Role of Oral Contraceptive (OC) as a risk factor for cervical cancer remained controversial and unclear.
Objective
To evaluate risk of cervical cancer in OC users and non-users through a comprehensive systematic review.
Search Strategy
Literature search conducted in databases from January 1990 till August 2019 using various search terms.
Selection Criteria
Primary research studies that evaluated and assessed the association of OC use with cervical cancer with study design of case control or cohort types published in English language.
Data Collection and Analysis
PRISMA guided review was done by two independent researchers. Effect size estimated by pooled Odds ratio with 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) in random effect models on OC pill use for the risk of cervical cancer.
Results
Review included 19 studies. Overall risk of invasive cancer on OC use was found to be significant with unknown status of HPV OR (95 % CI) as 1.51 (1.35, 1.68) and for unknown HPV as 1.66 (1.24, 2.21). Adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and carcinoma in situ had significant association with OR (95 % CI) of 1.77 (1.4, 2.24), 1.29 (1.18, 1.42) and 1.7 (1.18, 2.44) respectively.
Conclusion
OC pills use had a definite associated risk for developing cervical cancer specially for Adenocarcinoma and longer duration of OC pills use.
oral contraceptive cervical cancer risk meta-analysis, OC pill use cervical adenocarcinoma risk, hormonal contraception HPV cervical cancer association, oral contraceptive duration cervical cancer systematic review, combined oral contraceptives squamous cell carcinoma cervix, contraceptive pill carcinoma in situ cervix risk, oral contraceptive cancer risk pooled odds ratio, hormonal contraception long-term cervical cancer risk, OC use HPV status cervical cancer epidemiology, oral contraceptive adverse effects cervical neoplasia
PMID 32114321 32114321 DOI 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.02.014 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.02.014
Cite this article
Asthana, S., Busa, V., & Labani, S. (2020). Oral contraceptives use and risk of cervical cancer-A systematic review & meta-analysis. European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology, 247, 163-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.02.014
Asthana S, Busa V, Labani S. Oral contraceptives use and risk of cervical cancer-A systematic review & meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;247:163-175. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.02.014
Asthana, Smita, et al. "Oral contraceptives use and risk of cervical cancer-A systematic review & meta-analysis." European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology, vol. 247, 2020, pp. 163-175.
Related articles
Contraception/ComparisonCancer RiskLong-term Health OutcomesBreast Cancer Prognosis
To extend knowledge about the long-term use of hormones in hormone therapy or oral contraception as prognostic factors in breast cancer. The MCC-Spain project is a cohort of 1,685 women with incident breast cancer recruited in Spain. Recruitment was carried out between 2007 and 2010, and the follow-up finished in December 2017. The impact of hormone therapy or oral contraception on breast cancer prognosis was analyzed considering year of birth and menopausal status (1,095 women [65%] were postmenopausal). Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using Cox regression models. Death by any cause was considered as the event, and hormone therapy or oral contraception were analyzed as regressors. Oral contraception use for less than 5 years shows an HR of 1.10 (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.62), whereas use for 5 or more years shows an HR of 1.46 (95% CI, 0.95 to 2.25), with a P trend of 0.01, showing a dose-dependent response. Regarding hormone therapy and restricting the analysis to postmenopausal women born between1940 and 1959, where most hormone therapy (consumption) is concentrated, the results did not show any trend. Concerning oral contraception use, our results demonstrate that their use is related to poor prognosis in breast cancer. However, research in this field is limited and controversial, indicating the need for more research in this area. Regarding hormone therapy consumption, our results indicate no association with better prognosis, which contradicts what has previously been published.
