Data from previous studies suggest that infertility is a risk factor for endometrial cancer. We used data from the Cancer and Steroid Hormone Study to further characterize this relationship. The subject group comprised 399 women ages 20-54 with newly diagnosed epithelial endometrial cancer ascertained through six cancer registries. The control group comprised 3040 women in the same age range selected by random-digit telephone dialing from the same geographic areas where cancer patients resided. Compared with women who reported no fertility problem, women with physician-diagnosed infertility who had reported at least 2 years of infertility had an odds ratio for endometrial cancer, adjusted for age, of 1.7 (95% confidence interval 1.1-2.6). Women who reported infertility resulting from ovarian factors had an adjusted odds ratio of 4.2 (95% confidence interval 1.7-10.4). These results suggest that factors such as anovulation may explain much of the increased risk of endometrial cancer found among subgroups of infertile women.
infertility endometrial cancer risk women, anovulation endometrial cancer risk factor, ovarian factor infertility cancer odds ratio, Cancer and Steroid Hormone Study endometrial cancer, infertile women subgroups endometrial cancer case control, polycystic ovary anovulatory cycles endometrial cancer, unopposed estrogen anovulation endometrial neoplasia, infertility duration cancer risk epidemiology, Escobedo infertility endometrial cancer, case control study endometrial cancer reproductive risk factors
Cite this article
Escobedo, L. G., Lee, N. C., Peterson, H. B., & Wingo, P. A. (1991). Infertility-associated endometrial cancer risk may be limited to specific subgroups of infertile women. Obstetrics and gynecology, 77(1), 124-128.
Escobedo LG, Lee NC, Peterson HB, Wingo PA. Infertility-associated endometrial cancer risk may be limited to specific subgroups of infertile women. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;77(1):124-128.
Escobedo, L. G., et al. "Infertility-associated endometrial cancer risk may be limited to specific subgroups of infertile women." Obstetrics and gynecology, vol. 77, no. 1, 1991, pp. 124-128.
Insulin is a major regulator of circulating insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-binding protein-1 (IGFBP-1), suppressing the hepatic production of IGFBP-1. Postmenopausal age, obesity, hypertension, and impaired glucose tolerance, which are known risk factors for endometrial cancer, are all associated with hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance. In this study, we investigated the relationship among serum insulin, glucose, insulin-like growth factors (IGF-I and IGF-II), and IGFBP-, -2, and -3 in 32 nondiabetic postmenopausal women with endometrial cancer and in 18 healthy controls. The mean fasting levels of glucose and insulin were higher, whereas the mean basal IGF-I, IGF-II, and IGFBP-3 levels were lower in the endometrial cancer patients than in the healthy control subjects. The mean fasting IGFBP-1 and IGFBP-2 levels did not differ between the groups, and no correlation was found between fasting insulin and IGFBP-1 concentrations or between insulin and IGFBP-2 concentrations in either of the study groups. During an oral glucose tolerance test, the mean glucose levels at 1 and 3 h as well as the mean insulin level at 3 h were significantly higher in the endometrial cancer patients than in the controls, and the area under the glucose curve was larger in the first group. An oral glucose load resulted in a similar fall in serum IGFBP-1 levels in endometrial cancer patients and controls (51% and 55% at 3 h). When the cancer patients were divided into two subgroups according to the body mass index (kilograms per m2), the obese group had higher glucose and insulin indices than the nonobese group. No difference was found by the same measures in healthy controls. The fasting serum IGFBP-1 levels tended to be lower in the obese than in the normal weight subjects, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. In summary, these results provide preliminary evidence that the inverse relation between fasting insulin and IGFBP-1, well established in children and young adults, disappears in elderly women, although short term suppression by insulin still occurs. Further, our data indicate that in addition to carbohydrate metabolism, postmenopausal women with endometrial cancer have alterations in their circulating IGF system compared to controls.
