Risk Prediction for Epithelial Ovarian Cancer in 11 United States-Based Case-Control Studies: Incorporation of Epidemiologic Risk Factors and 17 Confirmed Genetic Loci.

Previously developed models for predicting absolute risk of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer have included a limited number of risk factors and have had low discriminatory power (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) < 0.60). Because of this, we developed and internally validated a relative risk prediction model that incorporates 17 established epidemiologic risk factors and 17 genome-wide significant single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) using data from 11 case-control studies in the United States (5,793 cases; 9,512 controls) from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (data accrued from 1992 to 2010). We developed a hierarchical logistic regression model for predicting case-control status that included imputation of missing data. We randomly divided the data into an 80% training sample and used the remaining 20% for model evaluation. The AUC for the full model was 0.664. A reduced model without SNPs performed similarly (AUC = 0.649). Both models performed better than a baseline model that included age and study site only (AUC = 0.563). The best predictive power was obtained in the full model among women younger than 50 years of age (AUC = 0.714); however, the addition of SNPs increased the AUC the most for women older than 50 years of age (AUC = 0.638 vs. 0.616). Adapting this improved model to estimate absolute risk and evaluating it in prospective data sets is warranted.

Men's knowledge and attitudes about cervical cancer screening in Kenya.

BACKGROUND: A number of studies have identified male involvement as an important factor affecting reproductive health outcomes, particularly in the areas of family planning, antenatal care, and HIV care. As access to cervical cancer screening programs improves in resource-poor settings, particularly through the integration of HIV and cervical cancer services, it is important to understand the role of male partner support in women's utilization of screening and treatment. METHODS: We administered an oral survey to 110 men in Western Kenya about their knowledge and attitudes regarding cervical cancer and cervical cancer screening. Men who had female partners eligible for cervical cancer screening were recruited from government health facilities where screening was offered free of charge. RESULTS: Specific knowledge about cervical cancer risk factors, prevention, and treatment was low. Only half of the men perceived their partners to be at risk for cervical cancer, and many reported that a positive screen would be emotionally upsetting. Nevertheless, all participants said they would encourage their partners to get screened. CONCLUSIONS: Future interventions should tailor cervical cancer educational opportunities towards men. Further research is needed among both men and couples to better understand barriers to male support for screening and treatment and to determine how to best involve men in cervical cancer prevention efforts.