Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Research Articles

Shift Work Patterns, Chronotype, and Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Risk

Lisa Leung, Anne Grundy, Jack Siemiatycki, Jocelyne Arseneau, Lucy Gilbert, Walter H. Gotlieb, Diane M. Provencher, Kristan J. Aronson and Anita Koushik
Lisa Leung
1Université de Montréal Hospital Research Centre (CRCHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
2Department of Public Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anne Grundy
1Université de Montréal Hospital Research Centre (CRCHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
3Department of Social and Preventative Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jack Siemiatycki
1Université de Montréal Hospital Research Centre (CRCHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
3Department of Social and Preventative Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jocelyne Arseneau
4Gynecologic Oncology Unit, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lucy Gilbert
4Gynecologic Oncology Unit, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Walter H. Gotlieb
5Gynecologic Oncology and Colposcopy, Sir Mortimer B. Davis-Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Diane M. Provencher
1Université de Montréal Hospital Research Centre (CRCHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
6Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kristan J. Aronson
2Department of Public Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
7Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anita Koushik
1Université de Montréal Hospital Research Centre (CRCHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
3Department of Social and Preventative Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Anita Koushik
  • For correspondence: anita.koushik@umontreal.ca
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-18-1112 Published May 2019
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: Shift work causing circadian disruption is classified as a “probable carcinogen” and may contribute to the pathogenesis of hormone-sensitive cancers. This study investigated shift work exposure in relation to epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) risk.

Methods: In a population-based case–control study with 496 EOC cases and 906 controls, lifetime occupational histories were collected and used to calculate cumulative years of shift work exposure, average number of night shifts per month, and average number of consecutive night shifts per month. ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations with EOC risk were estimated using logistic regression. Associations were also examined according to chronotype and menopausal status.

Results: More than half of the cases (53.4%) and controls (51.7%) worked evening and/or night shifts. There was no clear pattern of increasing EOC risk with increasing years of shift work; the adjusted OR of EOC comparing the highest shift work category versus never working shift work was 1.20 (95% CI, 0.89–1.63). This association was more pronounced among those self-identified as having a “morning” chronotype (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.01–2.65). Associations did not greatly differ by menopausal status.

Conclusions: These results do not strongly demonstrate a relationship between shift work and EOC risk.

Impact: This study collected detailed shift work information and examined shift work patterns according to shift times and schedules. The findings highlight that chronotype should be considered in studies of shift work as an exposure.

Introduction

Ovarian cancer is a deadly disease, ranking as the fifth leading cause of cancer-related death among women in Canada and the United States (1). While the etiology is not well understood, established and strongly suspected risk factors include older age, never use/short duration of use of oral contraceptives, low parity, personal history of breast cancer, family history of breast or ovarian cancer, use of hormone replacement therapy, increased height, and a high body mass index (BMI; refs. 2, 3). Shift work causing circadian rhythm disruption was classified as a “probable carcinogen” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2007 (4). In several epidemiologic studies, long-term shift work has been associated with increased cancer risk at multiple sites (5), with the majority of research focused on breast cancer (6–8). The dominant mechanistic focus has been on the “melatonin hypothesis,” which postulates that exposure to light at night interferes with circadian rhythms by suppressing melatonin production (9–12) and elevating circulating levels of estrogen, and that if this hormone disruption occurs over many years, the risks of breast and endometrial cancers are increased (13–15). Strong experimental evidence has supported this mechanism and has suggested that this pathway may extend to other hormone-sensitive malignancies, such as epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC; refs. 16, 17).

Four epidemiologic studies have previously assessed shift work exposure in relation to EOC risk (18), two reporting a positive association (19, 20), and two observing no evidence of an association (21, 22). Differences in findings may be related to differences in the sources of data and shift work definitions across these studies that included self-reported occupational history with specific questions about night work (19), current baseline rotating work (20), self-reported years of working rotating shifts with nights (21), and census-based job information linked to a job-exposure matrix indicating percentage of shift workers for a given job title (22). Also, there is substantial variability in the organization of shift work (e.g., timing of shifts, schedule of days/nights, duration of shifts, number of consecutive shifts), and there is some evidence implying that certain work patterns, such as a greater number of consecutive night shifts, may disrupt circadian rhythms more than other parameters (23–25). However, epidemiologic studies have often aggregated shift work patterns differing in timings and schedule into one or two overall measurements (23).

