SummaryBackgroundEndometriosis is a risk factor for epithelial ovarian cancer; however, whether this risk extends to all invasive histological subtypes or borderline tumours is not clear. We undertook an international collaborative study to assess the association between endometriosis and histological subtypes of ovarian cancer.MethodsData from 13 ovarian cancer case–control studies, which were part of the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium, were pooled and logistic regression analyses were undertaken to assess the association between self-reported endometriosis and risk of ovarian cancer. Analyses of invasive cases were done with respect to histological subtypes, grade, and stage, and analyses of borderline tumours by histological subtype. Age, ethnic origin, study site, parity, and duration of oral contraceptive use were included in all analytical models.Findings13 226 controls and 7911 women with invasive ovarian cancer were included in this analysis. 818 and 738, respectively, reported a history of endometriosis. 1907 women with borderline ovarian cancer were also included in the analysis, and 168 of these reported a history of endometriosis. Self-reported endometriosis was associated with a significantly increased risk of clear-cell (136 [20·2%] of 674 cases vs 818 [6·2%] of 13 226 controls, odds ratio 3·05, 95% CI 2·43–3·84, p<0·0001), low-grade serous (31 [9·2%] of 336 cases, 2·11, 1·39–3·20, p<0·0001), and endometrioid invasive ovarian cancers (169 [13·9%] of 1220 cases, 2·04, 1·67–2·48, p<0·0001). No association was noted between endometriosis and risk of mucinous (31 [6·0%] of 516 cases, 1·02, 0·69–1·50, p=0·93) or high-grade serous invasive ovarian cancer (261 [7·1%] of 3659 cases, 1·13, 0·97–1·32, p=0·13), or borderline tumours of either subtype (serous 103 [9·0%] of 1140 cases, 1·20, 0·95–1·52, p=0·12, and mucinous 65 [8·5%] of 767 cases, 1·12, 0·84–1·48, p=0·45).InterpretationClinicians should be aware of the increased risk of specific subtypes of ovarian cancer in women with endometriosis. Future efforts should focus on understanding the mechanisms that might lead to malignant transformation of endometriosis so as to help identify subsets of women at increased risk of ovarian cancer.FundingOvarian Cancer Research Fund, National Institutes of Health, California Cancer Research Program, California Department of Health Services, Lon V Smith Foundation, European Community's Seventh Framework Programme, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany, Programme of Clinical Biomedical Research, German Cancer Research Centre, Eve Appeal, Oak Foundation, UK National Institute of Health Research, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, Cancer Council Tasmania, Cancer Foundation of Western Australia, Mermaid 1, Danish Cancer Society, and Roswell Park Alliance Foundation.

Background Controversy persists about optimal mammography screening strategies. Objective To evaluate mammography strategies considering screening and treatment advances. Design Collaboration of six simulation models. Data Sources National data on incidence, risk, breast density, digital mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality. Target Population An average-risk cohort. Time Horizon Lifetime. Perspective Societal. Interventions Mammograms from age 40, 45 or 50 to 74 at annual or biennial intervals, or annually from 40 or 45 to 49 then biennially to 74, assuming 100% screening and treatment adherence. Outcome Measures Screening benefits (vs. no screening) include percent breast cancer mortality reduction, deaths averted, and life-years gained. Harms include number of mammograms, false-positives, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis. Results for Average-Risk Women Biennial strategies maintain 79.8%-81.3% (range across strategies and models: 68.3–98.9%) of annual screening benefits with almost half the false-positives and fewer overdiagnoses. Screening biennially from ages 50–74 achieves a median 25.8% (range: 24.1%-31.8%) breast cancer mortality reduction; annual screening from ages 40–74 years reduces mortality an additional 12.0% (range: 5.7%-17.2%) vs. no screening, but yields 1988 more false-positives and 7 more overdiagnoses per 1000 women screened. Annual screening from ages 50–74 had similar benefits as other strategies but more harms, so would not be recommended. Sub-population Results Annual screening starting at age 40 for women who have a two- to four-fold increase in risk has a similar balance of harms and benefits as biennial screening of average-risk women from 50–74. Limitations We do not consider other imaging technologies, polygenic risk, or non-adherence. Conclusion These results suggest that biennial screening is efficient for average-risk groups, but decisions on strategies depend on the weight given to the balance of harms and benefits. Primary Funding Source National Institutes of Health