Cancer Causes & Control : CCC, 18(2), 189-198, 2007
Risk of breast cancer associated with short-term use of oral contraceptives
Suzanne G. Folger , Jill A McDonald, Leslie Bernstein
Giske Ursin, Jesse A Berlin, Brian L Strom, Michael S Simon, Kathleen E Malone, Ronald T Burkman , Janet R Daling , Polly A Marchbanks , Sandra A Norman , Robert Spirtas , Linda Weiss
Author affiliations (14)
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health PromotionROR
Division of Cancer Etiology, Department of Population Sciences, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, California; Departments of 2Preventive Medicine and 3Pathology, Keck School of Medicine, Univers...ROR
Division of Cancer Etiology, Department of Population Sciences, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, California; Departments of 2Preventive Medicine and 3Pathology, Keck School of Medicine, Univers...
To estimate breast cancer risk associated with short-term (<6 months) oral contraceptive use, and explore variation in estimates by use characteristics and medical, menstrual, and reproductive history.
Methods
We analyzed data from the Women's Contraceptive and Reproductive Experiences Study. Case subjects were white women and black women, 35-64 years old, diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in July 1994-April 1998. Control subjects identified by random-digit dialing were matched to case subjects by age, race, and study site. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Results
Overall, short-term oral contraceptive use was not associated with breast cancer risk (OR = 1.0; 95% CI = 0.8-1.1). However, significant interaction between short-term use and menopausal status led to an observed increased breast cancer risk in pre-menopausal women (OR = 1.3; 95% CI = 1.0-1.7) and a reduced risk in post-menopausal women (OR = 0.8; 95% CI = 0.6-1.0) associated with short-term use. The association was more pronounced in women with non-contraceptive reasons for use and underlying risk factors for breast cancer.
Conclusions
These associations may result from underlying characteristics of users or unmeasured factors influencing duration of use and breast cancer risk.
short-term oral contraceptive use breast cancer risk, oral contraceptive duration breast cancer premenopausal women, hormonal contraception breast cancer case-control study, menopausal status oral contraceptive breast cancer interaction, Women's Contraceptive Reproductive Experiences Study breast cancer, oral contraceptive non-contraceptive use breast cancer risk, short duration pill use breast cancer odds ratio, premenopausal breast cancer risk oral contraceptive exposure, Folger Marchbanks oral contraceptive breast cancer, racial differences oral contraceptive breast cancer risk
PMID 17216547 17216547 DOI 10.1007/s10552-006-0086-7 10.1007/s10552-006-0086-7 Folger et al. 2007, Folger 2007
Cite this article
Folger, S. G., Marchbanks, P. A., McDonald, J. A., Bernstein, L., Ursin, G., Berlin, J. A., Daling, J. R., Norman, S. A., Strom, B. L., Weiss, L. K., Simon, M. S., Burkman, R. T., Malone, K. E., & Spirtas, R. (2007). Risk of breast cancer associated with short-term use of oral contraceptives. Cancer causes & control : CCC, 18(2), 189-198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-006-0086-7
Folger SG, Marchbanks PA, McDonald JA, Bernstein L, Ursin G, Berlin JA, et al. Risk of breast cancer associated with short-term use of oral contraceptives. Cancer Causes Control. 2007;18(2):189-198. doi:10.1007/s10552-006-0086-7
Folger, S. G., et al. "Risk of breast cancer associated with short-term use of oral contraceptives." Cancer causes & control : CCC, vol. 18, no. 2, 2007, pp. 189-198.
Family history of breast cancer is an established risk factor for breast cancer. In addition, there is evidence that oral contraceptive use may be associated with a moderate increase in breast cancer risk. The three cohort studies that have investigated the relationship between oral contraceptive use and breast cancer risk among women with a family history of breast cancer have yielded mixed results, possibly due to the relatively small sample sizes employed and/or differences in the selection of covariates for inclusion in multivariate models. Therefore, we examined the association between oral contraceptive use and breast cancer risk in a large cohort study in Canada. The cohort consisted of the 27,318 women in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study who reported a family history of breast cancer on enrollment into the study. Linkages to national mortality and cancer databases yielded data on deaths and cancer incidence, with follow-up ending between 1998 and 2000, depending upon the province. During a mean of 16.0 years of follow-up, we observed 1707 incident cases of breast cancer among women with any history of breast cancer of which 795 cases occurred among women with a mother, sister, and/or daughter with breast cancer. Among women with any family history of breast cancer, ever use of oral contraceptives was associated with a 12% reduction in risk of breast cancer (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.73-1.07), and there was an inverse trend with increasing duration of use of borderline statistical significance (p(trend)=0.03). Although we also observed a 25% lower risk of breast cancer associated with oral contraceptive use of greater than 84 months versus never use among women with a first degree relative with breast cancer, this finding was not statistically significant (95% CI=0.47-1.19, p(trend)=0.48). Our data raise the possibility that relatively long duration of oral contraceptive use may be inversely associated with risk among women with a family history of breast cancer.