Discrepancies between studies may also be attributed to the lack of consideration of chronotype, that is, an individual's biological preference as a “morning,” “intermediate,” or “evening” person (26), which is potentially an important effect modifier of the relationship between shift work and cancer. A person's circadian rhythm is synchronized to sleep and wake times through the regulation of physiologic processes such as the production of melatonin, where people with “evening” chronotypes are synchronized to evening time periods (i.e., melatonin production peaks later), and can sleep and wake later with ease, while people with “morning” chronotypes prefer the opposite (27). Research has shown that people with “evening” chronotypes may be more tolerant to shift work (28, 29), which may suggest that the mechanism by which shift work impacts cancer risk may differ across chronotypes. Chronotype has been considered in only one previous ovarian cancer study where the findings suggested an increased risk associated with shift work among those self-identified as “morning” people, with weaker relative risk estimates for “evening” people (19). Another potential effect modifier is menopausal status as supported by a recent combined analysis of breast cancer studies, where shift work was associated with an increased risk among premenopausal women only (30). EOC is a hormone-sensitive cancer and it is hypothesized that shift work may elevate estrogen levels through light at night-induced endocrine dysregulation, and this may be differential by menopausal status.

In a population-based case–control study, we investigated the relationship between shift work exposure and risk of EOC overall, by tumor behavior (invasive, borderline), and separately for high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC), the most common form of EOC. Associations were also examined according to chronotype and menopausal status.

Materials and Methods

Study population

The PRevention of OVArian Cancer in Quebec (PROVAQ) study is a population-based case–control study conducted in Montreal, Canada in 2011–2016 (31). All study participants were women ages 18–79 years who were Canadian citizens, residents of the metropolitan area of Montreal, and able to communicate in French or English. Cases were women newly diagnosed with EOC, including primary peritoneal and fallopian tube cancers, and recruited from seven Montreal hospitals that care for the large majority of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer in Montreal. A total of 652 women with histologically confirmed EOC were eligible and asked to participate, of whom 78% (n = 507) gave consent to participate. Nine participants were later excluded as their cancers were nonepithelial or metastatic, leaving 498 cases. Cases were classified by tumor behavior (invasive, borderline) as well as on histology and grade (32). Population controls were identified from the Quebec Electoral List and were frequency-matched to cases on five-year age categories and electoral district. Of 1,634 eligible controls asked to participate, 56% (n = 908) agreed to participate. All cases and controls provided written informed consent.

Data collection

In-person interviews were used to ascertain sociodemographic information, medical history, medication use, reproductive characteristics, anthropometric measurements, other lifestyle factors, and lifetime occupational history including shift work details for each job held. On the basis of the question “Do you consider yourself to be a morning person, more morning than evening, more evening than morning, or an evening person?” participants self-reported their chronotype. Information pertinent to the determination of menopausal status (31) was also collected during the interview. Interviews were conducted an average of 4.8 months after diagnosis for cases. Occupations were classified according to the International Standard Classification of Occupations 1968, by an occupational hygienist, based on job titles and description of tasks.

Shift work assessment

For each job, volunteer activity, period as a full-time graduate student or period as a homemaker held for at least six months over the age of 19 years until the referent age (age of diagnosis for cases, age of interview for controls), participants reported the job title, duration each job was held, status (part-time, full-time), work pattern [fixed days (6 am–6 pm), fixed evenings (6 pm–12 am), fixed nights (12 am–6 am), rotating (alternating day shifts with night/evening shifts), or other], number of night shifts per month, and number of consecutive night shifts per month. For work patterns reported as “other,” participants provided a short statement describing their exact schedule that was later categorized into one of the predefined questionnaire work patterns. Periods reported as a homemaker were considered a fixed day pattern. Eight participants who were students aged 25 and younger at recruitment reported no prior employment and were classified as having a fixed day work pattern from age 19 to their referent age. Two controls and two cases were excluded due to incomplete occupational history, leaving 496 cases and 906 controls for analysis.

The IARC Monographs defined shift work as “any arrangement of daily working hours other than the standard daylight hours of 7/8 am–5/6 pm” (4), which encompasses work patterns of fixed evenings, fixed nights, and rotating (with either evening shifts or night shifts). We defined three shift work exposure variables: cumulative years of shift work exposure, average number of night shifts per month, and average number of consecutive night shifts per month. Cumulative years of exposure was calculated for any shift work as well as for individual shift work patterns defined on the basis of shift times (ever night shift work, evening shift work only) and schedules (rotating shift work only, fixed shift work only; Fig. 1). The ever night shift work exposure group included participants exposed to night shifts only as well as to both evening and night shifts. We were unable to include a group restricted to participants exposed to night shifts only due to a small number of exposed participants. Cumulative years of shift work exposure were calculated as in Eq. (A):

