Project #55098 - Principles of Epidemiology

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Epidemiology Program Office Case Studies in Applied Epidemiology No. 811-703

Oral Contraceptive Use and Ovarian Cancer

Student's Guide

Learning Objectives
After completing this case study, the participant should be able to:

G Outline the sequence of an epidemiologic analysis;
G Discuss the biases of particular concern in case-control studies and ways to minimize their

influence;

G Describe why and when to use crude and adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals, and how to interpret them; and

G Define and recognize effect modification and confounding.

page1image6752 page1image10704 page1image10864 page1image11024 page1image11184 page1image11344 page1image11504

This case study was developed by Richard Dicker and Peter Layde in 1981. Current version updated by Richard Dicker with input from the EIS Summer Course instructors.

page1image13256 page1image13416 page1image22240

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service

CDC-EIS 2003: OCs and Ovarian Cancer (811-703) - Student’s Guide page 2

page2image1296

PART I

In 1980, ovarian cancer ranked as the fourth leading cause of cancer mortality among women in the United States. An estimated 18,000 new cases and more than 11,000 attributable deaths occurred among American women that year.

Several studies had noted an increased risk of ovarian cancer among women of low parity, suggesting that pregnancy exerts a protective effect. By preventing pregnancy, oral contraceptives (OCs) might be expected to increase the risk of ovarian cancer. On the other hand, by simulating pregnancy through suppression of pituitary gonadotropin release and inhibition of ovulation, OCs might be expected to protect against the subsequent

development of ovarian cancer. Because by 1980 OCs had been used by more than 40 million women in the United States, the public health impact of an association in either direction could be substantial.

To study the relationship between oral contraceptive use and ovarian cancer (as well as breast and endometrial cancer), CDC initiated a case-control study – the Cancer and Steroid Hormone (CASH) Study in 1980. Case-patients were enrolled through eight regional cancer registries participating in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program of the National Cancer Institute.

Question 1: Which investigations need to be reviewed by an institutional review board? Does this investigation need to be reviewed?

page2image15048

As the investigators planned this study, they discussed a

variety of methods to minimize potential biases.

Question 2: What types of bias are of particular concern in this case-control study? What steps might you take to minimize these potential biases?

page2image18832

CDC-EIS 2003: OCs and Ovarian Cancer (811-703) - Student’s Guide page 3

page3image1280

As the investigators began to consider what data to collect with their questionnaire, they began to lay out the analyses they wanted to conduct. They did so by sketching out “table shells” -- frequency distributions and two-way tables that contain no data but otherwise include appropriate titles, labels, measures and

statistics to be calculated. The tables followed a logical sequence from the simple (descriptive epidemiology) to the more complex (analytic epidemiology) that is often used when results are presented in a manuscript or oral presentation.

Question 3: List, in logical sequential order, the table shells you might use to analyze or present the CASH study data.

page3image8584

CDC-EIS 2003: OCs and Ovarian Cancer (811-703) - Student’s Guide page 4

page4image1344

PART II

The study design included several features to minimize selection and information bias. Ascertainment bias of disease status ) a type of selection bias ) was minimized by attempting to enroll as cases all women ages 20-54 years with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed, primary ovarian cancer who resided in one of the eight geographic areas covered by the cancer registries. Controls were women ages 20-54 years selected randomly using telephone numbers from the same geographic areas. Because 93% of U.S. households had telephones, virtually all women residing in the same areas as the cases were eligible to be controls. (Interestingly, all the women enrolled with ovarian cancer had telephones.)

To minimize interviewer bias, CDC investigators conducted group sessions to train interviewers in the administration of the pretested standard questionnaire. The same interviewers and questionnaires were used for both cases and controls. Neither cases nor controls were told of the specific a priori hypotheses to be tested by the study. Recall bias of oral contraceptive

exposure was minimized by showing participants a book with photographs of all OC preparations ever marketed in the United States and by using a calendar to relate contraceptive and reproductive histories to other life events.

