Background: Although many studies have investigated the association between anthropometry and ovarian cancer risk, results have been inconsistent.

Methods: The associations of height, body mass index (BMI), and ovarian cancer risk were examined in a pooled analysis of primary data from 12 prospective cohort studies from North America and Europe. The study population consisted of 531,583 women among whom 2,036 epithelial ovarian cancer cases were identified. To summarize associations, study-specific relative risks (RR) were estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model and then combined using a random-effects model.

Results: Women with height ≥1.70 m had a pooled multivariate RR of 1.38 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.16-1.65] compared with those with height <1.60 m. For the same comparison, multivariate RRs were 1.79 (95% CI, 1.07-3.00) for premenopausal and 1.25 (95% CI, 1.04-1.49) for postmenopausal ovarian cancer (Pinteraction = 0.14). The multivariate RR for women with a BMI ≥30 kg/m2 was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.86-1.22) compared with women with a BMI from 18.5 to 23 kg/m2. For the same comparison, multivariate RRs were 1.72 (95% CI, 1.02-2.89) for premenopausal and 1.07 (95% CI, 0.87-1.33) for postmenopausal women (Pinteraction = 0.07). There was no statistically significant heterogeneity between studies with respect to height or BMI. BMI in early adulthood was not associated with ovarian cancer risk.

Conclusion: Height was associated with an increased ovarian cancer risk, especially in premenopausal women. BMI was not associated with ovarian cancer risk in postmenopausal women but was positively associated with risk in premenopausal women. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(4):902–12)

With >200,000 cases diagnosed worldwide in 2002 ovarian cancer is the sixth most frequent type of cancer in women (1). Ovarian cancer is diagnosed often in advanced stages and survival rates are poor (2, 3). Use of oral contraceptives, parity, tubal ligation, and hysterectomy have been associated with decreased risk, while use of hormone replacement therapy, a family history of ovarian cancer and infertility have been associated with increased risk of ovarian cancer (4-6).

Height has been positively associated with several types of cancer (7, 8). Several studies have investigated the association with ovarian cancer risk (9-22), but results are inconsistent.

Obesity is an important risk factor for many cancers; the evidence is strongest for breast, colorectal, endometrial, gallbladder, kidney, pancreas, and gastric cardia cancer and esophageal adenocarcinoma (23, 24). Obesity might be a risk factor for ovarian cancer also, because several clinical conditions (e.g., polycystic ovarian syndrome and infertility) have been associated with both obesity and ovarian cancer (5, 25-27). In a recent review, it was concluded that obesity is associated with a modestly increased risk of ovarian cancer. The association was heterogeneous and stronger in case-control studies than in prospective studies, however (28).

Given the observed heterogeneity in results across studies, we investigated the association between height and body mass index (BMI) and risk of ovarian cancer in 12 cohort studies (13, 19, 29-38), meeting the inclusion criteria for participation in the analyses of dietary factors and ovarian cancer risk as part of the Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer. We also investigated whether the associations with height and BMI varied by several risk factors for ovarian cancer. Additionally, because particular histologic subtypes of ovarian cancer resemble different gynecologic tissue (39), behave different clinically, and may have genetic differences (40), we studied whether the associations differed by histologic subtype.

Population

A pooled analysis of the primary data from 12 prospective cohort studies (13, 19, 29-38) based in North America and western Europe was conducted in the Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer. The methods have been described in detail elsewhere (41). To be included in the ovarian cancer analyses, each study needed to have a publication on a diet and cancer association, a minimum of 50 incident ovarian cancer cases, an assessment of usual food and nutrient intake and validation of the dietary assessment tool, or a closely related instrument (Table 1). The current analysis used the same data sets that have been used in the analyses of dietary factors and ovarian cancer risk in the Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer. As done previously, the follow-up of the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) was divided into two sections where part A (NHSa) followed individuals from the completion of the 1980 food frequency questionnaire to 1986 and part B (NHSb) followed individuals from the completion of the 1986 questionnaire to 2000. The standard theory of survival data has established that blocks of person-time in different time periods are asymptotically uncorrelated regardless of the extent to which they are derived from the same subjects (42). Thus, pooling estimates from these two time periods, and the cases that arise within them, produces estimates and estimated SEs that are as valid as those from a single combined period.

Table 1.

Study characteristics and mean height, weight, and BMI at baseline and at early adulthood by cohort study in the ovarian cancer analyses, the Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer

CohortCountryFollow-up yearsBaseline cohort size*Baseline age range (y)No. cases
Mean (SD)
TotalPremenopausal at diagnosisPostmenopausalHeight (m)Weight (kg)BMI at baseline (kg/m2)BMI (kg/m2) in early adulthood
Adventist Health Study United States 1976-1988 16,254 27-90 43 37 1.63 (0.07) 65.4 (12.8) 24.5 (4.5) NA 
Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project Follow-up Study United States 1987-1999 29,682 40-93 126 116 1.62 (0.06) 66.5 (12.3) 25.2 (4.4) NA 
Canadian National Breast Screening Study Canada 1980-2000 49,613 40-60 221 27 91 1.62 (0.06) 64.9 (11.3) 24.8 (4.1) 21.0 (2.7) 
Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort United States 1992-2001 59,166 40-87 265 255 1.64 (0.06) 69.8 (12.9) 25.7 (4.6) 20.7 (2.8) 
Iowa Women's Health Study United States 1986-2001 27,952 52-71 205 NA§ 205 1.63 (0.06) 69.4 (13.0) 26.2 (4.7) 21.0 (3.0) 
The Netherlands Cohort Study The Netherlands 1986-1995 62,412 55-69 197 NA§ 197 1.65 (0.06) 68.8 (9.9) 25.2 (3.4) 21.4 (2.7) 
New York State Cohort United States 1980-1987 21,183 15-107 72 NA NA 1.62 (0.07) 65.0 (12.0) 24.7 (4.3) NA 
New York University Women's Health Study United States 1985-1998 12,089 31-70 64 13 39 1.62 (0.07) 66.3 (12.3) 25.0 (4.4) NA 
NHSa United States 1980-1986 78,066 34-67 118 43 50 1.64 (0.06) 65.7 (12.5) 24.5 (4.4) 21.4 (3.0) 
NHSb United States 1986-2002 57,303 40-67 306 19 189 1.64 (0.06) 68.1 (13.3) 25.4 (4.7) 21.4 (2.9) 
NHS II United States 1991-2002 86,279 26-46 46 46 NA 1.65 (0.07) 67.3 (14.7) 24.7 (5.1) 21.3 (3.2) 
Swedish Mammography Cohort Sweden 1987-2004 57,430 38-76 273 89 1.64 (0.06) 66.8 (10.8) 24.8 (3.8) NA 
Women's Health Study United States 1993-2004 31,457 38-89 100 68 1.64 (0.06) 70.1 (14.0) 26.0 (4.9) NA 
Total   531,583  2,036 170 1,336     
CohortCountryFollow-up yearsBaseline cohort size*Baseline age range (y)No. cases
Mean (SD)
TotalPremenopausal at diagnosisPostmenopausalHeight (m)Weight (kg)BMI at baseline (kg/m2)BMI (kg/m2) in early adulthood
Adventist Health Study United States 1976-1988 16,254 27-90 43 37 1.63 (0.07) 65.4 (12.8) 24.5 (4.5) NA 
Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project Follow-up Study United States 1987-1999 29,682 40-93 126 116 1.62 (0.06) 66.5 (12.3) 25.2 (4.4) NA 
Canadian National Breast Screening Study Canada 1980-2000 49,613 40-60 221 27 91 1.62 (0.06) 64.9 (11.3) 24.8 (4.1) 21.0 (2.7) 
Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort United States 1992-2001 59,166 40-87 265 255 1.64 (0.06) 69.8 (12.9) 25.7 (4.6) 20.7 (2.8) 
Iowa Women's Health Study United States 1986-2001 27,952 52-71 205 NA§ 205 1.63 (0.06) 69.4 (13.0) 26.2 (4.7) 21.0 (3.0) 
The Netherlands Cohort Study The Netherlands 1986-1995 62,412 55-69 197 NA§ 197 1.65 (0.06) 68.8 (9.9) 25.2 (3.4) 21.4 (2.7) 
New York State Cohort United States 1980-1987 21,183 15-107 72 NA NA 1.62 (0.07) 65.0 (12.0) 24.7 (4.3) NA 
New York University Women's Health Study United States 1985-1998 12,089 31-70 64 13 39 1.62 (0.07) 66.3 (12.3) 25.0 (4.4) NA 
NHSa United States 1980-1986 78,066 34-67 118 43 50 1.64 (0.06) 65.7 (12.5) 24.5 (4.4) 21.4 (3.0) 
NHSb United States 1986-2002 57,303 40-67 306 19 189 1.64 (0.06) 68.1 (13.3) 25.4 (4.7) 21.4 (2.9) 
NHS II United States 1991-2002 86,279 26-46 46 46 NA 1.65 (0.07) 67.3 (14.7) 24.7 (5.1) 21.3 (3.2) 
Swedish Mammography Cohort Sweden 1987-2004 57,430 38-76 273 89 1.64 (0.06) 66.8 (10.8) 24.8 (3.8) NA 
Women's Health Study United States 1993-2004 31,457 38-89 100 68 1.64 (0.06) 70.1 (14.0) 26.0 (4.9) NA 
Total   531,583  2,036 170 1,336     
*