Embedded Image

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Shift work exposure assessment and deconstruction of the any shift work exposure variable into individual shift work patterns (shaded) included in the analysis: ever night shift work, evening shift work only, rotating shift work only, and fixed shift work only.

where C is lifetime cumulative years of exposure, n refers to the total number of jobs with shift work across a participant's lifetime, i refers to a specific job with shift work, D is job duration in years, and F is part-time or full-time equivalency (0.5 for part-time, 1.0 for full-time). The variable for cumulative years of exposure to any shift work was categorized into tertiles based on shift working controls; for individual shift work patterns, cumulative years of exposure was dichotomized on the basis of the median among shift working controls. For participants exposed to night shifts, the number of night shifts per month was determined by taking an average of the number of night shifts per month from all positions involving night shifts. For the analysis, exposure categories were created by dichotomizing at the median among ever night shift working controls. The exposure categories for the variable for average number of consecutive night shifts per month were produced using the same method. Because the question on the number of consecutive night shifts was added after the study began, ever night shift workers who were never asked the question were excluded from the analysis of these variables (15 cases, 25 controls).

Statistical analysis

Multivariable unconditional logistic regression was used to estimate ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations between overall EOC risk and each shift work exposure variable, with women without shift work experience (i.e., never shift workers) as the reference group. Confounders of the shift work and EOC association were identified using directed acyclic graphs (DAG) combined with change-in-estimate procedures (33). Potential confounders that were considered are indicated in our DAG (Supplementary Fig. S1) and included age, ethnicity, family history of ovarian cancer, education level, BMI, parity, breastfeeding duration, duration of oral contraceptive use, history of tubal ligation, hormone replacement therapy use, endometriosis, medically diagnosed infertility and smoking history. From these variables, we identified a minimally sufficient confounder set, which all models were adjusted for, that included age (continuous), education (<high school, high school, college/technical, University undergraduate, University graduate), and parity (nulliparous, 1, 2, ≥3 full-term births). In the last step of this confounder selection method, each variable not included in the minimally sufficient confounder set was reevaluated (33); no other variable was identified as a confounder. P trend across exposure categories was calculated by considering the category ranks as a continuous variable in the logistic regression model and evaluating the Wald χ2 test statistic with one degree of freedom to test for a linear effect on the logit of the probability of EOC or EOC subgroup.

Multivariable polytomous logistic regression was used to estimate ORs and 95% CIs for the associations according to tumor behavior (i.e., invasive and borderline). Heterogeneity in the associations by tumor behavior was tested using likelihood ratio tests that compared a model where ORs were constrained to be equal among subgroups, to a model where ORs were allowed to differ between subgroups (34). We evaluated whether ORs for shift work and overall EOC risk were modified by chronotype (morning, intermediate, evening) and by menopausal status (premenopausal, postmenopausal) by including product terms for shift work and the effect modifier of interest. These analyses were conducted for cumulative years of exposure to any shift work, as well as for cumulative years of exposure to evening shift work only and rotating shift work only; sample sizes were too small for ever night shift work and fixed night shift work only. P values for multiplicative interaction were produced using likelihood ratio tests comparing the regression models with and without the product terms.

In three separate sensitivity analyses to examine the possible influence of reverse-causality bias and/or a lagged effect of shift work given the possible induction period of ovarian cancer, occupational history 2, 5, and 10 years prior to referent age were excluded from the cumulative years of exposure variable for cases and controls. Two sensitivity analyses addressing the categorization of shift work were conducted where the variable for any shift work exposure was dichotomized (ever, never) and categorized using cutoffs from studies of breast cancer (<15, 15–29, >29 years). All statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software version 9.4 (SAS Institute).

Results

Table 1 describes the study population according to all variables considered in this analysis. Cases and controls had similar distributions according to age group and ethnicity, and small differences for other characteristics, except that a greater proportion of controls had one or more children and a longer duration of oral contraceptive use. Among EOC subgroups, invasive cases were more likely to be postmenopausal and have a family history of ovarian or breast cancer compared with controls, while borderline cases were younger and more likely to be premenopausal, less educated, and have more pack-years of smoking compared with controls.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Characteristics of PROVAQ study participants, n (%)

