Association of Premenopausal Bilateral Oophorectomy With Parkinsonism and Parkinson Disease

Walter A. Rocca, Carin Y. Smith, Liliana Gazzuola Rocca, Rodolfo Savica, Michelle M. Mielke

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Importance: The association of premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy with parkinsonism and Parkinson disease (PD) remains controversial. Objective: To assess whether women who underwent premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy were at increased risk of parkinsonism and PD and whether the associations varied by age at oophorectomy and by receipt of estrogen replacement therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from a combination of 2 independent cohort studies, the Mayo Clinic Cohort Study of Oophorectomy and Aging 1 and 2, which were based on the Rochester Epidemiology Project medical records-linkage system. A population-based sample of 5499 women from Olmsted County, Minnesota, were included; of those, 2750 women underwent bilateral oophorectomy for a benign indication before spontaneous menopause between January 1, 1950, and December 31, 2007 (oophorectomy cohort), and 2749 age-matched women who did not undergo bilateral oophorectomy were randomly sampled from the general population (reference cohort). Data were analyzed from March 1 to April 30, 2022. The date of oophorectomy was considered the index date for both groups. Exposures: Medical record documentation of bilateral oophorectomy abstracted from a medical records-linkage system (Rochester Epidemiology Project). Main Outcomes and Measures: Incidence and risk of parkinsonism or PD, with diagnoses confirmed by in-person examination or medical record review. Results: Among 5499 participants (median [IQR] age, 45.0 [40.0-48.0] years; 5312 [96.6%] White), 2750 women (2679 White [97.4%]) underwent bilateral oophorectomy at a median age of 45.0 years (IQR, 40.0-48.0 years), and 2749 women (2633 White [95.8%]) with a median age of 45.0 years (IQR, 40.0-48.0 years) at the index date were included in the reference cohort. Bilateral oophorectomy was associated with an increased risk of parkinsonism overall (hazard ratio [HR], 1.59; 95% CI, 1.02-2.46) and in women younger than 43 years at oophorectomy (HR, 7.67; 95% CI, 1.77-33.27). There was a pattern of increasing risk with younger age at the time of oophorectomy using 4 age strata (≥50 years: HR, 1.43 [95% CI, 0.50-4.15]; 46-49 years: HR, 1.55 [95% CI, 0.79-3.07]; 40-45 years: HR, 1.36 [95% CI, 0.64-2.89]; <40 years: HR, 8.82 [95% CI, 1.08-72.00]; P =.02 for trend). The number needed to harm was 53 women overall and 27 women younger than 43 years at the time of oophorectomy. Bilateral oophorectomy was also associated with an increased risk of PD in women younger than 43 years at oophorectomy (HR, 5.00; 95% CI, 1.10-22.70), with a number needed to harm of 48 women. Among women who underwent oophorectomy at 45 years and younger, the risk was lower in women who received estrogen after the procedure and through age 50 years compared with women who did not. For parkinsonism, the HRs were 1.72 (95% CI, 0.54-5.53) vs 2.05 (95% CI, 0.80-5.23); for PD, the HRs were 1.53 (95% CI, 0.29-8.23) vs 2.75 (95% CI, 0.84-9.04). However, the differences were not significant. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, premenopausal women who underwent bilateral oophorectomy before age 43 years had an increased risk of parkinsonism and PD compared with women who did not undergo bilateral oophorectomy. These findings suggest that a reduction in the practice of prophylactic bilateral oophorectomy in premenopausal women at average risk of ovarian cancer may have substantial benefit for reducing the risk of parkinsonism and PD..

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere2238663
Pages (from-to)E2238663
JournalJAMA Network Open
Volume5
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 26 2022

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Association of Premenopausal Bilateral Oophorectomy With Parkinsonism and Parkinson Disease'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this