Baseline cohort size determined after specific exclusions (that is, missing information on height and weight, prior cancer diagnosis other than nonmelanoma skin cancer at baseline, had a bilateral oophorectomy before baseline, or had loge-transformed energy intakes beyond 3 SDs from the study-specific loge-transformed mean energy intake of the population).

Not applicable, because no information was available on weight in early adulthood in the questionnaire.

The Canadian National Breast Screening Study and The Netherlands Cohort Study are analyzed as case-cohort studies so the baseline cohort size does not reflect the above exclusions.

§

Not applicable because this study does not include women that were premenopausal at baseline.

Not applicable, because information on menopausal status was not available.

NHSb is not included as part of total cohort size because they are included in NHSa.

Exposure Assessment

Information on current height and weight was self-reported by the subjects and collected from the baseline self-administered questionnaires within each individual study. Weight during early adulthood (asked in the questionnaires as either age 18 or 20) was also collected in six of the studies (Table 1). Baseline BMI and BMI during early adulthood were calculated using baseline weight and weight at early adulthood, respectively, divided by height at baseline squared (kg/m2). Information on dietary and nondietary factors was also collected on the baseline self-administered questionnaires within each study. The majority of studies obtained information on other known and suspected risk factors for ovarian cancer, including several reproductive factors, energy intake, smoking status, and physical activity.

The association between BMI and ovarian cancer has been observed to vary according to menopausal status in several studies (28). Most studies had information on menopausal status at baseline only. To assign changing menopause status during follow-up, an algorithm was developed based on an analysis of 42,531 NHS participants who were premenopausal in 1976 and remained premenopausal or had natural menopause by 1992. Using Kaplan-Meier (43) curves for time to menopause, we determined the ages at which ∼50% (age 51 years) and 90% (age 55 years) of the women had become postmenopausal. These ages were used to define the upper and lower bounds for the premenopausal and postmenopausal categories, respectively, in the algorithm. The menopausal status of women whose ages were between 51 and 55 years was considered uncertain (44).

Exclusions

In addition to applying the exclusions that each study had predefined for their cohort, we excluded individuals if they had a prior cancer diagnosis other than nonmelanoma skin cancer at baseline, had a bilateral oophorectomy before baseline, had loge-transformed energy intakes beyond 3 SDs from the study-specific loge-transformed mean energy intake of their respective population, or had missing information on weight or height. For the analyses of height, BMI at baseline, and BMI during early adulthood, we also excluded individuals with a BMI at baseline of <18.5 kg/m2 and a BMI >50 kg/m2. In the analysis regarding BMI during early adulthood, individuals whose BMI at that time was <14 or >50 kg/m2 were excluded. The Adventist Health Study (37) and New York State Cohort (29) did not obtain information on oophorectomy at baseline; thus, we were not able to exclude individuals who had a bilateral oophorectomy before baseline in these studies.

Outcome Assessment

Participants were followed from the date of the baseline questionnaire until date of diagnosis of ovarian cancer, date of death, date the participant moved out of the study area (if applicable), or end of follow-up, whichever came first. Invasive epithelial ovarian cancer was ascertained by self-report with subsequent medical record review (30, 36, 45), cancer registry linkage (13, 19, 29, 34, 35), or both (32, 33, 37, 38). Some studies also obtained incident outcome and mortality information from death registries (13, 29-34, 36, 38). Invasive epithelial ovarian cancer was defined by International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, First Edition code 183.0 or second edition C56. Borderline and nonepithelial ovarian cancer cases were not included as cases. Histologic information was ascertained from the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology morphology codes (46) or the histologic information supplied by individual studies.

Statistical Analysis

Anthropometric measures were modeled continuously and categorically as predefined categories. Height was classified into the following categories: <1.60, 1.60 to <1.65, 1.65 to <1.70, and ≥1.70 m. BMI at baseline was classified into the following categories: 18.5 to <23, 23 to <25, 25 to <27, 27 to <30, and ≥30 kg/m2. The combined categories 25 to <27 and 27 to <30 kg/m2 correspond to the “overweight” category as defined by WHO, whereas the ≥30 kg/m2 category corresponds to the obese categories as defined by WHO (47). BMI in early adulthood was classified into the following categories: <18.5, 18.5 to <21, 21 to <23, 23 to <25, and ≥25 kg/m2.

Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated by Cox proportional hazards models for each individual study. The model included stratification by age at baseline (in years) and the year the baseline questionnaire was returned and treated the follow-up time (in days) as the timescale, resulting in a time metric that simultaneously accounted for age, calendar time, and time since entry into the study. Multivariate RRs were adjusted for age at menarche, menopausal status, oral contraceptive use, hormone replacement therapy use among postmenopausal women, parity, smoking status, physical activity, and energy intake. A missing indicator variable for each covariate was also generated within a study, if needed. In general, data on covariates were missing for <10% of each study population (41).

Two of these studies, the Canadian National Breast Screening Study and The Netherlands Cohort Study, were analyzed as case-cohort studies (48) because the investigators of these two studies had processed questionnaires for only a random sample of the cohort at baseline plus all incident cases.

SAS software (49) was used to analyze each cohort. The study-specific results were pooled using a random-effects model (50), weighted by the inverse of their variance. Between-studies heterogeneity was investigated using the Q test statistic (50, 51). To test whether there was a linear trend in the risk of disease with increasing height or BMI, a variable with values corresponding to the median value for each exposure category was included in the model and the coefficient for that variable was evaluated using the Wald test. If heterogeneity was present between studies, mixed-effects meta-regression analyses (52) were conducted to evaluate whether there was heterogeneity by follow-up time, menopausal status, and age at diagnosis.

To assess visually whether the association between height, BMI, and the risk of ovarian cancer was linear, we examined nonparametric regression curves using stepwise restricted cubic splines (53, 54). For these analyses, all studies were combined into a single data set and analysis was stratified by study. To test for nonlinearity, the model including the linear and cubic spline terms selected by a stepwise regression procedure was compared with the model with only the linear term using the likelihood ratio test.

Separate analyses were conducted for serous, endometrioid, and mucinous subtypes among those studies having >10 cases of the specific histologic subtype. We tested whether results differed across the subtypes using a contrast test (41, 55).

Table 1 presents the study-specific characteristics of the 12 cohorts and mean height, weight, BMI at baseline, and BMI in early adulthood per cohort. Studies had a maximum follow-up time ranging from 7 years in the New York State Cohort to 22 years in the NHS. In total, 2,036 cases of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer were recorded in the 531,583 women in the 12 cohort studies, of whom 170 diagnoses occurred in premenopausal women and 1,336 occurred in postmenopausal women. The mean BMI at baseline was the lowest in the Adventist Health Study and NHSa (24.5 kg/m2) and the highest in the Iowa Women's Health Study (26.0 kg/m2). BMI in early adulthood ranged from 20.7 kg/m2 (Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort) to 21.4 kg/m2 (in three cohort studies).

