Background: Long-term effects of assisted reproductive technology (ART) on ovarian tumor risk are unknown. Methods: This nationwide cohort study comprises 30 625 women who received ovarian... Show moreBackground: Long-term effects of assisted reproductive technology (ART) on ovarian tumor risk are unknown. Methods: This nationwide cohort study comprises 30 625 women who received ovarian stimulation for ART in 1983-2000 and 9988 subfertile women not treated with ART. Incident invasive and borderline ovarian tumors were ascertained through linkage with the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Pathology Registry until July 2018. Ovarian tumor risk in ART-treated women was compared with risks in the general population and the subfertile non-ART group. Statistical tests were 2-sided. Results: After a median follow-up of 24 years, 158 invasive and 100 borderline ovarian tumors were observed. Ovarian cancer risk in the ART group was increased compared with the general population (standardized incidence ratio [SIR] = 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.18 to 1.71) but not when compared with the non-ART group (age- and parity-adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.70 to 1.50). Risk decreased with higher parity and with a larger number of successful ART cycles (resulting in childbirth, Ptrend = .001) but was not associated with the number of unsuccessful ART cycles. Borderline ovarian tumor risk was increased in ART-treated women compared with the general population (SIR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.66 to 2.86) and with non-ART women (HR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.08 to 3.14). Risk did not increase with more ART cycles or longer follow-up time. Conclusions: Increased ovarian cancer risk in ART-treated women compared with the general population is likely explained by nulliparity rather than ART treatment. The increased risk of borderline ovarian tumors after ART must be interpreted with caution because no dose-response relationship was observed. Show less
Haas, R.L.M.; Gelderblom, H.; Sleijfer, S.; H.H. van boven; Scholten, A.; Dewit, L.; ... ; Coevorden, F. van 2015
Background: The risk of lymph node (LN) metastasis in G2T1 penile cancer has been previously reported as 0-50% and is classified as "intermediate" in the European Association of Urology (EAU)... Show moreBackground: The risk of lymph node (LN) metastasis in G2T1 penile cancer has been previously reported as 0-50% and is classified as "intermediate" in the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines. The management of impalpable regional nodes in this cohort of patients remains contentious and varies among treatment centres depending on tumour factors and local resources. Objectives: To establish the risk of LN metastasis in G2T1 disease. Design, settings, and participants: We interrogated the databases of two referral centres for penile cancer. Measurements: Out of 902 patients, 117 (13%) patients were identified with G2T1 cancers. Those with palpable inguinal nodes (cN1) underwent early inguinal LN dissection (iLND). Those with clinically node negative (cN0) inguinal basins were either observed or surgically staged with iLND or by dynamic sentinel LN biopsy (DSLNB). Median follow-up was 44 mo, with minimum follow-up of 6 mo. Results and limitations: Fifteen of 117 (13%) patients with G2T1 cancer had LN metastasis at initial staging or during follow-up. Six of 12 (50%) cN1 patients had histologically proven LN metastasis on iLND. One hundred five patients were cN0 at presentation. Ten cN0 patients had prophylactic iLND, none of which yielded LN metastasis; 5 of 64 (8%) cN0 patients who had DSLNB had tumour-positive LNs, and 4 of 31 (13%) cN0 patients who were observed developed LN metastasis during follow-up. In cN0 patients, the risk of LN metastasis at initial staging or during surveillance was 9%. Conclusions: We consider that in cN0 patients with G2T1 penile cancer, the risk of developing metastases during surveillance warrants surgical and potentially curative staging. However, the morbidity of prophylactic bilateral iLND is too great to justify a detection rate of 9%. Less morbid alternatives such as DSLNB are advisable in G2T1 disease. (C) 2009 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved. Show less