Just over half of both cases and controls participated in any shift work, and similar distributions were observed for cases and controls for participation in individual shift work patterns (Fig. 1). Table 2 shows the main occupations in which shift work was recorded. Medical, dental, veterinary, and related workers (13.0% of all shift workers); cooks, waiters, bartenders, and related workers (10.2%); and bookkeepers, cashiers, and related workers (9.4%) were the top three shift work occupations. When examined according to shift times and schedules, professional nurses were common across any shift times/schedules, and particularly for fixed night shifts. Among fixed evening shifts, “authors, journalists, and related writers” was the most common occupation group and among rotating shifts, “salespeople, shop assistants, and sales demonstrators” was the most common occupation group.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Most common shift work occupations in the PROVAQ study population, classified according to the International Standard Classification of Occupations 1968 (ISCO-68), n (%)

Table 3 displays associations for cumulative years of shift work with overall EOC risk as well as risk by tumor behavior. For EOC overall, the OR (95% CI) for the highest category of cumulative years of exposure to any shift work (i.e., > 12 years) versus never exposed to shift work was 1.21 (0.89–1.63); however, a monotonic dose–response relationship pattern was not observed. Similarly, no strong pattern of association was observed for shift work variables defined according to shift times and schedules (Table 3). These adjusted ORs did not appreciably differ when occupational history for 2, 5, and 10 years prior to referent date was excluded (results not shown). When never shift workers were removed and the lowest shift work category was used as a reference, the ORs reflected the same pattern of associations seen in Table 2 (results not shown). When cumulative years of exposure to any shift work was categorized as ever versus never shift work, the adjusted OR (95% CI) for overall EOC risk was 1.00 (0.99–1.01). When categorized using cutoffs from breast cancer studies, the adjusted ORs (95% CI), compared with never shift work, were 0.96 (0.75–1.23) for <15 years, 1.26 (0.87–1.82) for 15–29 years, and 1.20 (0.72–2.01) for >29 years. When we restricted the analysis to women who have held at least one job outside of the home, to address the fact that workers may be generally healthier, the ORs were virtually unchanged (results not shown). Associations for invasive and borderline tumors separately did not appreciably differ from each other, nor from what was seen for all EOCs combined (Table 3). When cases were restricted to HGSC, the adjusted ORs (95 CI %), compared with never shift work, were 1.29 (0.86–1.94) for <5 years versus never shift work, 0.75 (0.48–1.17) for 5–12 years versus never shift work, and 1.40 (0.97–2.04) for >12 years.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Multivariable ORs (95% CIs) for the relationship between cumulative years of exposure to any shift work and four shift work patterns and overall, invasive, and borderline EOC

When focusing on night shift work, the observed ORs did not significantly differ from the null value for different levels of both average number of night shifts per month and average number of consecutive night shifts per month, both compared with never shift workers (Table 4). When examined according to chronotype, a positive association between shift work and EOC overall was observed among women identified as having “morning” chronotypes, which was statistically significant for the highest category of cumulative years of any shift work, while among women identified as having “evening” chronotypes an inverse association was observed, also statistically significant for the highest category of cumulative years of any shift work (Table 5); however, this difference in ORs for women with “morning” versus “evening” chronotypes was not statistically significant. Inverse associations for the highest cumulative shift work years versus never among women with “evening” chronotypes were also suggested for the shift patterns of evening shift work only (OR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.40–1.52) and rotating shift work only (OR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.26–1.77). Associations between cumulative years of any shift work and EOC risk did not significantly vary between premenopausal and postmenopausal women (Table 5).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Multivariable ORs (95% CIs) for the relationship between the average number of night shifts per month and overall EOC risk, and the average number of consecutive night shifts per month and overall EOC risk, among ever night shift workers

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5.

Multivariable ORs (95% CIs) for the relationship between cumulative years of exposure to any shift work and overall risk of ovarian cancer, by chronotype and menopausal status

Discussion

In this population-based case–control study, we did not observe evidence of an association between cumulative years of shift work, defined as any shift work as well as according to shift times (ever night shift work, evening shift work only) and schedules (rotating shift work only, fixed shift work only), and overall EOC risk. Associations for invasive and borderline EOC were similar to that observed for EOC overall. The OR for the highest level of any shift work and HGSC suggested a marginally significant increased risk, but as for the associations of EOC overall and for invasive and borderline cancers separately, the ORs across categories were nonmonotonic. When associations were examined according to chronotype or menopausal status, we did not observe statistically significant differences in associations between cumulative years of shift work and risk of EOC overall. Nonetheless, there was some suggestion that a positive association was specific to women with a “morning” chronotype while among women with an “evening” chronotype, shift work was associated with a reduced EOC risk.

