A growing body of literature suggests that having a sense of purpose in life is associated with both physical and mental health and overall quality of life.^1,2 Purposeful living has been defined in various ways. In general, purpose in life can be defined as “a self-organizing life aim that stimulates goals,”¹ promotes healthy behaviors, and gives meaning to life.^3,4

Background: In U.S. women, lifetime risk of ovarian cancer is 1.37%, but some women are at a substantially lower or higher risk than this average. Methods: We have characterized the distribution of lifetime risk in the general population. Published data on the relative risks and their variances for five well-accepted risk and protective factors for ovarian cancer, oral contraceptive use, parity, tubal ligation, endometriosis, and first-degree family history of ovarian cancer in conjunction with a genetic risk score using genome-wide significant common, low penetrance variants were used. The joint distribution of these factors (i.e., risk/protective factor profiles) was derived using control data from four U.S. population–based studies, providing a broad representation of women in the United States. Results: A total of 214 combinations of risk/protective factors were observed, and the lifetime risk estimates ranged from 0.35% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.29–0.42] to 8.78% (95% CI, 7.10–10.9). Among women with lifetime risk ranging from 4% to 9%, 73% had no family history of ovarian cancer; most of these women had a self-reported history of endometriosis. Conclusions: Profiles including the known modifiable protective factors of oral contraceptive use and tubal ligation were associated with a lower lifetime risk of ovarian cancer. Oral contraceptive use and tubal ligation were essentially absent among the women at 4% to 9% lifetime risk. Impact: This work demonstrates that there are women in the general population who have a much higher than average lifetime risk of ovarian cancer. Preventive strategies are available. Should effective screening become available, higher than average risk women can be identified. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(4); 671–6. ©2015 AACR.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the association between postmenopausal estrogen-only therapy use and risk of ovarian carcinoma, specifically with regard to disease histotype and duration and timing of use. METHODS: We conducted a pooled analysis of 906 women with ovarian carcinoma and 1,220 women in a control group; all 2,126 women included reported having had a hysterectomy. Ten population-based case–control studies participating in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium, an international consortium whose goal is to combine data from many studies with similar methods so reliable assessments of risk factors can be determined, were included. Self-reported questionnaire data from each study were harmonized and conditional logistic regression was used to examine estrogen-only therapy's histotype-specific and duration and recency of use associations. RESULTS: Forty-three and a half percent of the women in the control group reported previous use of estrogen-only therapy. Compared with them, current or recent estrogen-only therapy use was associated with an increased risk for the serous (51.4%, odds ratio [OR] 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27–2.09) and endometrioid (48.6%, OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.17–3.41) histotypes. In addition, statistically significant trends in risk according to duration of use were seen among current or recent postmenopausal estrogen-only therapy users for both ovarian carcinoma histotypes (P_trend<.001 for serous and endometrioid). Compared with women in the control group, current or recent users for 10 years or more had increased risks of serous ovarian carcinoma (36.8%, OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.26–2.38) and endometrioid ovarian carcinoma (34.9%, OR 4.03, 95% CI 1.91–8.49). CONCLUSION: We found evidence of an increased risk of serous and endometrioid ovarian carcinoma associated with postmenopausal estrogen-only therapy use, particularly of long duration. These findings emphasize that risk may be associated with extended estrogen-only therapy use.

PURPOSE: Frequent aspirin use has been associated with reduced ovarian cancer risk, but no study has comprehensively assessed for effect modification. We leveraged harmonized, individual-level data from 17 studies to examine the association between frequent aspirin use and ovarian cancer risk, overall and across subgroups of women with other ovarian cancer risk factors. METHODS: Nine cohort studies from the Ovarian Cancer Cohort Consortium (n = 2,600 cases) and eight case-control studies from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (n = 5,726 cases) were included. We used Cox regression and logistic regression to assess study-specific associations between frequent aspirin use (≥ 6 days/week) and ovarian cancer risk and combined study-specific estimates using random-effects meta-analysis. We conducted analyses within subgroups defined by individual ovarian cancer risk factors (endometriosis, obesity, family history of breast/ovarian cancer, nulliparity, oral contraceptive use, and tubal ligation) and by number of risk factors (0, 1, and ≥ 2). RESULTS: Overall, frequent aspirin use was associated with a 13% reduction in ovarian cancer risk (95% CI, 6 to 20), with no significant heterogeneity by study design ( P = .48) or histotype ( P = .60). Although no association was observed among women with endometriosis, consistent risk reductions were observed among all other subgroups defined by ovarian cancer risk factors (relative risks ranging from 0.79 to 0.93, all P-heterogeneity > .05), including women with ≥ 2 risk factors (relative risk, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.90). CONCLUSION: This study, the largest to-date on aspirin use and ovarian cancer, provides evidence that frequent aspirin use is associated with lower ovarian cancer risk regardless of the presence of most other ovarian cancer risk factors. Risk reductions were also observed among women with multiple risk factors, providing proof of principle that chemoprevention programs with frequent aspirin use could target higher-risk subgroups.

We used a functional complementation approach to identify tumor-suppressor genes and putative therapeutic targets for ovarian cancer. Microcell-mediated transfer of chromosome 18 in the ovarian cancer cell line TOV21G induced in vitro and in vivo neoplastic suppression. Gene expression microarray profiling in TOV21G(+18) hybrids identified 14 candidate genes on chromosome 18 that were significantly overexpressed and therefore associated with neoplastic suppression. Further analysis of messenger RNA and protein expression for these genes in additional ovarian cancer cell lines indicated that EPB41L3 (erythrocyte membrane protein band 4.1-like 3, alternative names DAL-1 and 4.1B) was a candidate ovarian cancer-suppressor gene. Immunoblot analysis showed that EPB41L3 was activated in TOV21G(+18) hybrids, expressed in normal ovarian epithelial cell lines, but was absent in 15 (78%) of 19 ovarian cancer cell lines. Using immunohistochemistry, 66% of 794 invasive ovarian tumors showed no EPB41L3 expression compared with only 24% of benign ovarian tumors and 0% of normal ovarian epithelial tissues. EPB41L3 was extensively methylated in ovarian cancer cell lines and primary ovarian tumors compared with normal tissues (P = .00004), suggesting this may be the mechanism of gene inactivation in ovarian cancers. Constitutive reexpression of EPB41L3 in a three-dimensional multicellular spheroid model of ovarian cancer caused significant growth suppression and induced apoptosis. Transmission and scanning electron microscopy demonstrated many similarities between EPB41L3-expressing cells and chromosome 18 donor-recipient hybrids, suggesting that EPB41L3 is the gene responsible for neoplastic suppression after chromosome 18 transfer. Finally, an inducible model of EPB41L3 expression in three-dimensional spheroids confirmed that reexpression of EPB41L3 induces extensive apoptotic cell death in ovarian cancers.