitrogen-based bisphosphonates was associated with a reduced risk of epithelial ovarian cancer compared with no use (OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.88). There was a reduced risk of endometrioid (OR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.79) and serous histotypes (OR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.93) but no association with the mucinous or clear cell histotypes.Conclusion: Use of nitrogen-based bisphosphonates was associated with a reduced risk of endometrioid and serous ovarian cancer. This suggests the potential for use for prevention, although validation of our findings is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: People with severe mental illness have similar cancer incidence, but higher mortality than the general population. Participation in cancer screening may be a contributing factor but existing studies are conflicting. The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency of colorectal, prostate and cervical cancer screening among people with and without severe mental illness in Australia, who have access to universal health care. Methods: We followed three cohorts using de-identified data from a random 10% sample of people registered for Australia's universal health care system: those aged 50–69 years (n = 760,058) for colorectal cancer screening; women aged 18–69 years (n = 918,140) for cervical cancer screening and men aged 50–69 years (n = 380,238) for prostate cancer screening. We used Poisson regression to estimate incidence rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the association between severe mental illness and rates of faecal occult blood testing, pap smears and prostate-specific antigen testing. Results: Having severe mental illness was associated with a 17% reduction in rates of pap smear (incidence rate ratio = 0.83, 95% confidence interval: 0.82–0.84) and prostate-specific antigen testing (incidence rate ratio = 0.83, 95% confidence interval: 0.81–0.85), compared to the general population. By contrast, incidence rates of faecal occult blood testing were only lower in people with severe mental illness among the participants who visited their general practitioner less than an average of five times per year (incidence rate ratio = 0.83, 95% confidence interval = [0.73, 0.94]). Conclusion: Our results suggest that differences in screening frequency may explain some of the mismatch between cancer incidence and mortality in people with severe mental illness and indicate that action is required to improve preventive screening in this very disadvantaged group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We read with interest the additional results presented by Drs Lehrer and Rheinstein; however, we find it difficult to put these data in context with the existing literature without further information. We thank Drs Lehrer and Rheinstein ([1]) for their interest in our study. The other analysis referred to by Lehrer and Rheinstein from the QResearch database was included in the meta-analysis and was the only included study that reported an estimate greater than 1 (albeit nonstatistically significant) ([3]). [Extracted from the article]