The primary purpose of the CASH study was to measure and test the association between OC use and three types of reproductive cancer ) breast cancer, endometrial cancer, and ovarian cancer. Enrollment of subjects into the study began in December 1980. During the first 10 months of the study, 179 women with ovarian cancer were enrolled, as well as larger numbers of women with endometrial or breast cancer. During the same period, 1,872 controls were enrolled to equal the number of subjects with breast cancer. The same control group was used for the ovarian cancer analysis; however, the investigators excluded 226 women with no ovaries at the time of interview and four controls whose OC use was unknown, leaving 1,642 women to serve as controls. The distribution of exposure to OCs among cases and controls is shown in Table 1.

page4image21048

Table 1. Ever-use of oral contraceptives among ovarian cancer cases and controls, Cancer and Steroid Hormone Study, 1980-1981

page4image22440

CASE-CONTROL STATUS

page4image23088

a = 93

b = 959

c = 86

d = 683

USE OF OCs

Ever Never Total

Case

V1 =179

Control

V0 =1642

Total H1 = 1052

H0 = 769 T =1821

page4image31904 page4image32064

CDC-EIS 2003: OCs and Ovarian Cancer (811-703) - Student’s Guide page 5

page5image1280

Question 4: From these data, can you calculate the risk of ovarian cancer among oral contraceptive users? Why or why not?

page5image3424

Question 5: Describe the rationale behind using the odds ratio as an estimate of the risk ratio. When is the odds ratio not an appropriate estimate of the risk ratio?

page5image6088
page6image280

CDC-EIS 2003: OCs and Ovarian Cancer (811-703) - Student’s Guide

page 6

The investigators used the data in Table 1 and the formulas shown below to calculate an odds

Measure Formula

Odds Ratio (OR)

Expected Value of Cell ‘a’ (E(a))

Mantel-Haenszel (MH) Variance

Mantel-Haenszel Chi*

Test-Based Confidence Limits
(Note: Z values for 2-sided confidence limits are:

90% = 1.645, 95% = 1.96, 99% = 2.58.)

ratio, a Mantel-Haenszel Chi, and 95% test-based confidence limits.

Calculation from Table 1

* The Mantel-Haenszel Chi with one degree of freedom (XMH) is equivalent to a “Z score” and may be used to find the 2-tailed p value from a table of areas in two tails of the standard normal curve. In this case, p = 0.097.

CDC-EIS 2003: OCs and Ovarian Cancer (811-703) - Student’s Guide page 7

page7image1296

Question 6: What special information does the odds ratio give that you do not get from Chi square and p value? What additional information do you get from the p value and Chi square? From a confidence interval?

page7image4224

Question 7: How might you describe and interpret these results?

page7image5984

In many epidemiologic studies, age is a confounding factor.

Question 8: What is confounding? Under what circumstances would age be a confounder in this study?

page7image8856

CDC-EIS 2003: OCs and Ovarian Cancer (811-703) - Student’s Guide page 8

page8image1304

PART III

In the analysis of use of oral contraceptives and ovarian cancer, age was related both to OC use and to case-control status. (OC users were younger than never-users; case-patients were younger than controls.) Therefore, the investigators decided to stratify the data by age

and calculate stratum-specific and, if appropriate, summary statistics of the stratified data. The Mantel-Haenszel (MH) procedure is a popular method for calculating a summary odds ratio and test of significance for stratified data.

Question 9: What is stratification? Why stratify data? How do you decide on which variables to stratify?

page8image8280

Question 10: What is effect modification? How do you look for it?

page8image10120

Question 11a: Using the data in Table 2, calculate the odds ratio for the 40- to 49-year age stratum.

page8image12240

Question 11b: Using the data in Table 2, calculate the expected value of cell A for the 40- to 49-year age stratum.