To date, four studies have investigated the specific relationship between shift work and EOC risk (18). A null association was reported in a retrospective cohort study with exposure defined according to census reported job titles linked to a job-exposure matrix defining the percentage of shift workers in each job title (22). Similarly, there was no strong evidence of an association in a prospective cohort study of rotating shift work with night shifts among nurses (21), while in another cohort study a positive association was observed between current rotating work at baseline and fatal ovarian cancer (20). Most similar to ours is the population-based case–control study by Bhatti and colleagues (19) that based exposure on an assessment of lifetime occupational history and enrolled women in similar calendar years. In that study, ever night shift work was associated with increased risks of invasive and borderline EOCs (19). However, cumulative years of night shift work were not associated with a monotonic dose–response relationship; in particular, relative risks increased with increasing cumulative years except for the highest category where the association was attenuated and null (19). Our results also suggested a nonmonotonic relationship, but the shape was different, with the OR for the highest category in our study suggesting a positive association. The study by Bhatti and colleagues (19) included night shift work only, while ours included all shift work types. Also, our sample size was smaller precluding an analysis of long-term shift work; in fact, our highest category of cumulative years was included within their second highest category where they observed an increased risk (19).

The study by Bhatti and colleagues (19) was also the only other study that examined modification of associations by chronotype and reported a positive association between shift work and ovarian cancer among women self-identified as having a “morning” chronotype but not an “evening” chronotype (19). We also observed a positive association among women with a “morning” chronotype, but we further observed an inverse association between shift work and EOC among women with an “evening” chronotype. Given the relatively small numbers of women in each chronotype strata, this may be a chance finding. However, night shift workers were included in our study population and this observation is coherent with the hypothesis that people with circadian rhythms synchronized to be more active in the evening, such that melatonin peaks later, may adapt better to shift work hours. Chronotype has been observed to modify associations for shift work with other hormone-sensitive cancers (i.e., breast and prostate cancers; refs. 35–37). The investigation of menopausal status as a potential effect modifier allowed us to examine whether different hormone profiles may differentially affect exposure to shift work in association with ovarian cancer. Similar to the only other ovarian cancer study that examined associations by menopausal status (21), we observed that ORs did not vary according to menopausal status.

The collection of detailed shift information for each job held by participants enabled the analysis of individual shift work patterns defined according to shift times and schedules. Although we did not observe evidence of associations, these analyses allowed us to address the hypothesis that different shift work patterns may contribute to varying degrees of circadian disruption (23, 24). The frequency and intensity of night shift work have only been analyzed for breast cancer risk, where two studies reported that night shift workers working more frequent and intense schedules have increased risks (35, 38). Our study included a small number of night shift workers with a high frequency or high intensity of night shifts, thus the OR estimates for these analyses were imprecise.

Despite the inclusion of almost 500 cases and the fact that a large proportion of the PROVAQ study population was exposed to shift work, relatively small numbers were exposed to long-term shift work. Thus, if an association exists for long-term shift work (e.g., >25 years) as seen in some breast cancer studies (30), we would not have been able to detect this. We believe that if there were errors in recounting shift work history, this would likely have affected cases and controls equally as participants were not directly asked to report their previous shift work, rather they were asked about several job details, including work patterns involving shifts, after they had first listed all jobs in their history with the aid of a life events calendar. According to one study, in comparison with individual payroll data, the reporting of shift work experiences with night shifts demonstrated high sensitivity (>90%) and specificity (>92%), and questions on shift work experiences without night shifts showed low sensitivity (62%) and moderate specificity (87%; ref. 39). Chronotype may have been misclassified in our study due to self-report, compared with other studies that utilized tools such as the Munich ChronoType Questionnaire (40), which takes into account temporal preferences on work and nonwork days, specific sleep and activity times, and outdoor light exposure in the determination of an individual's chronotype. However, the degree of misclassification may be minimal as one study has demonstrated that self-reported chronotype is highly correlated to the determination of chronotype using a validated questionnaire (41). Furthermore, our results suggest that associations varied by chronotype in a direction consistent with the hypothesis that women with “evening” chronotypes may be better adapted to shift work hours compared with women with “morning” chronotypes.

Because the participation rate among controls was 56% and information collected from eligible nonparticipating controls indicated they were older and had a lower level of education (31), participating controls may not have accurately represented the study base with respect to shift work prevalence. In particular, education level is associated with shift work participation, as shift work is more common in occupations that provide services 24 hours per day, such as healthcare and social assistance, retail trades, and accommodation and food services (42). The adjustment for education level in our analyses reduced the impact of potential selection bias due to differential participation according to education level (43). Although we considered a variety of confounders in our directed acyclic graphs, uncontrolled confounding from unknown factors related to shift work participation cannot be ruled out.