Height was positively associated with the risk of ovarian cancer (Table 2). The pooled multivariate adjusted RR for women at least 1.70 m tall was 1.38 (95% CI, 1.16-1.65) compared with women shorter than 1.60 m (Ptrend < 0.001). Although the study-specific RRs ranged from 0.36 in the Adventist Health Study to 3.29 in the NHS II, almost all study-specific results for this comparison were higher than one (Fig. 1; P for between-studies heterogeneity = 0.14). The nonparametric regression curve and a formal test showed that the association between height and risk of ovarian cancer was reasonably linear (P for curvature = 0.27). The RR per 5 cm increment in height was 1.10 (95% CI, 1.05-1.15).

Table 2.

Pooled RRs and 95% CIs for ovarian cancer according to height, the Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer

Height per 5 cm incrementP for between studies-heterogeneityHeight, categorical (m)
PtrendP for between studies-heterogeneity*
All females
   <1.60 1.60 to <1.65 1.65 to <1.70 ≥1.70   
    n cases   455 570 571 440   
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.10 (1.05-1.15) 0.15 1 (Reference) 1.06 (0.94-1.20) 1.17 (1.03-1.33) 1.38 (1.17-1.64) <0.001 0.15 
    Multivariate adjusted RR,,§ (95% CI) 1.10 (1.05-1.15) 0.13 1 (Reference) 1.06 (0.94-1.21) 1.18 (1.04-1.34) 1.38 (1.16-1.65) <0.001 0.14 
Postmenopausal females (at baseline)         
    n cases   314 372 377 273   
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.07 (1.02-1.13) 0.25 1 (Reference) 1.01 (0.87-1.18) 1.13 (0.97-1.32) 1.23 (1.04-1.46) 0.006 0.47 
    Multivariate adjusted RR,,§ (95% CI) 1.07 (1.02-1.13) 0.21 1 (Reference) 1.02 (0.87-1.19) 1.14 (0.98-1.34) 1.25 (1.04-1.49) 0.004 0.42 
Premenopausal females (at diagnosis)         
    n cases   29 32 43 44   
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.20 (1.05-1.37) 0.43 1 (Reference) 0.90 (0.53-1.53) 1.16 (0.66-2.04) 1.79 (1.07-2.97) 0.01 0.58 
    Multivariate adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.20 (1.05-1.37) 0.48 1 (Reference) 0.92 (0.54-1.59) 1.20 (0.67-2.13) 1.79 (1.07-3.00) 0.009 0.62 
All females, serous carcinoma**         
    n cases   201 275 293 215   
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.12 (1.06-1.18) 0.32 1 (Reference) 1.12 (0.93-1.35) 1.30 (1.07-1.57) 1.43 (1.17-1.75) <0.001 0.57 
    Multivariate adjusted RR,,§ (95% CI) 1.13 (1.06-1.20) 0.22 1 (Reference) 1.14 (0.95-1.37) 1.33 (1.10-1.60) 1.47 (1.20-1.81) <0.001 0.53 
All females, endometrioid carcinoma**,††         
    n cases   49 74 63 67   
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.18 (1.05-1.32) 0.29 1 (Reference) 1.25 (0.86-1.80) 1.15 (0.78-1.69) 1.75 (1.18-2.60) 0.002 0.87 
    Multivariate adjusted RR,,§ (95% CI) 1.18 (1.06-1.32) 0.33 1 (Reference) 1.28 (0.88-1.86) 1.21 (0.82-1.78) 1.76 (1.18-2.64) 0.002 0.90 
All females, mucinous carcinoma**,‡‡         
    n cases   30 32 30 28   
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.07 (0.92-1.25) 0.32 1 (Reference) 0.21 (0.48-1.37) 0.09 (0.49-1.63) 1.12 (0.64-1.94) 0.35 0.55 
    Multivariate adjusted RR,,§ (95% CI) 1.05 (0.90-1.22) 0.51 1 (Reference) 0.85 (0.51-1.44) 0.89 (0.49-1.61) 1.12 (0.64-1.94) 0.42 0.61 
Height per 5 cm incrementP for between studies-heterogeneityHeight, categorical (m)
PtrendP for between studies-heterogeneity*
All females
   <1.60 1.60 to <1.65 1.65 to <1.70 ≥1.70   
    n cases   455 570 571 440   
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.10 (1.05-1.15) 0.15 1 (Reference) 1.06 (0.94-1.20) 1.17 (1.03-1.33) 1.38 (1.17-1.64) <0.001 0.15 
    Multivariate adjusted RR,,§ (95% CI) 1.10 (1.05-1.15) 0.13 1 (Reference) 1.06 (0.94-1.21) 1.18 (1.04-1.34) 1.38 (1.16-1.65) <0.001 0.14 
Postmenopausal females (at baseline)         
    n cases   314 372 377 273   
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.07 (1.02-1.13) 0.25 1 (Reference) 1.01 (0.87-1.18) 1.13 (0.97-1.32) 1.23 (1.04-1.46) 0.006 0.47 
    Multivariate adjusted RR,,§ (95% CI) 1.07 (1.02-1.13) 0.21 1 (Reference) 1.02 (0.87-1.19) 1.14 (0.98-1.34) 1.25 (1.04-1.49) 0.004 0.42 
Premenopausal females (at diagnosis)         
    n cases   29 32 43 44   
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.20 (1.05-1.37) 0.43 1 (Reference) 0.90 (0.53-1.53) 1.16 (0.66-2.04) 1.79 (1.07-2.97) 0.01 0.58 
    Multivariate adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.20 (1.05-1.37) 0.48 1 (Reference) 0.92 (0.54-1.59) 1.20 (0.67-2.13) 1.79 (1.07-3.00) 0.009 0.62 
All females, serous carcinoma**         
    n cases   201 275 293 215   
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.12 (1.06-1.18) 0.32 1 (Reference) 1.12 (0.93-1.35) 1.30 (1.07-1.57) 1.43 (1.17-1.75) <0.001 0.57 
    Multivariate adjusted RR,,§ (95% CI) 1.13 (1.06-1.20) 0.22 1 (Reference) 1.14 (0.95-1.37) 1.33 (1.10-1.60) 1.47 (1.20-1.81) <0.001 0.53 
All females, endometrioid carcinoma**,††         
    n cases   49 74 63 67   
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.18 (1.05-1.32) 0.29 1 (Reference) 1.25 (0.86-1.80) 1.15 (0.78-1.69) 1.75 (1.18-2.60) 0.002 0.87 
    Multivariate adjusted RR,,§ (95% CI) 1.18 (1.06-1.32) 0.33 1 (Reference) 1.28 (0.88-1.86) 1.21 (0.82-1.78) 1.76 (1.18-2.64) 0.002 0.90 
All females, mucinous carcinoma**,‡‡         
    n cases   30 32 30 28   
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.07 (0.92-1.25) 0.32 1 (Reference) 0.21 (0.48-1.37) 0.09 (0.49-1.63) 1.12 (0.64-1.94) 0.35 0.55 
    Multivariate adjusted RR,,§ (95% CI) 1.05 (0.90-1.22) 0.51 1 (Reference) 0.85 (0.51-1.44) 0.89 (0.49-1.61) 1.12 (0.64-1.94) 0.42 0.61 
*

Based on the highest category versus the reference category.

Multivariate RRs were adjusted for age at menarche (<13, 13, >13 y), oral contraceptive use (ever, never), parity (0, 1, 2, >2), BMI (<23, 23-24.9, 25-29.9, >30 kg/m2), smoking status (never, past, current), physical activity (low, medium, high), and energy intake (continuously).

Multivariate RRs were also adjusted for menopausal status at baseline.

§

Multivariate RRs were also adjusted for hormone replacement therapy use among postmenopausal women (never, past, current).

NHS II was not included in these analyses because this study has <10 cases and New York State Cohort was not included because this study had no information on menopausal status.

Only Canadian National Breast Screening Study, New York University Women's Health Study, NHSa, NHSb, and NHS II were included in the analyses because the other studies have <10 cases per study or had no premenopausal women included at baseline.

**

Adventist Health Study was not included in these analyses because information on histologic subtypes was not available.

††

New York State Cohort and New York University Women's Health Study were not included in these analyses because each study had <10 cases.

‡‡

Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project Follow-up Study, NHS II, New York State Cohort, New York University Women's Health Study, and Women's Health Study were not included because each study had <10 cases.

Figure 1.

