Hormonal contraception and risk of breast cancer: a closer look.

A. Kaunitz,J. Pinkerton,J. Manson
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/GME.0000000000001101
2018-05-01
Menopause
Abstract:The Danish study findings differ from the results of several M any women are concerned that use of hormonal contraception might increase their risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer. Despite a recent report of a small increase in breast cancer risk, oral and other hormonal contraceptives remain safe and effective choices of birth control or symptom management. A recent report in the New England Journal of Medicine used Danish national databases to determine the association between use of hormonal contraception and risk of invasive breast cancer in women aged 15 to 49 years. In the Danish study, nearly 1.8 million women were followed from 1995 to 2012, with average follow-up of 10.9 years. Among these women, more than 11,000 incident breast cancers were diagnosed. Oral contraceptives (OCs) represented the most common form of hormonal contraceptives used by Danish women, with the progestin-releasing intrauterine device (IUD) the second most common method. Compared with women who had never used hormonal contraceptives, the relative risk of breast cancer in current or recent users was 1.20 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-1.26). Current or recent use of the progestin IUD was associated with a similar small but statistically significant elevation in risk. Despite the small magnitude of risk (amounting to one extra case of breast cancer for every 7,690 women using hormonal contraception per year), the large number of women included in these national databases resulted in statistically significant findings. Several methodological limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings. The investigators used a registry database that did not have information on several potential confounders, including age at menarche, lactation history, physical activity, and alcohol consumption. The researchers also did not account for potential differences between users and nonusers in breast cancer surveillance, such as frequency of clinical breast examinations and/or screening mammography. Additionally, although the registry had information on women aged 15 to 79 years, the analysis was limited to women below age 50. This is unfortunate because more than three-quarters of invasive breast cancers are diagnosed in women aged 50 and older, and it would have been of interest to see if the difference in risks persisted or dissipated during the postmenopausal years. In view of the modest elevation in risk and the potential for confounding, the results may not reflect a cause-and-effect relationship. In observational studies, associations do not prove causation, and small differences in relative risk should be interpreted cautiously.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?