The Risk of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer of Women With Endometriosis May be Varied Greatly if Diagnostic Criteria Are Different
This article aims to test the hypothesis that the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in women with endometriosis might be changed by enrolling different population. A nationwide 14-year historic cohort study using the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) of Taiwan and the Registry for Catastrophic Illness Patients was conducted. A total of 239,385 women aged between 20 and 51 years, with at least 1 gynecologic visit after 2000, were analyzed. Cases included women with a diagnosed endometriosis, which was established along a spectrum from at least 1 medical record of endometriosis (recalled endometriosis) to tissue-proved ovarian endometriosis (n = X). Controls included women without any diagnosis of endometriosis (n = 239,385 - X). We used Cox regression, and computed hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) to determine the risk of EOC in patients. The EOC incidence rates (IRs, per 10,000 person-years) of women with endometriosis ranged from 1.90 in women with recalled endometriosis to 18.70 in women with tissue-proved ovarian endometrioma, compared with those women without any diagnosis of endometriosis (0.77-0.89), contributing to crude HRs ranging from 2.59 (95% CI, 2.09-3.21; P < 0.001) to 24.04 (95% CI, 17.48-33.05; P < 0.001). After adjustment for pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, Charlson co-morbidity index, and age, adjusted HRs were ranged from the lowest of 1.90 (95% CI, 1.51-2.37; P < 0.001) in recalled endometriosis to the highest of 18.57 (95% CI, 13.37-25.79; P < 0.001) in tissue-proved ovarian endometrioma, which was inversely related to the prevalence rate of endometriosis (from the highest of 30.80% in recalled endometriosis to the lowest of 1.54% in tissue-proved ovarian endometrioma). The risk of EOC in women with endometriosis varied greatly by different criteria used. Women with endometriosis might have a more apparently higher risk than those reported by systematic review and meta-analysis.