Study-specific and pooled multivariate RRs and 95% CIs of ovarian cancer and height, category ≥1.70 versus ≤1.60 m. Black squares and horizontal lines, study-specific multivariate RRs and 95% CIs for the comparison of the highest versus the lowest category of height. The area of the black square reflects the study-specific weight (inverse of the variance). Diamond, pooled multivariate RR and 95% CI.

Figure 1.

Study-specific and pooled multivariate RRs and 95% CIs of ovarian cancer and height, category ≥1.70 versus ≤1.60 m. Black squares and horizontal lines, study-specific multivariate RRs and 95% CIs for the comparison of the highest versus the lowest category of height. The area of the black square reflects the study-specific weight (inverse of the variance). Diamond, pooled multivariate RR and 95% CI.

Close modal

The association between height and risk of ovarian cancer was stronger in premenopausal women than in postmenopausal women (P for interaction by menopausal status = 0.14). The pooled multivariate RR for continuous height (per 5 cm) and ovarian cancer risk was 1.20 (95% CI, 1.05-1.37) in premenopausal women and was 1.07 (95% CI, 1.02-1.13) in postmenopausal women. The pooled multivariate RR for the association between continuous height (per 5 cm) was 1.16 (95% CI, 1.08-1.25) in women ages <63 years at diagnosis (median age at diagnosis in these studies) and 1.08 (95% CI, 1.03-1.13) in women ages ≥63 years (P for interaction by age group = 0.08).

The association was slightly different with respect to histologic subtypes, although the difference was not statistically significant (P for difference by histologic type = 0.64). Of the total 2,036 cases, 984 cases were classified as serous carcinoma, 253 as endometrioid carcinoma, and 120 as mucinous carcinoma. Height was not associated with risk of mucinous carcinoma [RR for continuous height (per 5 cm), 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90-1.22], whereas it was positively associated with risk of serous (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.06-1.20) and endometrioid carcinoma (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.06-1.32).

BMI at baseline was not associated with the risk of ovarian cancer overall (Ptrend = 0.90; see Table 3). The study-specific results for the ≥30 kg/m2 category compared with the <23 kg/m2 category were not statistically heterogeneous (P for between studies heterogeneity = 0.21; Fig. 2). The study-specific and pooled multivariate RRs did not change substantially when energy intake and physical activity were removed from the model (data not shown). The nonparametric regression curve and a formal test did not suggest departure from linearity (P for curvature = 0.53). The pooled multivariate RR for the association between continuous BMI per 4 kg/m2 and ovarian cancer risk was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.95-1.17) in the first 5 years of follow-up and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.92-1.03) in the remaining years of follow-up (P for difference by follow-up period = 0.11). The pooled multivariate RR for women with a BMI ≥30 kg/m2 was 1.23 (95% CI, 0.87-1.74) in the first 5 years of follow-up compared with women with a BMI of 18.5 to 23.0 kg/m2. The results were similar when the first 2 years of follow-up were excluded (data not shown).

Table 3.

Pooled RRs and 95% CIs for ovarian cancer according to BMI, the Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer

BMI per 4 kg/m2 incrementP for between studies-heterogeneityBMI, categorical (kg/m2)
PtrendP for between studies-heterogeneity*
<2323 to <2525 to <2727 to <30≥30
All females          
    n cases   718 441 316 285 276   
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 0.99 (0.94-1.05) 0.10 1 (Reference) 0.89 (0.79-1.01) 0.89 (0.76-1.03) 0.88 (0.76-1.02) 0.98 (0.84-1.14) 0.60 0.31 
    Multivariate adjusted RR,,§ (95% CI) 1.01 (0.95-1.07) 0.05 1 (Reference) 0.91 (0.80-1.03) 0.91 (0.78-1.07) 0.91 (0.78-1.05) 1.03 (0.86-1.22) 0.90 0.21 
Postmenopausal females (at baseline)          
    n cases   426 291 222 206 191   
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.00 (0.94-1.07) 0.15 1 (Reference) 0.90 (0.77-1.05) 0.92 (0.78-1.09) 0.93 (0.78-1.10) 1.02 (0.83-1.25) 0.91 0.24 
    Multivariate adjusted RR,§ (95% CI) 1.02 (0.95-1.08) 0.19 1 (Reference) 0.91 (0.78-1.06) 0.95 (0.80-1.13) 0.96 (0.80-1.14) 1.07 (0.87-1.33) 0.53 0.22 
Premenopausal females (at diagnosis)          
    n cases   64 34 14 14 22   
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.10 (0.95-1.28) 0.34 1 (Reference) 1.25 (0.81-1.92) 0.95 (0.52-1.71) 1.23 (0.59-2.53) 1.62** (0.97-2.70) 0.21 0.53 
    Multivariate adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.12 (0.96-1.31) 0.32 1 (Reference) 1.29 (0.83-2.00) 0.95 (0.50-1.81) 1.28 (0.59-2.79) 1.72** (1.02-2.89) 0.13 0.49 
All females, serous carcinoma††          
    n cases   352 209 145 146 132   
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 0.98 (0.93-1.04) 0.60 1 (Reference) 0.87 (0.72-1.05) 0.85 (0.69-1.03) 0.92 (0.75-1.12) 0.91 (0.74-1.12) 0.40 0.77 
    Multivariate adjusted RR,,§ (95% CI) 1.00 (0.94-1.06) 0.55 1 (Reference) 0.88 (0.72-1.06) 0.86 (0.70-1.04) 0.93 (0.76-1.14) 0.95 (0.77-1.17) 0.64 0.78 
All females, endometrioid carcinoma††,‡‡   <23 23-<25 ≥25     
    n cases   93 62 98     
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 0.97 (0.81-1.16) 0.02 1 (Reference) 1.04 (0.71-1.53) 0.88 (0.59-1.30)   0.56 0.11 
    Multivariate adjusted RR,,§ (95% CI) 0.99 (0.82-1.19) 0.02 1 (Reference) 1.06 (0.72-1.56) 0.92 (0.62-1.36)   0.74 0.16 
All females, mucinous carcinoma††,‡‡,§§          
    n cases   40 25 55     
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.02 (0.85-1.22) 0.48 1 (Reference) 0.83 (0.50-1.36) 0.97 (0.65-1.47)   0.89 0.56 
    Multivariate adjusted RR,,§ (95% CI) 1.03 (0.84-1.27) 0.32 1 (Reference) 0.84 (0.51-1.38) 1.02 (0.66-1.57)   0.74 0.45 
BMI per 4 kg/m2 incrementP for between studies-heterogeneityBMI, categorical (kg/m2)
PtrendP for between studies-heterogeneity*
<2323 to <2525 to <2727 to <30≥30
All females          
    n cases   718 441 316 285 276   
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 0.99 (0.94-1.05) 0.10 1 (Reference) 0.89 (0.79-1.01) 0.89 (0.76-1.03) 0.88 (0.76-1.02) 0.98 (0.84-1.14) 0.60 0.31 
    Multivariate adjusted RR,,§ (95% CI) 1.01 (0.95-1.07) 0.05 1 (Reference) 0.91 (0.80-1.03) 0.91 (0.78-1.07) 0.91 (0.78-1.05) 1.03 (0.86-1.22) 0.90 0.21 
Postmenopausal females (at baseline)          
    n cases   426 291 222 206 191   
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.00 (0.94-1.07) 0.15 1 (Reference) 0.90 (0.77-1.05) 0.92 (0.78-1.09) 0.93 (0.78-1.10) 1.02 (0.83-1.25) 0.91 0.24 
    Multivariate adjusted RR,§ (95% CI) 1.02 (0.95-1.08) 0.19 1 (Reference) 0.91 (0.78-1.06) 0.95 (0.80-1.13) 0.96 (0.80-1.14) 1.07 (0.87-1.33) 0.53 0.22 
Premenopausal females (at diagnosis)          
    n cases   64 34 14 14 22   
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.10 (0.95-1.28) 0.34 1 (Reference) 1.25 (0.81-1.92) 0.95 (0.52-1.71) 1.23 (0.59-2.53) 1.62** (0.97-2.70) 0.21 0.53 
    Multivariate adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.12 (0.96-1.31) 0.32 1 (Reference) 1.29 (0.83-2.00) 0.95 (0.50-1.81) 1.28 (0.59-2.79) 1.72** (1.02-2.89) 0.13 0.49 
All females, serous carcinoma††          
    n cases   352 209 145 146 132   
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 0.98 (0.93-1.04) 0.60 1 (Reference) 0.87 (0.72-1.05) 0.85 (0.69-1.03) 0.92 (0.75-1.12) 0.91 (0.74-1.12) 0.40 0.77 
    Multivariate adjusted RR,,§ (95% CI) 1.00 (0.94-1.06) 0.55 1 (Reference) 0.88 (0.72-1.06) 0.86 (0.70-1.04) 0.93 (0.76-1.14) 0.95 (0.77-1.17) 0.64 0.78 
All females, endometrioid carcinoma††,‡‡   <23 23-<25 ≥25     
    n cases   93 62 98     
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 0.97 (0.81-1.16) 0.02 1 (Reference) 1.04 (0.71-1.53) 0.88 (0.59-1.30)   0.56 0.11 
    Multivariate adjusted RR,,§ (95% CI) 0.99 (0.82-1.19) 0.02 1 (Reference) 1.06 (0.72-1.56) 0.92 (0.62-1.36)   0.74 0.16 
All females, mucinous carcinoma††,‡‡,§§          
    n cases   40 25 55     
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.02 (0.85-1.22) 0.48 1 (Reference) 0.83 (0.50-1.36) 0.97 (0.65-1.47)   0.89 0.56 
    Multivariate adjusted RR,,§ (95% CI) 1.03 (0.84-1.27) 0.32 1 (Reference) 0.84 (0.51-1.38) 1.02 (0.66-1.57)   0.74 0.45 
*