page8image14584

CDC-EIS 2003: OCs and Ovarian Cancer (811-703) - Student’s Guide page 9

page9image1384 page9image1544

Table 2. Ever-use Hormone

Ages 20-39 years

Ever user Never user Total

Ages 40-49 years

Ever user Never user Total

Ages 50-54 years

Ever user Never user Total

of oral contraceptives and risk of ovarian cancer, stratified by age, Cancer and Steroid Study, 1980-1981

page9image6312

Case Control Total H1=331

OR = 0.69 Expected(a) = 48.73 MH variance = 6.66

MH Chi = -1.06
95% CLs = 0.34, 1.38

OR =
Expected(a) =
MH variance = 13.39

MH Chi =
95% CLs = 0.38, 1.10

OR = 0.61 Expected(a) = 23.06 MH variance = 12.91

MH Chi = -1.69
95% CLs = 0.34, 1.08

46

285

12

51

V1 =58

V0 =336

H0=63 T=394

Case Control Total H1=493

page9image18456

30

463

30

301

page9image23392 page9image23552

V1 =60

Case

V1 =61

V0 =764

Control

V0 =542

H0=331 T=824

Total H1 = 228

H0 = 375 T=603

17

211

44

331

page9image31928

Question 11c: Using the data in Table 2, calculate the Mantel-Haenszel chi for the 40- to 49-year age stratum.

page9image33992

CDC-EIS 2003: OCs and Ovarian Cancer (811-703) - Student’s Guide

page 10

page10image1752

The investigators had been taught to look for effect modification before looking for confounding.

Question12: Doyouthinkageisaneffectmodifieroftheoralcontraceptiveandovariancancer association?

page10image4144

The investigators concluded that age was not an effect modifier. They therefore decided to control for confounding by calculating an odds ratio adjusted for age, also called a summary odds ratio or Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio, using the following formula:

They also calculated a Mantel-Haenszel chi, from which they found a p-value. Finally, they calculated a 95% confidence interval of 0.45 to 0.92.

page10image8496 page10image8656 page10image8816 page10image9240 page10image9400 page10image9560 page10image9720 page10image9880 page10image10040 page10image10200 page10image10624 page10image11048 page10image11208 page10image11368 page10image11792 page10image11952 page10image12112

Question 13a: Using the stratified data in Table 2, calculate the summary odds ratio adjusted for age.

page10image13992

Question 13b: Based on the Mantel-Haenszel chi of -2.55 and the attached table of the standard normal curve, determine the 2-tailed p-value.

page10image16336

CDC-EIS 2003: OCs and Ovarian Cancer (811-703) - Student’s Guide page 11

page11image1288

Question 14: In terms of the null hypothesis and statistical significance, what do you infer from the p- value? What do you infer from the confidence interval of 0.45–0.92?

page11image3752

Question15: Doyouthinkageisaconfoundingvariableinthisanalysisoftheassociationbetween OC use and ovarian cancer?

page11image5496

Question16: Whataretheotherwaysofeliminatingconfoundinginastudy?

page11image6936

CDC-EIS 2003: OCs and Ovarian Cancer (811-703) - Student’s Guide page 12

page12image1368

In the introduction to this case study, pregnancy was described as apparently protective against ovarian cancer. The investigators were interested in seeing whether the association

between OC use and ovarian cancer differed for women of different parity. Table 3 shows parity-specific data.

page12image4448

Table 3. Ever-use of oral contraceptives and risk of ovarian cancer, by parity*, CASH Study, 1980-1981 Age-adjusted odds ratios

page12image5880

Parity Use of OCs

0 Ever user Never user

1-2 Ever user Never user

$3 Ever user Never user

# Case-patients

20 25

42 26

30 35

# Controls

67 80

369 199

520 400

(95% confidence intervals)

0.3 (0.1-0.8) 0.8 (0.4-1.5) 0.7 (0.4-1.2)

page12image12448 page12image12608 page12image12768 page12image12928 page12image13088

* Excludes seven controls (four never-users and three ever-users) and one case (ever-user) with unknown parity.

page12image14400

Question17: IsthereanyevidenceforeffectmodificationinthedatapresentedinTable3?