In summary, this study does not support an overall association between shift work exposure and EOC risk. However, our results suggest that chronotype should be considered in studies of shift work as an exposure. As shift work is a prevalent exposure that is a probable human carcinogen, the examination of the organization of shift work, such as according to shift times and schedules, may lead to an increased understanding of the role on cancer risk.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: J. Siemiatycki, K.J. Aronson, A. Koushik

Development of methodology: J. Siemiatycki, K.J. Aronson, A. Koushik

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): J. Arseneau, L. Gilbert, W.H. Gotlieb, D.M. Provencher, A. Koushik

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): L. Leung, A. Grundy, J. Arseneau, L. Gilbert, W.H. Gotlieb, K.J. Aronson, A. Koushik

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: L. Leung, A. Grundy, J. Siemiatycki, L. Gilbert, W.H. Gotlieb, D.M. Provencher, K.J. Aronson, A. Koushik

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): L. Leung, A. Grundy, A. Koushik

Study supervision: W.H. Gotlieb, A. Koushik

Other (recruitment of patients, interpreting results and critical review of manuscript): L. Gilbert

Other (co-supervision with A. Koushik and L. Leung for Masters of Science in Epidemiology): K.J. Aronson

Other (principal Investigator of the PROVAQ project): A. Koushik

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Canadian Cancer Society (grant no. 700485) and the Cancer Research Society, the Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé and the Ministère de l'Économie, de la Science et de l'Innovation du Québec GRePEC program (grant no. 16264). A. Koushik was supported by the Cancer Research Society-Cancer Guzzo Université de Montréal Award, the Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé Research Scholar Program, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research New Investigator program. J. Siemiatycki holds the Guzzo-Cancer Research Society Chair in Environment and Cancer. We are grateful to our study coordinator Julie Lacaille; to our interviewers Claire Walker, Françoise Pineault, and Martine Le Comte; to Dora Rodriguez for coding jobs; and to Ana Gueorguieva for data management.

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.

Footnotes

  • Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention Online (http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/).