Based on the highest category versus the reference category.

Multivariate RRs were adjusted for age at menarche (<13, 13, >13 y), oral contraceptive use (ever, never), parity (0, 1, 2, >2), smoking status (never, past, current), physical activity (low, medium, high), and energy intake (continuously), modeled identically across studies.

Multivariate RRs were also adjusted for menopausal status at baseline.

§

Multivariate RRs were also adjusted for hormone replacement therapy use among postmenopausal women (never, past, current).

NHS II was not included in these analyses because this study has <10 cases and New York State Cohort was not included because this study had no information on menopausal status.

Only Canadian National Breast Screening Study, New York University Women's Health Study, NHSa, NHSb, and NHS II (cohorts with >10 cases) were included in these analyses.

**

New York University Women's Health Study was not included in the category ≥30 because there were no cases in that category. The participants who were not cases who would have been in this highest category were included in the next highest category (25 to <30 kg/m2).

††

Adventist Health Study was not included in these analyses because information on histologic subtypes was not available.

‡‡

New York State Cohort and New York University Women's Health Study were not included in these analyses because each study had <10 cases.

§§

Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project Follow-up Study, NHS II, and Women's Health Study were not included because each study had <10 cases.

Figure 2.

Study-specific and pooled multivariate RRs and 95% CIs of ovarian cancer and BMI, category ≥30 versus ≤23 kg/m2. Black squares and horizontal lines, study-specific multivariate RRs and 95% CIs for the comparison of the highest versus the lowest category of BMI. The area of the black square reflects the study-specific weight (inverse of the variance). Diamond, pooled multivariate RR and 95% CI.

Figure 2.

Study-specific and pooled multivariate RRs and 95% CIs of ovarian cancer and BMI, category ≥30 versus ≤23 kg/m2. Black squares and horizontal lines, study-specific multivariate RRs and 95% CIs for the comparison of the highest versus the lowest category of BMI. The area of the black square reflects the study-specific weight (inverse of the variance). Diamond, pooled multivariate RR and 95% CI.

Close modal

The association between BMI at baseline and ovarian cancer risk appeared to differ by menopausal status. The P for interaction with menopausal status was 0.07. The pooled multivariate RR for continuous BMI (per 4 kg/m2) and ovarian cancer risk was 1.12 (95% CI, 0.96-1.31) in premenopausal women and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.95-1.08) in postmenopausal women. The pooled multivariate RR for the association between continuous BMI (per 4 kg/m2) and ovarian cancer risk was not different in women ages <63 years of age at diagnosis compared with women ages ≥63 years (P for difference by age group = 0.73). BMI at baseline was not associated with the risk of serous, endometrioid, or mucinous carcinomas when these endpoints were examined individually (Table 3).

Data on BMI in early adulthood were collected in six studies (Table 1), in which a total of 1,305 cases were ascertained. BMI in early adulthood was not associated with the risk of ovarian cancer overall (Table 4). The pooled multivariate RR for women with a BMI ≥25 kg/m2 at early adulthood was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.72-1.43) compared with women with a BMI <18, 5 kg/m2 (Ptrend = 0.95). The study-specific RRs were quite different (P for between studies heterogeneity = 0.14), although only one was statistically significant. The study specific RR of women with a BMI ≥25 kg/m2 at early adulthood compared with women with a BMI <18.5 kg/m2 was the highest in NHS II (RR, 2.81; 95% CI, 0.83-9.53) and the lowest in The Netherlands Cohort Study (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.21-1.43).

Table 4.

Pooled RRs and 95% CIs for ovarian cancer according to BMI in early adulthood, the Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer

BMI in early adulthood per 4 kg/m2 incrementP for between studies-heterogeneityBMI in early adulthood categorical (kg/m2)
PtrendP for between studies-heterogeneity*
<18.518.5 to <2121-<2323-<25≥25
All females,          
    n cases   175 543 348 143 96   
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.01 (0.88-1.17) 0.002 1 (Reference) 1.01 (0.92-1.30) 1.09 (0.89-1.34) 1.01 (0.76-1.34) 1.04 (0.72-1.50) 0.90 0.09 
    Multivariate adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.00 (0.87-1.15) 0.004 1 (Reference) 1.09 (0.92-1.30) 1.08 (0.88-1.33) 0.99 (0.74-1.33) 1.01 (0.72-1.43) 0.95 0.14 
    Multivariate adjusted RR§ (95% CI) 0.98 (0.87-1.11) 0.05 1 (Reference) 1.09 (0.92-1.30) 1.08 (0.88-1.31) 0.99 (0.74-1.33) 0.97 (0.73-1.30) 0.71 0.41 
Postmenopausal females          
    n cases   131 389 262 106 63   
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.00 (0.86-1.16) 0.02 1 (Reference) 1.15 (0.93-1.43) 1.17 (0.92-1.49) 1.09 (0.73-1.62) 1.06 (0.90-1.00) 0.97 0.15 
    Multivariate adjusted RR (95% CI) 0.99 (0.85-1.15) 0.03 1 (Reference) 1.14 (0.93-1.40) 1.17 (0.91-1.50) 1.11 (0.72-1.70) 1.03 (0.70-1.52) 0.92 0.21 
BMI in early adulthood per 4 kg/m2 incrementP for between studies-heterogeneityBMI in early adulthood categorical (kg/m2)
PtrendP for between studies-heterogeneity*
<18.518.5 to <2121-<2323-<25≥25
All females,          
    n cases   175 543 348 143 96   
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.01 (0.88-1.17) 0.002 1 (Reference) 1.01 (0.92-1.30) 1.09 (0.89-1.34) 1.01 (0.76-1.34) 1.04 (0.72-1.50) 0.90 0.09 
    Multivariate adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.00 (0.87-1.15) 0.004 1 (Reference) 1.09 (0.92-1.30) 1.08 (0.88-1.33) 0.99 (0.74-1.33) 1.01 (0.72-1.43) 0.95 0.14 
    Multivariate adjusted RR§ (95% CI) 0.98 (0.87-1.11) 0.05 1 (Reference) 1.09 (0.92-1.30) 1.08 (0.88-1.31) 0.99 (0.74-1.33) 0.97 (0.73-1.30) 0.71 0.41 
Postmenopausal females          
    n cases   131 389 262 106 63   
    Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.00 (0.86-1.16) 0.02 1 (Reference) 1.15 (0.93-1.43) 1.17 (0.92-1.49) 1.09 (0.73-1.62) 1.06 (0.90-1.00) 0.97 0.15 
    Multivariate adjusted RR (95% CI) 0.99 (0.85-1.15) 0.03 1 (Reference) 1.14 (0.93-1.40) 1.17 (0.91-1.50) 1.11 (0.72-1.70) 1.03 (0.70-1.52) 0.92 0.21 
*

Based on the highest category versus the reference category.