page12image15680

CDC-EIS 2003: OCs and Ovarian Cancer (811-703) - Student’s Guide page 13 AREAS IN TWO TAILS OF THE STANDARD NORMAL CURVE

page13image1776 page13image1936 page13image2096

Z 0.00

  1. 0.0  1.000

  2. 0.1  0.920

  3. 0.2  0.841

  4. 0.3  0.764

  5. 0.4  0.689

  6. 0.5  0.617

  7. 0.6  0.549

  8. 0.7  0.484

  9. 0.8  0.424

  10. 0.9  0.368

  1. 1.0  0.317

  2. 1.1  0.271

  3. 1.2  0.230

  4. 1.3  0.194

  5. 1.4  0.162

  6. 1.5  0.134

  7. 1.6  0.110

  8. 1.7  0.089

  9. 1.8  0.072

  10. 1.9  0.057

  1. 2.0  0.046

  2. 2.1  0.036

  3. 2.2  0.028

  4. 2.3  0.021

  5. 2.4  0.016

  6. 2.5  0.012

  7. 2.6  0.009

  8. 2.7  0.007

  9. 2.8  0.005

  10. 2.9  0.004

  1. 3.0  0.003

  2. 3.1  0.002

  3. 3.2  0.001

  4. 3.3  0.001

  5. 3.4  0.001

  6. 3.5  0.0005

  7. 3.6  0.0003

  8. 3.7  0.0002

  9. 3.8  0.0001

$3.9 <0.0001

0.01 0.02

0.992 0.984 0.912 0.904 0.834 0.826 0.757 0.749 0.682 0.674

0.610 0.603 0.542 0.535 0.478 0.472 0.418 0.412 0.363 0.358

0.312 0.308 0.267 0.263 0.226 0.222 0.190 0.187 0.159 0.156

0.131 0.129 0.107 0.105 0.087 0.085 0.070 0.069 0.056 0.055

0.044 0.043 0.035 0.034 0.027 0.026 0.021 0.020 0.016 0.016

0.012 0.012 0.009 0.009 0.007 0.007 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.004

0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001

0.03 0.04

0.976 0.968 0.897 0.889 0.818 0.810 0.741 0.734 0.667 0.660

0.596 0.589 0.529 0.522 0.465 0.459 0.407 0.401 0.352 0.347

0.303 0.298 0.258 0.254 0.219 0.215 0.184 0.180 0.153 0.150

0.126 0.124 0.103 0.101 0.084 0.082 0.067 0.066 0.054 0.052

0.042 0.041 0.033 0.032 0.026 0.025 0.020 0.019 0.015 0.015

0.011 0.011 0.009 0.008 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.003

0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001

0.05 0.06

0.060 0.952 0.881 0.873 0.803 0.795 0.726 0.719 0.653 0.646

0.582 0.575 0.516 0.509 0.453 0.447 0.395 0.390 0.342 0.337

0.294 0.289 0.250 0.246 0.211 0.208 0.177 0.174 0.147 0.144

0.121 0.119 0.099 0.097 0.080 0.078 0.064 0.063 0.051 0.050

0.040 0.039 0.032 0.031 0.024 0.024 0.019 0.018 0.014 0.014

0.011 0.010 0.008 0.008 0.006 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.003

0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001

0.07 0.08

0.944 0.936 0.865 0.857 0.787 0.779 0.711 0.704 0.638 0.631

0.569 0.562 0.503 0.497 0.441 0.435 0.384 0.379 0.332 0.327

0.285 0.280 0.242 0.238 0.204 0.201 0.171 0.168 0.142 0.139

0.116 0.114 0.095 0.093 0.077 0.075 0.061 0.060 0.049 0.048*

0.038 0.038 0.030 0.029 0.023 0.023 0.018 0.017 0.014 0.013

0.010 0.010 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.003

0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0.0004 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001

0.09

0.928 0.849 0.772 0.697 0.624

0.555 0.490 0.430 0.373 0.322

0.276 0.234 0.197 0.165 0.136

0.112 0.091 0.073 0.059 0.047

0.037 0.029 0.022 0.017 0.013

0.010 0.007 0.005 0.004 0.003

0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0005

0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001

page13image55304 page13image55464

* Use this table to find the 2-tailed p value which corresponds to a Z score or Chi (square root of chi- square) with 1 degree of freedom. For a given value of Z or chi (say, 1.98), find that value to 1 decimal place in the left-most column (1.9). The p value will be in the 1.9 row. Now find the second decimal of your Z or chi across the top row (0.08). The p value is in that column. The 2-tailed p value is at the intersection of the row and column you've identified (for 1.9 and 0.08, p2 = 0.048).

