Erratum: Racial/ethnic differences in the epidemiology of ovarian cancer: a pooled analysis of 12 case-control studies (International journal of epidemiology (2018) 47 2 (460-472))

One of the authors did not declare a potential conflict of interest. The statement in the article should have read: “Conflict of interest: Patricia Moorman has received compensation for work related to litigation in regard to talc and ovarian cancer. The other authors declare no conflicts.

Racial/ethnic differences in the epidemiology of ovarian cancer: a pooled analysis of 12 case-control studies.

BackgroundOvarian cancer incidence differs substantially by race/ethnicity, but the reasons for this are not well understood. Data were pooled from the African American Cancer Epidemiology Study (AACES) and 11 case-control studies in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC) to examine racial/ethnic differences in epidemiological characteristics with suspected involvement in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) aetiology.MethodsWe used multivariable logistic regression to estimate associations for 17 reproductive, hormonal and lifestyle characteristics and EOC risk by race/ethnicity among 10 924 women with invasive EOC (8918 Non-Hispanic Whites, 433 Hispanics, 911 Blacks, 662 Asian/Pacific Islanders) and 16 150 controls (13 619 Non-Hispanic Whites, 533 Hispanics, 1233 Blacks, 765 Asian/Pacific Islanders). Likelihood ratio tests were used to evaluate heterogeneity in the risk factor associations by race/ethnicity.ResultsWe observed statistically significant racial/ethnic heterogeneity for hysterectomy and EOC risk (P = 0.008), where the largest odds ratio (OR) was observed in Black women [OR = 1.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.34-2.02] compared with other racial/ethnic groups. Although not statistically significant, the associations for parity, first-degree family history of ovarian or breast cancer, and endometriosis varied by race/ethnicity. Asian/Pacific Islanders had the greatest magnitude of association for parity (≥3 births: OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.28-0.54), and Black women had the largest ORs for family history (OR = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.42-2.21) and endometriosis (OR = 2.42, 95% CI = 1.65-3.55).ConclusionsAlthough racial/ethnic heterogeneity was observed for hysterectomy, our findings support the validity of EOC risk factors across all racial/ethnic groups, and further suggest that any racial/ethnic population with a higher prevalence of a modifiable risk factor should be targeted to disseminate information about prevention

Racial/ethnic differences in the epidemiology of ovarian cancer: a pooled analysis of 12 case-control studies

Background: Ovarian cancer incidence differs substantially by race/ethnicity, but the reasons for this are not well understood. Data were pooled from the African American Cancer Epidemiology Study (AACES) and 11 case-control studies in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC) to examine racial/ethnic differences in epidemiological characteristics with suspected involvement in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) aetiology.Methods: We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate associations for 17 reproductive, hormonal and lifestyle characteristics and EOC risk by race/ethnicity among 10 924 women with invasive EOC (8918 Non-Hispanic Whites, 433 Hispanics, 911 Blacks, 662 Asian/Pacific Islanders) and 16 150 controls (13 619 Non-Hispanic Whites, 533 Hispanics, 1233 Blacks, 765 Asian/Pacific Islanders). Likelihood ratio tests were used to evaluate heterogeneity in the risk factor associations by race/ethnicity.Results: We observed statistically significant racial/ethnic heterogeneity for hysterectomy and EOC risk (P = 0.008), where the largest odds ratio (OR) was observed in Black women [OR = 1.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.34-2.02] compared with other racial/ethnic groups. Although not statistically significant, the associations for parity, first-degree family history of ovarian or breast cancer, and endometriosis varied by race/ethnicity. Asian/Pacific Islanders had the greatest magnitude of association for parity (>= 3 births: OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.28-0.54), and Black women had the largest ORs for family history (OR = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.42-2.21) and endometriosis (OR = 2.42, 95% CI = 1.65-3.55).Conclusions: Although racial/ethnic heterogeneity was observed for hysterectomy, our findings support the validity of EOC risk factors across all racial/ethnic groups, and further suggest that any racial/ethnic population with a higher prevalence of a modifiable risk factor should be targeted to disseminate information about prevention

Racial/ethnic differences in the epidemiology of ovarian cancer: a pooled analysis of 12 case-control studies.

One of the authors did not declare a potential conflict of interest. The statement in the article should have read: “Conflict of interest: Patricia Moorman has received compensation for work related to litigation in regard to talc and ovarian cancer. The other authors declare no conflicts

The Mathematical Development in Number and Operation of Struggling First Graders

Number and operations serve as the “cornerstone” of the K-12 mathematics curriculum in many countries. Solving problems in the mathematical domains of algebra, geometry, measurement, and statistics is often closely connected to student knowledge of number and operation (Griffin, 2005). Although considerable knowledge exists regarding the development of number and operation for typically developing children, less is known about the development of children who struggle in mathematics. Moreover, children enter school with considerable differences in their understanding of number and operation. While most children, through exposure to various informal and formal tasks, develop a deeper understanding of number and operation, this development is delayed for some children. These children do not achieve levels of proficiency required for higher mathematics . . . . Therefore it is critical that difficulties in mathematics are addressed before they become chronic, pervasive, severe, and difficult to remediate” (Fuchs, 2005, p. 351) . . . In some studies, concerns regarding student retention of learned concepts, and success generalizing and transferring mathematical ideas to other mathematical situations or domains were noted. Yet it is unclear why these mixed results occurred . . . . Therefore, they strongly recommend that, “future research should be directed at the role of individual differences in the development of early numeracy and the characteristics of children’s learning responsible for these differences” (Van Luit & Schopmann, 2000 p. 35)