Multivariate RRs were adjusted for age at menarche (<13, 13, >13 y), menopausal status at baseline, oral contraceptive use (ever, never), hormone replacement therapy use among postmenopausal women (never, past, current), parity (0, 1, 2, >2), smoking status (never, past, current), physical activity (low, medium, high), and energy intake (continuously), modeled identically across studies.

Only Canadian National Breast Screening Study, Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort, Iowa Women's Health Study, The Netherlands Cohort Study, NHSa, NHSb, and NHS II were included in these analyses; other studies did not have information regarding body mass at early adulthood.

§

Multivariate RRs were also adjusted for BMI at baseline (continuously).

NHS II was not included in these analyses because this study has <10 cases and New York State Cohort was not included because this study had no information on menopausal status.

In this pooled analysis of the individual data from 12 prospective cohort studies, height was associated with a modest increase in the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer, especially in premenopausal women. Height was associated with an increased risk of endometrioid and serous carcinoma but not with mucinous carcinoma, although the difference between histologic subgroups was not statistically significant. BMI at baseline was not associated with the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer overall; however, being obese was associated with an increased risk of premenopausal ovarian cancer.

The association between height and the risk of ovarian cancer has been studied in several epidemiologic studies. Most case-control studies have reported no statistically significant associations between height and risk (9-12, 14-18). Only one case-control study (22) observed a statistically significant elevated risk. In contrast, most prospective cohort studies have reported positive associations with height. Of the six published prospective studies (13, 19-21, 32, 33), three (13, 19, 33) were included in this analysis. One other report was from a cohort in which we only included the subset of women who completed a dietary assessment in 1992 (32). The cohorts not included in this analysis have either not assessed diet or did not use a validated assessment of usual dietary intake or been able to control for other ovarian cancer risk factors such as parity and oral contraceptive use. Jonsson et al. (20) reported an increased risk for the tallest 25% of the women (≥166 cm) compared with the second quartile (159 to <163 cm), which had been defined as the reference category. A Norwegian cohort (21) of 1.1 million women with 7,882 cases of ovarian cancer reported a positive association between height and ovarian cancer: women taller than 175 cm had a RR of 1.29 (95% CI, 1.11-1.51) compared with women between 160 and 164 cm.

The observation that most case-control studies have not reported statistically significant odds ratios may be caused by a relative lack of power, because 5 (9, 11, 14, 18, 22) of 10 (9-12, 14-18, 22) have published odds ratios (≥1.3) that are in range with our result (1.37) for the highest category of height. Odds ratios in the other five studies were all above unity, between 1.08 and 1.26 (10, 12, 15-17). For the few studies that have investigated whether the association between height and ovarian cancer risk is modified by menopausal status, the association was stronger in or restricted to premenopausal women (21, 56), which is in agreement with our analysis. Whether height is associated with histologic subtypes has been investigated in a few studies only. In the Norwegian cohort study (21), height was positively associated with endometrioid ovarian cancer risk, which is in accordance with our findings: the association with other histologic subtypes was not reported. In an Australian case-control study, height was associated with risk of mucinous borderline invasive ovarian cancer, but the 95% CIs were wide because of small numbers (12); no associations were observed with invasive serous, mucinous, or endometrioid cancers (12). In our pooled analysis, only invasive ovarian cancers were included, so we were not able to evaluate borderline invasive ovarian cancers.

In this pooled analysis, no association was observed between BMI at baseline and risk of ovarian cancer in all women. This finding is not in agreement with a systematic review from Olsen et al. (28) who concluded that overweight and obesity were associated with a small to moderately increased risk of ovarian cancer in population-based case-control studies and prospective cohort studies (pooled effect estimate for adult obesity versus normal BMI, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.5). The association was weaker and not statistically significant in prospective cohort studies in the systematic review (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.95-1.32), and results between cohort studies were heterogeneous (28). Of the 17 (13, 19-21, 31-33, 37, 56-64) published cohort studies, 5 (13, 19, 31, 33, 37) were included in our pooled analysis and 2 were included in part (32, 56). The 10 cohorts not included in this analysis have published mostly null associations, with the exception of Garfinkel (57), Wolk et al. (60), Lukanova et al. (63), and Reeves et al. (64) who published positive associations.

However, in our analysis, we observed that BMI was positively associated with ovarian cancer risk in women who were premenopausal. The number of cases in premenopausal women was limited. Heterogeneity with respect to menopausal status, however, has been observed in almost all studies that have investigated whether the association between BMI and ovarian cancer is modified by menopausal status or age (17, 31, 58, 59, 63-68). Only one case-control study (69) has not reported a higher risk in younger women. That BMI has different effects depending on menopausal status is plausible, as this also has been observed with breast cancer, another hormone-dependent cancer (7).

Olsen et al. (28) attributed the weaker association in prospective cohort studies to the fact that some had used a single measurement of body mass and had a very long follow-up. Weight change during the follow-up may have caused attenuation of the risk estimates. In our analysis, the association was stronger in the first 5 years of follow-up but not statistically significant. It is therefore possible that a weak association was attenuated in our analysis because of the single (baseline) measurement of BMI and the long follow-up. Our finding that the association is stronger in premenopausal and younger women may also be an explanation for the time-dependent association. Cases with longer follow-up in the cohort studies are more likely to be postmenopausal at diagnosis than cases with a short follow-up. The difference in risk estimates between study types could also be caused by selection and information bias in the case-control studies.

Because of the small numbers of ovarian cancer cases in most studies, few studies have investigated whether the association with BMI differs among specific histologic subtypes of ovarian cancer and the findings have been inconsistent (31, 65-68, 70). In our pooled analysis, we did not observe an association with any of the investigated subtypes of invasive ovarian cancer.

We found no association between BMI in early adulthood and ovarian cancer risk. Four (13, 19, 21, 31) cohort studies [of which three (13, 19, 31) are included in this analysis] and six case-control studies (14-17, 66, 71) have published inconsistent results. The Norwegian cohort study published increased risks for women with a “high” or “very high” BMI in early adulthood compared with women of medium BMI (21). Of the case-control studies, one published an inverse association for BMI at age 18 (66), two published null results (15, 16), and three published positive associations (14, 17, 71).

Height has been associated with several types of cancer, especially breast cancer (8). Height as such does not cause cancer but probably acts as a marker for some other exposure (8). Suggested hypotheses include genetic factors, energy intake in early life, and exposure to sex and growth hormones. For instance, insulin-like growth factor-I is associated with height and also inhibits apoptosis of damaged cells and stimulates cell turnover and cell proliferation (8, 72, 73). Insulin-like growth factor-I was associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer before age 55 in one study (74). In a small Italian case-control study, these findings were not confirmed, however (75), but in this study blood samples were not collected prospectively. A nested case-control analysis within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohort using prediagnostic blood samples observed that insulin-like growth factor-I levels were increased in women that developed ovarian cancer at premenopausal or perimenopausal age (76). The link between height and increased risk of ovarian cancer therefore seems plausible.

Obesity has multiple effects on the hormonal status of premenopausal and postmenopausal women. In premenopausal women, obesity lowers sex hormone-binding globulin but does not influence levels of estrogens and androgens significantly, because the ovaries produce more steroids than the peripheral fat tissue (23, 77). A recent publication from the NHS II showed that BMI was inversely associated with sex hormone-binding globulin and progesterone and positively associated with free testosterone in premenopausal women (78). This is in agreement with the hypothesis of Risch who suggested that high serum levels of androgens increase the risk of ovarian cancer, whereas progestagens protect against ovarian cancer (79).

The results from the Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer are not likely to have been affected by selection or information bias as only data from prospective cohort studies have been analyzed and the follow-up rate in these studies generally exceeded 90% (41). Although some cohorts have measured height and weight, all anthropometric results used in this analysis were self-reported, however, and misclassification of exposure is a potential source of bias. Although several studies have reported high correlations (>0.8) between self-reported and measured anthropometric data (80-82), other publications have reported that despite high correlations weight tends to be slightly underestimated and height slightly overestimated, thus leading to lower estimates of body mass (83, 84). Weight at early adulthood was used to calculate BMI in early adulthood, and misclassification might have occurred because this is difficult to remember. Misclassification is expected to be nondifferential and therefore would tend to bias towards the null.