To find the p value for a chi-square with 1 degree of freedom (including any chi-square from a simple 2-by- 2 table, the McNemar chi-square from a matched 2-by-2 table, and the Mantel-Haenszel chi-square from stratified 2-by-2 tables), simply take the square root of the chi-square, then proceed as above.

CDC-EIS 2003: OCs and Ovarian Cancer (811-703) - Student’s Guide page 14

page14image1408

PART IV - CONCLUSION

In their published report, the investigators wrote the following about the possible effect modification by parity:

"Parity appeared to be an effect modifier of the association between oral contraceptive use and the risk of ovarian cancer...[Table 3]. Among nulliparous women, the age-standardized odds ratio was 0.3 (95% confidence interval: 0.1-0.8). Among parous women, however, the odds ratios were closer to, but still less than, 1.0....It

is possible, therefore, that oral contraceptives are most protective for women not already protected by pregnancy."

Although this case study deals with the data collected over the first 10 months (phase 1) of the study, an additional 19 months of data (phase 2) were collected and analyzed subsequently. The following table summarizes the apparent role of parity as an effect modifier in the two phases of the study.

page14image10080

Table 4. Age-adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals for the association of oral contraceptive use and ovarian cancer, by parity and phase of study, CASH Study, 1980-1982

page14image11912

Parity

0 1-2 $3

Total

Phase 1 (months 1-10) aOR (95% CI)

0.3 (0.1-0.8) 0.8 (0.4-1.5) 0.7 (0.4-1.2) 0.6 (0.4-0.9)

Phase 2 (months 11-29) aOR (95% CI)

0.7 (0.5-1.2) 0.5 (0.3-0.7) 0.5 (0.4-0.8) 0.5 (0.4-0.7)

Total (months 1-29)

aOR (95% CI) 0.7 (0.4-1.0) 0.5 (0.4-0.8) 0.6 (0.4-0.8) 0.6 (0.5-0.7)

page14image18224 page14image18384 page14image18544 page14image18704 page14image18864 page14image19024 page14image19184 page14image19344 page14image19504 page14image19664 page14image19824

On the basis of the full study results, it appeared that the effect of oral contraceptives on ovarian cancer was not substantially different for nulliparous women and for parous women.

Although there were no published studies of oral contraceptives and ovarian cancer when this study was launched, there were several by the time this study was published. Almost all showed an apparently protective effect of oral contraceptives on ovarian cancer.

Question 18: What are the public health and/or policy implications of the apparently protective effect of oral contraceptives on ovarian cancer?

page14image26320

 

CDC-EIS 2003: OCs and Ovarian Cancer (811-703) - Student’s Guide page 15

References – CASH Study

  1. Centers for Disease Control. Oral contraceptive use and the risk of ovarian cancer: the Centers for Disease Control Cancer and Steroid Hormone Study. JAMA 1983;249:1596-9.

  2. Centers for Disease Control. The reduction in risk of ovarian cancer associated with oral contraceptive use: the Cancer and Steroid Hormone Study of the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. N Engl J Med 1987;316:650-5.

References - Data Analysis, Confounding, Effect Modification

  1. Dicker RC. Analyzing and Interpreting Data. In: Gregg MB. Field Epidemiology, 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

  2. Rothman KJ. Epidemiology: an introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

page15image7496

Subject Mathematics
Due By (Pacific Time) 01/30/2015 11:00 am
Report DMCA
TutorRating
pallavi

Chat Now!

out of 1971 reviews
More..
amosmm

Chat Now!

out of 766 reviews
More..
PhyzKyd

Chat Now!

out of 1164 reviews
More..
rajdeep77

Chat Now!

out of 721 reviews
More..
sctys

Chat Now!

out of 1600 reviews
More..
sharadgreen

Chat Now!

out of 770 reviews
More..
topnotcher

Chat Now!

out of 766 reviews
More..
XXXIAO

Chat Now!

out of 680 reviews
More..
All Rights Reserved. Copyright by AceMyHW.com - Copyright Policy