EndometriosisFertility OutcomesEndometriosis Surgery ClaimsReproductive Treatment Access
For many patients with endometriosis, laparoscopic surgery is the most effective treatment to alleviate severe chronic pelvic pain and improve quality of life. Because endometriosis is common among individuals with infertility, surgery is often considered alongside fertility evaluation and treatment to manage symptoms, identify disease pathology, and restore pelvic anatomy. In patients who desire pregnancy, the decision of whether and when to pursue surgery should be guided by clear medical indications and shared decision making between the patient and their obstetrician-gynecologist. In recent months, however, religious and political groups have sought to reframe this medical decision as an ideologic and moral one, advocating for endometriosis surgery in nearly all patients with infertility and claiming that this can eliminate the need for assisted reproductive technologies. This framework, known as restorative reproductive medicine (RRM), aligns with efforts to promote the "personhood" of fertilized eggs, restrict access to in in vitro fertilization (IVF), and advance endometriosis surgery and lifestyle modifications as "root-cause treatment leading to natural fertility." Recent editorials and issue briefs in the obstetrics and gynecology literature have discussed the serious ethical, medical, and policy implications of RRM, yet there remains an urgent need to address specifically the unfounded claims about endometriosis surgery and its purported advantages over assisted reproductive technology. This article examines the social context of this controversy and reviews the current evidence regarding the indications, benefits, and limitations of endometriosis surgery in the management of infertility. In contrast to RRM's assertions, no evidence supports the adoption of endometriosis surgery as a replacement for IVF or as a primary treatment for infertility. Rather, the role of surgery in fertility care is highly nuanced and depends on each patient's clinical presentation, reproductive goals, and personal priorities.
To assess the Pearl Index for risk of ectopic pregnancy in women using levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems (LNG-IUS) with hormonal reservoirs of 13.5 mg, 19.5 mg, or 52 mg. This was a retrospective cohort study. Women diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy in Stockholm County, Sweden, between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019, were identified through the electronic medical record system. The final analysis included 2,252 cases of ectopic pregnancy. Information on age, reproductive and medical history, as well as current use of contraception was retrieved. The time of intrauterine device (IUD) insertion before ectopic pregnancy and the numbers of sold LNG-IUS during the study period were used to calculate the incidence rate for ectopic pregnancy during use per 100 woman-years (Pearl Index). Among women with an ectopic pregnancy diagnosis, 105 presented with a known type of hormonal IUD in situ, of whom 94 were included in the calculations of the Pearl Index. The estimated Pearl Index for ectopic pregnancy was 0.136 (95% CI 0.106-0.176) for the LNG-IUS 13.5-mg, 0.037 (95% CI 0.021-0.067) for the LNG-IUS 19.5-mg, and 0.009 (95% CI 0.006-0.014) for the LNG-IUS 52-mg. With the 52-mg LNG-IUS as referent, the relative risk (RR) for ectopic pregnancy was higher during the first year for LNG 13.5-mg (RR 20.59, 95% CI 12.04-35.21), and for both 13.5-mg (RR 14.49, 95% CI 9.01-23.3) and 19.5-mg (RR 4.44, 95% CI 1.64-12.00) during the total study period. The absolute risk of ectopic pregnancy during the use of LNG-IUS at any doses was low. The results show that the lower the dose of the IUD, the higher the risk of an ectopic pregnancy. Higher-dose LNG-IUS should be considered when providing contraceptive counseling to a woman with known risk factors for ectopic pregnancy who are considering a hormonal IUD.
To assess whether coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination is associated with changes in cycle or menses length in those receiving vaccination as compared with an unvaccinated cohort. We analyzed prospectively tracked menstrual cycle data using the application "Natural Cycles." We included U.S. residents aged 18-45 years with normal cycle lengths (24-38 days) for three consecutive cycles before the first vaccine dose followed by vaccine-dose cycles (cycles 4-6) or, if unvaccinated, six cycles over a similar time period. We calculated the mean within-individual change in cycle and menses length (three prevaccine cycles vs first- and second-dose cycles in the vaccinated cohort, and the first three cycles vs cycles four and five in the unvaccinated cohort). We used mixed-effects models to estimate the adjusted difference in change in cycle and menses length between the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts. We included 3,959 individuals (vaccinated 2,403; unvaccinated 1,556). Most of the vaccinated cohort received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (55%) (Moderna 35%, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen 7%). Overall, COVID-19 vaccine was associated with a less than 1-day change in cycle length for both vaccine-dose cycles compared with prevaccine cycles (first dose 0.71 day-increase, 98.75% CI 0.47-0.94; second dose 0.91, 98.75% CI 0.63-1.19); unvaccinated individuals saw no significant change compared with three baseline cycles (cycle four 0.07, 98.75% CI -0.22 to 0.35; cycle five 0.12, 98.75% CI -0.15 to 0.39). In adjusted models, the difference in change in cycle length between the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts was less than 1 day for both doses (difference first dose 0.64 days, 98.75% CI 0.27-1.01; second dose 0.79 days, 98.75% CI 0.40-1.18). Change in menses length was not associated with vaccination. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination is associated with a small change in cycle length but not menses length.