Not all covariates were measured in each study. Within our models, we adjusted for most of the important ovarian cancer risk factors (e.g., age at menarche, oral contraceptive use, and parity) if they were measured in a study; results from age-adjusted and multivariate models were similar, suggesting that any residual or unmeasured confounding was small. A major advantage of the method of pooling primary data compared with a literature-based meta-analysis is the ability to characterize and control for covariates uniformly and classify the main exposures similarly. Due to the inclusion of 12 cohort studies from North America and Europe, we had far greater statistical power than the individual cohort studies to examine specific histologic subtypes or effect modification by menopausal status.

In summary, this prospective study with >2,000 cases found that height was associated with a modestly increased risk of ovarian cancer, especially in premenopausal women. No association was observed between recent BMI or BMI in early adulthood and overall ovarian cancer risk. Being obese was associated with an increased risk of premenopausal ovarian cancer, however. Further research is warranted to investigate possible heterogeneous effects with respect to specific histologic subtypes and menopausal status.

Grant support: NIH grant CA55075.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

We thank Shiaw-Shyuan Yaun for conducting the statistical analyses.

1
Ferlay J, Bray F, Pisani P, Parkin DM. GLOBOCAN 2002: cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide. IARC CancerBase No. 5, version 2.0. Lyon: IARC Press; 2004.
2
Cannistra SA. Cancer of the ovary.
N Engl J Med
2004
;
351
:
2519
–29.
3
Goff BA, Mandel L, Muntz HG, Melancon CH. Ovarian carcinoma diagnosis.
Cancer
2000
;
89
:
2068
–75.
4
Whittemore AS. Characteristics relating to ovarian cancer risk: implications for prevention and detection.
Gynecol Oncol
1994
;
55
:
S15
–9.
5
Hankinson SE, Danforth KN. Ovarian cancer. In: Schottenfeld D, Fraumeni JF, editors. Cancer epidemiology and prevention. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006. p. 1013–26.
6
Beral V, Bull D, Green J, Reeves G. Ovarian cancer and hormone replacement therapy in the Million Women Study.
Lancet
2007
;
369
:
1703
–10.
7
van den Brandt PA, Spiegelman D, Yaun SS, et al. Pooled analysis of prospective cohort studies on height, weight, and breast cancer risk.
Am J Epidemiol
2000
;
152
:
514
–27.
8
Gunnell D, Okasha M, Davey Smith G, Sandhu J, Holly JM. Height, leg length, and cancer risk: a systematic review.
Epidemiol Rev
2001
;
23
:
313
–36.
9
Chen Y, Wu PC, Lang JH, et al. Risk factors for epithelial ovarian cancer in Beijing, China.
Int J Epidemiol
1992
;
21
:
23
–9.
10
Polychronopoulou A, Tzonou A, Hsieh CC, et al. Reproductive variables, tobacco, ethanol, coffee and somatometry as risk factors for ovarian cancer.
Int J Cancer
1993
;
55
:
402
–7.
11
Mori M, Nishida T, Sugiyama T, et al. Anthropometric and other risk factors for ovarian cancer in a case-control study.
Jpn J Cancer Res
1998
;
89
:
246
–53.
12
Jordan SJ, Webb PM, Green AC. Height, age at menarche, and risk of epithelial ovarian cancer.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2005
;
14
:
2045
–8.
13
Anderson JP, Ross JA, Folsom AR. Anthropometric variables, physical activity, and incidence of ovarian cancer: the Iowa Women's Health Study.
Cancer
2004
;
100
:
1515
–21.
14
Rossing MA, Tang MT, Flagg EW, et al. Body size and risk of epithelial ovarian cancer (United States).
Cancer Causes Control
2006
;
17
:
713
–20.
15
Hoyo C, Berchuck A, Halabi S, et al. Anthropometric measurements and epithelial ovarian cancer risk in African-American and White women.
Cancer Causes Control
2005
;
16
:
955
–63.
16
Greer JB, Modugno F, Ness RB, Allen GO. Anthropometry and the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer.
Cancer
2006
;
106
:
2247
–57.
17
Peterson NB, Trentham-Dietz A, Newcomb PA, et al. Relation of anthropometric measurements to ovarian cancer risk in a population-based case-control study (United States).
Cancer Causes Control
2006
;
17
:
459
–67.
18
Tzonou A, Day NE, Trichopoulos D, et al. The epidemiology of ovarian cancer in Greece: a case-control study.
Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol
1984
;
20
:
1045
–52.
19
Schouten LJ, Goldbohm RA, Van Den Brandt PA. Height, weight, weight change, and ovarian cancer risk in The Netherlands cohort study on diet and cancer.
Am J Epidemiol
2003
;
157
:
424
–33.
20
Jonsson F, Wolk A, Pedersen NL, et al. Obesity and hormone-dependent tumors: cohort and co-twin control studies based on the Swedish Twin Registry.
Int J Cancer
2003
;
106
:
594
–9.
21
Engeland A, Tretli S, Bjorge T. Height, body mass index, and ovarian cancer: a follow-up of 1.1 million Norwegian women.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2003
;
95
:
1244
–8.
22
Zhang M, Xie X, Holman CD. Body weight and body mass index and ovarian cancer risk: a case-control study in China.
Gynecol Oncol
2005
;
98
:
228
–34.
23
Vainio H, Bianchini F. Weight control and physical activity. IARC handbooks of cancer prevention. Vol. 6. Lyon: IARC Press; 2002.
24
Calle EE, Kaaks R. Overweight, obesity and cancer: epidemiological evidence and proposed mechanisms.
Nat Rev Cancer
2004
;
4
:
579
–91.
25
Hartz AJ, Barboriak PN, Wong A, Katayama KP, Rimm AA. The association of obesity with infertility and related menstrual abnormalities in women.
Int J Obes
1979
;
3
:
57
–73.
26
Singh KB, Mahajan DK, Wortsman J. Effect of obesity on the clinical and hormonal characteristics of the polycystic ovary syndrome.
J Reprod Med
1994
;
39
:
805
–8.
27
Schildkraut JM, Schwingl PJ, Bastos E, Evanoff A, Hughes C. Epithelial ovarian cancer risk among women with polycystic ovary syndrome.
Obstet Gynecol
1996
;
88
:
554
–9.
28
Olsen CM, Green AC, Whiteman DC, et al. Obesity and the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Eur J Cancer
2007
;
43
:
690
–709.
29
Bandera EV, Freudenheim JL, Marshall JR, et al. Diet and alcohol consumption and lung cancer risk in the New York State Cohort (United States).
Cancer Causes Control
1997
;
8
:
828
–40.
30
Rockhill B, Willett WC, Hunter DJ, et al. Physical activity and breast cancer risk in a cohort of young women.
J Natl Cancer Inst
1998
;
90
:
1155
–60.
31
Fairfield KM, Willett WC, Rosner BA, et al. Obesity, weight gain, and ovarian cancer.
Obstet Gynecol
2002
;
100
:
288
–96.
32
Rodriguez C, Calle EE, Fakhrabadi-Shokoohi D, Jacobs EJ, Thun MJ. Body mass index, height, and the risk of ovarian cancer mortality in a prospective cohort of postmenopausal women.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2002
;
11
:
822
–8.
33
Lacey JV, Jr., Leitzmann M, Brinton LA, et al. Weight, height, and body mass index and risk for ovarian cancer in a cohort study.
Ann Epidemiol
2006
;
16
:
869
–76.
34
Terry PD, Miller AB, Jones JG, Rohan TE. Cigarette smoking and the risk of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer in a prospective cohort study.
Eur J Cancer
2003
;
39
:
1157
–64.
35
Larsson SC, Giovannucci E, Wolk A. Dietary folate intake and incidence of ovarian cancer: the Swedish Mammography Cohort.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2004
;
96
:
396
–402.
36
Lin J, Zhang SM, Cook NR, Lee IM, Buring JE. Dietary fat and fatty acids and risk of colorectal cancer in women.
Am J Epidemiol
2004
;
160
:
1011
–22.
37