Current or recent use of combined oral contraceptives (containing oestrogen+progestagen) has been associated with a small increase in breast cancer risk. Progestagen-only contraceptive use is increasing, but information on associated risks is limited. We aimed to assess breast cancer risk associated with current or recent use of different types of hormonal contraceptives in premenopausal women, with particular emphasis on progestagen-only preparations. Hormonal contraceptive prescriptions recorded prospectively in a UK primary care database (Clinical Practice Research Datalink [CPRD]) were compared in a nested case-control study for 9,498 women aged <50 years with incident invasive breast cancer diagnosed in 1996 to 2017, and for 18,171 closely matched controls. On average, 7.3 (standard deviation [SD] 4.6) years of clinical records were available for each case and their matched controls prior to the date of diagnosis. Conditional logistic regression yielded odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of breast cancer by the hormonal contraceptive type last prescribed, controlled for age, GP practice, body mass index, number of recorded births, time since last birth, and alcohol intake. MEDLINE and Embase were searched for observational studies published between 01 January 1995 and 01 November 2022 that reported on the association between current or recent progestagen-only contraceptive use and breast cancer risk in premenopausal women. Fixed effects meta-analyses combined the CPRD results with previously published results from 12 observational studies for progestagen-only preparations. Overall, 44% (4,195/9,498) of women with breast cancer and 39% (7,092/18,171) of matched controls had a hormonal contraceptive prescription an average of 3.1 (SD 3.7) years before breast cancer diagnosis (or equivalent date for controls). About half the prescriptions were for progestagen-only preparations. Breast cancer ORs were similarly and significantly raised if the last hormonal contraceptive prescription was for oral combined, oral progestagen-only, injected progestagen, or progestagen-releasing intrauterine devices (IUDs): ORs = 1.23 (95% CI [1.14 to 1.32]; p < 0.001), 1.26 (95% CI [1.16 to 1.37]; p < 0.001), 1.25 (95% CI [1.07 to 1.45]; p = 0.004), and 1.32 (95% CI [1.17 to 1.49]; p < 0.001), respectively. Our meta-analyses yielded significantly raised relative risks (RRs) for current or recent use of progestagen-only contraceptives: oral = 1.29 (95% CI [1.21 to 1.37]; heterogeneity χ25 = 6.7; p = 0.2), injected = 1.18 (95% CI [1.07 to 1.30]; heterogeneity χ28 = 22.5; p = 0.004), implanted = 1.28 (95% CI [1.08 to 1.51]; heterogeneity χ23 = 7.3; p = 0.06), and IUDs = 1.21 (95% CI [1.14 to 1.28]; heterogeneity χ24 = 7.9; p = 0.1). When the CPRD results were combined with those from previous published findings (which included women from a wider age range), the resulting 15-year absolute excess risk associated with 5 years use of oral combined or progestagen-only contraceptives in high-income countries was estimated at: 8 per 100,000 users from age 16 to 20 years and 265 per 100,000 users from age 35 to 39 years. The main limitation of the study design was that, due to the nature of the CPRD data and most other prescription databases, information on contraceptive use was recorded during a defined period only, with information before entry into the database generally being unavailable. This means that although our findings provide evidence about the short-term associations between hormonal contraceptives and breast cancer risk, they do not provide information regarding longer-term associations, or the impact of total duration of contraceptive use on breast cancer risk. This study provides important new evidence that current or recent use of progestagen-only contraceptives is associated with a slight increase in breast cancer risk, which does not appear to vary by mode of delivery, and is similar in magnitude to that associated with combined hormonal contraceptives. Given that the underlying risk of breast cancer increases with advancing age, the absolute excess risk associated with use of either type of oral contraceptive is estimated to be smaller in women who use it at younger rather than at older ages. Such risks need be balanced against the benefits of using contraceptives during the childbearing years.
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.
Lovett JL et al., 2017·Evolution, medicine, and public health
In the evolutionary past, women spent most of their reproductive lives either pregnant or in lactational amenorrhea, and rarely menstruated. The current pattern of frequent menses, and the associated increase in endogenous hormonal exposure, has been implicated in the current breast cancer epidemic. It is not known, however, whether oral contraceptives further increase, or actually decrease, hormonal exposure over one menstrual cycle. Here, we examined variation in hormonal exposure across seven oral contraceptive (OC) formulations, and produced the first quantitative comparison of exogenous versus endogenous hormone exposure. Methodology: Data from 12 studies of serum estradiol (E2) and progesterone (P4) were aggregated to create a composite graph of endogenous hormone levels over one menstrual cycle in European or American women (age 19-40 years). Pharmacokinetic package insert data, also from Western women, were used to calculate exposures for hormones in seven different OC formulations. Endogenous and exogenous hormone levels were compared after adjusting for the relative binding affinity (RBA) of progestin to the progesterone receptor and ethinyl estradiol (EE) to the estrogen receptor. After adjusting for RBA, median ethinyl estradiol exposure across 28 days in the OCs was 11.4 nmol/l, similar to median E2 exposure. One formulation, however, was 40% higher in ethinyl estradiol exposure relative to median endogenous estradiol. Median exposure from progestins in OCs (1496 nmol/l) was 4-fold higher than the median endogenous exposure from P4 (364 nmol/l). Exposure from OC progestins ranged from one sixtieth to 8-fold median endogenous P4 over 28 days. Conclusions and Given that breast cancer risk increases with hormonal exposure, our finding that four widely prescribed formulations more than quadruple progestin exposure relative to endogenous progesterone exposure is cause for concern. As not all formulations produce the same exposures, these findings are pertinent to contraceptive choice. We also identify critical gaps in the provision of relevant data on pharmacokinetics and carcinogenicity by drug manufacturers.