  • Received October 13, 2018.
  • Revision received December 3, 2018.
  • Accepted February 26, 2019.
  • Published first March 6, 2019.
  • ©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Ferlay J,
    2. Soerjomataram I,
    3. Ervik M,
    4. Dikshit R,
    5. Eser S,
    6. Mathers C,
    7. et al.
    GLOBOCAN 2012: estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012 v1.0. Lyon, France: IARC CancerBase No. 11; 2013. Available from: http://publications.iarc.fr/Databases/Iarc-Cancerbases/GLOBOCAN-2012-Estimated-Cancer-Incidence-Mortality-And-Prevalence-Worldwide-In-2012-V1.0-2012.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Beavis AL,
    2. Smith AJB,
    3. Fader AN
    . Lifestyle changes and the risk of developing endometrial and ovarian cancers: opportunities for prevention and management. Int J Womens Health 2016;8:151–67.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. La Vecchia C
    . Ovarian cancer: epidemiology and risk factors. Eur J Cancer Prev 2017;26:55–62.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    International Agency for Research on Cancer. Painting, firefighting, and shiftwork. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum 2010;98:9–764.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Arendt J
    . Shift work: coping with the biological clock. Occup Med 2010;60:10–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Stevens RG
    . Light-at-night, circadian disruption and breast cancer: assessment of existing evidence. Int J Epidemiol 2009;38:963–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Jia Y,
    2. Lu Y,
    3. Wu K,
    4. Lin Q,
    5. Shen W,
    6. Zhu M,
    7. et al.
    Does night work increase the risk of breast cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. Cancer Epidemiol 2013;37:197–206.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. Davis S,
    2. Mirick DK
    . Circadian disruption, shift work and the risk of cancer: a summary of the evidence and studies in Seattle. Cancer Causes Control 2006;17:539–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Costa G,
    2. Haus E,
    3. Stevens R
    . Shift work and cancer - considerations on rationale, mechanisms, and epidemiology. Scand J Work Environ Heal 2010;36:163–79.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Fritschi L,
    2. Glass DC,
    3. Heyworth JS,
    4. Aronson K,
    5. Girschik J,
    6. Boyle T,
    7. et al.
    Hypotheses for mechanisms linking shiftwork and cancer. Med Hypotheses 2011;77:430–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Leung M,
    2. Tranmer J,
    3. Hung E,
    4. Korsiak J,
    5. Day AG,
    6. Aronson KJ
    . Shift work, chronotype, and melatonin patterns among female hospital employees on day and night shifts. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2016;25:830–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Papantoniou K,
    2. Pozo OJ,
    3. Espinosa A,
    4. Marcos J,
    5. Castaño-Vinyals G,
    6. Basagaña X,
    7. et al.
    Circadian variation of melatonin, light exposure, and diurnal preference in day and night shift workers of both sexes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23:1176–86.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Haus EL,
    2. Smolensky MH
    . Shift work and cancer risk: potential mechanistic roles of circadian disruption, light at night, and sleep deprivation. Sleep Med Rev 2013;17:273–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Viswanathan AN,
    2. Schernhammer ES
    . Circulating melatonin and the risk of breast and endometrial cancer in women. Cancer Lett 2009;281:1–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Stevens RG
    . Artificial lighting in the industrialized world: circadian disruption and breast cancer. Cancer Causes Control 2006;17:501–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Schernhammer ES,
    2. Schulmeister K
    . Melatonin and cancer risk: does light at night compromise physiologic cancer protection by lowering serum melatonin levels? Br J Cancer 2004;90:941–3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Gómez-Acebo I,
    2. Dierssen-Sotos T,
    3. Papantoniou K,
    4. García-Unzueta MT,
    5. Santos-Benito MF,
    6. Llorca J
    . Association between exposure to rotating night shift versus day shift using levels of 6-sulfatoxymelatonin and cortisol and other sex hormones in women. Chronobiol Int 2015;32:128–35.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Schwarz C,
    2. Pedraza-Flechas AM,
    3. Lope V,
    4. Pastor-Barriuso R,
    5. Pollan M,
    6. Perez-Gomez B
    . Gynaecological cancer and night shift work: a systematic review. Maturitas 2018;110:21–8.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    1. Bhatti P,
    2. Cushing-Haugen KL,
    3. Wicklund KG,
    4. Doherty JA,
    5. Rossing MA
    . Nightshift work and risk of ovarian cancer. Occup Environ Med 2013;70:231–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Carter BD,
    2. Diver WR,
    3. Hildebrand JS,
    4. Patel AV,
    5. Gapstur SM
    . Circadian disruption and fatal ovarian cancer. Am J Prev Med 2014;46:S34–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Poole EM,
    2. Schernhammer ES,
    3. Tworoger SS
    . Rotating night shift work and risk of ovarian cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011;20:934–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Schwartzbaum J,
    2. Ahlbom A,
    3. Feychting M
    . Cohort study of cancer risk among male and female shift workers. Scand J Work Environ Health 2007;33:336–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Stevens RG,
    2. Hansen J,
    3. Costa G,
    4. Haus E,
    5. Kauppinen T,
    6. Aronson KJ,
    7. et al.
    Considerations of circadian impact for defining “shift work” in cancer studies: IARC Working Group Report. Occup Environ Med 2011;68:154–62.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Touitou Y,
    2. Reinberg A,
    3. Touitou D
    . Association between light at night, melatonin secretion, sleep deprivation, and the internal clock: Health impacts and mechanisms of circadian disruption. Life Sci 2017;173:94–106.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    1. Bonde JP,
    2. Hansen J,
    3. Kolstad HA,
    4. Mikkelsen S,
    5. Olsen JH,