Kiani F, Knutsen S, Singh P, Ursin G, Fraser G. Dietary risk factors for ovarian cancer: the Adventist Health Study (United States).
Cancer Causes Control
2006
;
17
:
137
–46.
38
Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A, Gu Y, Shore RE, et al. Postmenopausal levels of sex hormones and risk of breast carcinoma in situ: results of a prospective study.
Int J Cancer
2005
;
114
:
323
–7.
39
Tavassoli FA, Devilee P. World Health Organization classification of tumours. Pathology and genetics of tumours of the breast and female genital organs. Lyon: IARC Press; 2003.
40
Kurian AW, Balise RR, McGuire V, Whittemore AS. Histologic types of epithelial ovarian cancer: have they different risk factors?
Gynecol Oncol
2005
;
96
:
520
–30.
41
Smith-Warner SA, Spiegelman D, Ritz J, et al. Methods for pooling results of epidemiologic studies: the Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer.
Am J Epidemiol
2006
;
163
:
1053
–64.
42
Rothman K. Modern epidemiology. Boston: Little Brown and Co.; 1986.
43
Kaplan E, Meyer P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations.
J Am Stat Assoc
1958
;
1958
:
699
–712.
44
Smith Warner SA, Spiegelman D, Yaun SS, et al. Alcohol and breast cancer in women: a pooled analysis of cohort studies.
JAMA
1998
;
279
:
535
–40.
45
Fairfield KM, Hunter DJ, Colditz GA, et al. A prospective study of dietary lactose and ovarian cancer.
Int J Cancer
2004
;
110
:
271
–7.
46
Percy C, Van Holten V, Muir C. International Classification of Diseases for Oncology. 2nd ed. Geneva: WHO; 1990.
47
WHO. Obesity. Preventing and managing the global endemic. WHO Technical Report Series No. 894. Geneva: WHO; 2000.
48
Prentice RL. A case-cohort design for epidemiologic cohort studies and disease prevention trials.
Biometrika
1986
;
73
:
1
–11.
49
SAS/STAT software. the PHREG procedure. Preliminary documentation. Cary (NC): SAS Institute.
50
DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials.
Control Clin Trials
1986
;
7
:
177
–88.
51
Cochrane WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments.
Biometrics
1954
;
10
:
101
–29.
52
Stram DO. Meta-analysis of published data using a linear mixed-effects model.
Biometrics
1996
;
52
:
536
–44.
53
Durrleman S, Simon R. Flexible regression models with cubic splines.
Stat Med
1989
;
8
:
551
–61.
54
Govindarajulu US, Spiegelman D, Thurston SW, Ganguli B, Eisen EA. Comparing smoothing techniques in Cox models for exposure-response relationships.
Stat Med
2007
;
26
:
3735
–52.
55
Anderson T. Introduction to multivariate statistics. New York: John Wiley Sons; 1984.
56
Lukanova A, Toniolo P, Lundin E, et al. Body mass index in relation to ovarian cancer: a multi-centre nested case-control study.
Int J Cancer
2002
;
99
:
603
–8.
57
Garfinkel L. Overweight and cancer.
Ann Intern Med
1985
;
103
:
1034
–6.
58
Tornberg SA, Carstensen JM. Relationship between Quetelet's index and cancer of breast and female genital tract in 47,000 women followed for 25 years.
Br J Cancer
1994
;
69
:
358
–61.
59
Moller H, Mellemgaard A, Lundvig K, Olsen J. Obesity and cancer risk: a Danish record-linkage study.
Eur J Cancer
1994
;
30A
:
344
–50.
60
Wolk A, Gridley G, Svensson M, Nyrén O, Mclaughlin J. A prospective study of obesity and cancer risk (Sweden).
Cancer Causes Control
2001
;
12
:
13
–21.
61
Niwa Y, Yatsuya H, Tamakoshi K, et al. Relationship between body mass index and the risk of ovarian cancer in the Japanese population: findings from the Japanese Collaborate Cohort (JACC) study.
J Obstet Gynaecol Res
2005
;
31
:
452
–8.
62
Rapp K, Schroeder J, Klenk J, et al. Obesity and incidence of cancer: a large cohort study of over 145,000 adults in Austria.
Br J Cancer
2005
;
93
:
1062
–7.
63
Lukanova A, Bjor O, Kaaks R, et al. Body mass index and cancer: results from the Northern Sweden Health and Disease Cohort.
Int J Cancer
2006
;
118
:
458
–66.
64
Reeves GK, Pirie K, Beral V, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality in relation to body mass index in the Million Women Study: cohort study.
BMJ
2007
;
335
:
1134
.
65
Farrow DC, Weiss NS, Lyon JL, Daling JR. Association of obesity and ovarian cancer in a case-control study.
Am J Epidemiol
1989
;
129
:
1300
–4.
66
Kuper H, Cramer DW, Titus-Ernstoff L. Risk of ovarian cancer in the United States in relation to anthropometric measures: does the association depend on menopausal status?
Cancer Causes Control
2002
;
13
:
455
–63.
67
Purdie DM, Bain CJ, Webb PM, et al. Body size and ovarian cancer: case-control study and systematic review (Australia).
Cancer Causes Control
2001
;
12
:
855
–63.
68
Beehler GP, Sekhon M, Baker JA, et al. Risk of ovarian cancer associated with BMI varies by menopausal status.
J Nutr
2006
;
136
:
2881
–6.
69
Byers T, Marshall J, Graham S, Mettlin C, Swanson M. A case-control study of dietary and nondietary factors in ovarian cancer.
J Natl Cancer Inst
1983
;
71
:
681
–6.
70
Riman T, Dickman PW, Nilsson S, et al. Some life-style factors and the risk of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer in Swedish women.
Eur J Epidemiol
2004
;
19
:
1011
–9.
71
Lubin F, Chetrit A, Freedman LS, et al. Body mass index at age 18 years and during adult life and ovarian cancer risk.
Am J Epidemiol
2003
;
157
:
113
–20.
72
Ng ST, Zhou J, Adesanya OO, et al. Growth hormone treatment induces mammary gland hyperplasia in aging primates.
Nat Med
1997
;
3
:
1141
–4.
73
Cianfarani S, Tedeschi B, Germani D, et al. In vitro effects of growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor I and II (IGF-I and -II) on chromosome fragility and p53 protein expression in human lymphocytes.
Eur J Clin Invest
1998
;
28
:
41
–7.
74
Lukanova A, Lundin E, Toniolo P, et al. Circulating levels of insulin-like growth factor-I and risk of ovarian cancer.
Int J Cancer
2002
;
101
:
549
–54.
75
Dal Maso L, Augustin LS, Franceschi S, et al. Association between components of the insulin-like growth factor system and epithelial ovarian cancer risk.
Oncology
2004
;
67
:
225
–30.
76
Peeters PH, Lukanova A, Allen N, et al. Serum IGF-I, its major binding protein (IGFBP-3) and epithelial ovarian cancer risk: the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC).
Endocr Relat Cancer
2007
;
14
:
81
–90.
77
Key TJ, Allen NE, Verkasalo PK, Banks E. Energy balance and cancer: the role of sex hormones.
Proc Nutr Soc
2001
;
60
:
81
–9.
78
Tworoger SS, Eliassen AH, Missmer SA, et al. Birthweight and body size throughout life in relation to sex hormones and prolactin concentrations in premenopausal women.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2006
;
15
:
2494
–501.
79
Risch HA. Hormonal etiology of epithelial ovarian cancer, with a hypothesis concerning the role of androgens and progesterone [see comments].
J Natl Cancer Inst
1998
;
90
:
1774
–86.
80
Stunkard AJ, Albaum JM. The accuracy of self-reported weights.
Am J Clin Nutr
1981
;
34
:
1593
–9.
81
Weaver TW, Kushi LH, McGovern PG, et al. Validation study of self-reported measures of fat distribution.
Int J Obes
1996
;
20
:
644
–50.
82
Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, et al. Validity of self-reported waist and hip circumferences in men and women.
Epidemiology
1990
;
1
:
466
–73.
83
Kuskowska-Wolk A, Karlsson P, Stolt M, Rossner S. The predictive validity of body mass index based on self-reported weight and height.
Int J Obes
1989
;
13
:
441
–53.
84
Niedhammer I, Bugel I, Bonenfant S, Goldberg M, Leclerc A. Validity of self-reported weight and height in the French GAZEL cohort.
Int J Obes
2000
;
24
:
1111
–8.