Contraception/ComparisonBreast Cancer RiskLong-Term Side EffectsMeta-Analysis
Epidemiological studies have shown that some hormonal contraceptive methods are associated with increased breast cancer risk, especially if used over long periods. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on the risk of breast cancer development in women using the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS). We performed a thorough review of peer-reviewed publications from 10 January 1999, through 31 July 2019, using combinations of search terms for breast cancer risk and LNG-IUS in the Medline, EMBASE, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), and Scielo databases. This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017059076). Studies reporting breast cancer risk estimates among healthy users of LNG-IUS were included according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) criteria. Two authors performed data extraction, and a third author resolved disagreements. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the Downs and Black instrument. A funnel plot was generated, and a linear regression test of funnel plot asymmetry was used to assess publication bias. Finally, we performed a random-effects model (owing to high study heterogeneity) meta-analysis of seven suitable studies, stratified by the age distribution of patients (<50 years, ≥50 years, and mixed). We identified 96 studies and manually cross-referenced and excluded duplicate articles. Seventy articles were excluded on the basis of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, resulting in the assessment of 26 full-text articles. Eight articles were considered adequate for inclusion in this systematic review, and seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. Three publications were case-control studies and five were cohort studies. According to the Downs and Black instrument, 5 studies were rated as "good" and 3 studies were deemed "fair". Our meta-analysis results indicated increased breast for all women, odds ratio (OR) = 1.16 (95% CI 1.06-1.28, I(2) = 78%, P < .01); for women aged <50 years, OR = 1.12 (95% CI 1.02-1.22, I(2) = 66%, P = .02); and for women aged ≥50 years, OR = 1.52 (95% CI 1.34-1.72, I(2) = 0%, P = .84). Current evidence suggests that LNG-IUS users have an increased breast cancer risk regardless of age and indication. The effect of LNG-IUS on breast cancer risk seems to be larger in older users. However, our systematic review detected methodological issues across the available studies, and confounding factors may be responsible for at least a fraction of the risk effects associated with LNG-IUS use. Nevertheless, users of LNG-IUS should be aware of these trends. We believe that caution is needed, and risks should be balanced against proven health benefits (eg effective treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding and avoidance of surgical interventions), when prescribing LNG-IUS for long periods of use, especially in women with other known breast cancer risk factors such as old age, obesity, and familial predisposition.
Contraception/ComparisonCancer RiskCervical Neoplasia RiskCervical Cancer Risk Factors
Open Access
Hormonal contraceptive use has been associated with the development of cervical cancer, although inconsistent results are reported on the association with intrauterine device (IUD) use. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between the type of contraceptive use and the development of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade III or worse (CIN3+). A retrospective population-based cohort study including women aged 29-44 years attending the cervical cancer screening program with normal cytology between 2005 and 2009 identified from the Dutch Pathology Registry. Subgroups with at least 5 years registered use of an oral contraceptive (OC) or IUD were compared with non-users. Risk ratios of CIN3+ were estimated per contraceptive type. s702,037 women were included with a median follow-up of 9.7 years, of which 6705 (0.96%) and 559 (0.08%) women developed CIN3 and cervical cancer, respectively. IUD use was associated with an increased risk of developing CIN3+ (risk ratio (RR) 1.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32-1.74), and OC use was associated with an increased risk of developing CIN3+ (RR 2.77, 95%CI 2.65-3.00) and cervical cancer (RR 2.06, 95%CI 1.52-2.79). The risk of developing CIN3+ and cervical cancer was higher for OC users compared with IUD users (RR 1.83, 95%CI 1.60-2.09 and RR 1.70, 95%CI 1.00-2.90, respectively). Both OC use and IUD use were associated with an increased risk of developing CIN3+. However, for women with a contraceptive wish, an IUD seems safer than an OC as the risk of developing CIN3+ and cervical cancer was higher for OC users.
Contraception/ComparisonCancer RiskBreast Cancer Risk FactorsCase-Control Studies
Open Access
Low-dose oral contraceptives (OC) were approved by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare in 1999, yet despite their contraceptive and non-contraceptive health benefits, only 5% of the target population use them. Fear of increased cancer risk, particularly breast cancer, is one reason for this. Due to low OC uptake and low screening participation, a paucity of data is available on the risk of OC use and breast cancer in Japanese women. The present study investigated OC use and breast cancer risk, as well as menstrual, reproductive and family factors. This was a clinic-based case-control study of women aged 20-69yrs who had undergone breast screening between January 2007 and December 2013 in central Tokyo. In all, 28.8% of the participants had experience with OC use. Cases were 155 women with a pathologically confirmed diagnosis of breast cancer. Controls were the remaining 12,333 women. Increased age was a significant risk factor for breast cancer (p<0.001). A lower risk was found in premenopausal women presently taking OC compared to never users (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.22-0.90) after adjusting for age, parity and breast feeding, and a family history of breast cancer. Increased age rather than OC use had a greater effect on breast cancer risk. This risk may be decreased in premenopausal women with OC use, but further long-term prospective studies are necessary.