    6. Blask DE,
    7. et al.
    Work at night and breast cancer - report on evidence-based options for preventive actions. Scand J Work Environ Heal 2012;38:380–90.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    1. Erren TC,
    2. Pape HG,
    3. Reiter RJ,
    4. Piekarski C
    . Chronodisruption and cancer. Naturwissenschaften 2008;95:367–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Schibler U
    . Circadian time keeping: the daily ups and downs of genes, cells, and organisms. Prog Brain Res 2006;153:271–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Gamble KL,
    2. Motsinger-Reif AA,
    3. Hida A,
    4. Borsetti HM,
    5. Servick SV,
    6. Ciarleglio CM,
    7. et al.
    Shift work in nurses: contribution of phenotypes and genotypes to adaptation. PLoS One 2011;6:e18395.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Saksvik IB,
    2. Bjorvatn B,
    3. Hetland H,
    4. Sandal GM,
    5. Pallesen S
    . Individual differences in tolerance to shift work - a systematic review. Sleep Med Rev 2011;15:221–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Cordina-Duverger E,
    2. Menegaux F,
    3. Popa A,
    4. Rabstein S,
    5. Harth V,
    6. Pesch B,
    7. et al.
    Night shift work and breast cancer: a pooled analysis of population-based case–control studies with complete work history. Eur J Epidemiol 2018;33:369–79.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    1. Koushik A,
    2. Grundy A,
    3. Abrahamowicz M,
    4. Arseneau J,
    5. Gilbert L,
    6. Gotlieb WH,
    7. et al.
    Hormonal and reproductive factors and the risk of ovarian cancer. Cancer Causes Control 2017;28:393–403.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    1. Kurman RJ,
    2. Shih IM
    . The origin and pathogenesis of epithelial ovarian cancer: a proposed unifying theory. Am J Surg Pathol 2010;34:433–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Evans D,
    2. Chaix B,
    3. Lobbedez T,
    4. Verger C,
    5. Flahault A
    . Combining directed acyclic graphs and the change-in-estimate procedure as a novel approach to adjustment-variable selection in epidemiology. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012;12:156.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Glynn RJ,
    2. Rosner B
    . Methods to evaluate risks for composite end points and their individual components. J Clin Epidemiol 2004;57:113–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Hansen J,
    2. Lassen CF
    . Nested case-control study of night shift work and breast cancer risk among women in the Danish military. Occup Environ Med 2012;69:551–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Papantoniou K,
    2. Castaño-Vinyals G,
    3. Espinosa A,
    4. Aragonés N,
    5. Pérez-Gómez B,
    6. Ardanaz E,
    7. et al.
    Breast cancer risk and night shift work in a case–control study in a Spanish population. Eur J Epidemiol 2016;31:867–78.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.↵
    1. Papantoniou K,
    2. Castaño-Vinyals G,
    3. Espinosa A,
    4. Aragonés N,
    5. Pérez-Gómez B,
    6. Burgos J,
    7. et al.
    Night shift work, chronotype and prostate cancer risk in the MCC-Spain case-control study. Int J Cancer 2015;137:1147–57.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Lie JA,
    2. Kjuus H,
    3. Zienolddiny S,
    4. Haugen A,
    5. Stevens RG,
    6. Kjærheim K
    . Night work and breast cancer risk among Norwegian nurses: assessment by different exposure metrics. Am J Epidemiol 2011;173:1272–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Härmä M,
    2. Koskinen A,
    3. Ropponen A,
    4. Puttonen S,
    5. Karhula K,
    6. Vahtera J,
    7. et al.
    Validity of self-reported exposure to shift work. Occup Environ Med 2017;74:228–30.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Zavada A,
    2. Gordijn MCM,
    3. Beersma DG,
    4. Daan S,
    5. Roenneberg T
    . Comparison of the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire with the Horne-Östberg's Morningness-Eveningness Score. Chronobiol Int 2005;22:267–78.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Roenneberg T,
    2. Kuehnle T,
    3. Juda M,
    4. Kantermann T,
    5. Allebrandt K,
    6. Gordijn M,
    7. et al.
    Epidemiology of the human circadian clock. Sleep Med Rev 2007;11:429–38.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Williams C
    . Work-life balance of shift workers (75-001-X). Perspectives on Labour and Income, Statistics Canada 2008;9:5–16.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.↵
    1. Hernán MA,
    2. Hernández-Díaz S,
    3. Robins JM
    . A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology 2004;15:615–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention: 28 (5)
May 2019
Volume 28, Issue 5
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Editorial Board (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Shift Work Patterns, Chronotype, and Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Risk
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Shift Work Patterns, Chronotype, and Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Risk
Lisa Leung, Anne Grundy, Jack Siemiatycki, Jocelyne Arseneau, Lucy Gilbert, Walter H. Gotlieb, Diane M. Provencher, Kristan J. Aronson and Anita Koushik
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev May 1 2019 (28) (5) 987-995; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-18-1112

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Shift Work Patterns, Chronotype, and Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Risk
Lisa Leung, Anne Grundy, Jack Siemiatycki, Jocelyne Arseneau, Lucy Gilbert, Walter H. Gotlieb, Diane M. Provencher, Kristan J. Aronson and Anita Koushik
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev May 1 2019 (28) (5) 987-995; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-18-1112
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Authors' Contributions
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Early-Life Risk Factors for Breast Cancer
  • Sugary Drink Consumption and Colorectal Cancer Risk
  • HPV Testing in Self-samples and Urine
Show more Research Articles
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
eISSN: 1538-7755
ISSN: 1055-9965

Advertisement