8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Combined and progestagen-only hormonal contraceptives and breast cancer risk: A UK nested case–control study and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          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.

          Methods and findings

          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 χ 2 5 = 6.7; p = 0.2), injected = 1.18 (95% CI [1.07 to 1.30]; heterogeneity χ 2 8 = 22.5; p = 0.004), implanted = 1.28 (95% CI [1.08 to 1.51]; heterogeneity χ 2 3 = 7.3; p = 0.06), and IUDs = 1.21 (95% CI [1.14 to 1.28]; heterogeneity χ 2 4 = 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.

          Conclusions

          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.

          Abstract

          In a UK nested case-control study and subsequent meta-analysis, Kirstin Pirie and colleagues explore the association between combined and progestogen-only hormonal contraceptives and the risk of breast cancer.

          Author summary

          Why was this study done?
          • Use of combined oral contraceptives has been associated with a small transient increase in breast cancer risk, but there is limited data about the effect of progestagen-only contraceptives on breast cancer risk.

          • Use of progestagen-only hormonal contraceptives has increased substantially over the last decade, and in 2020, there were almost as many prescriptions in England for oral progestagen-only contraceptives as for combined oral contraceptives.

          • Given the increasing use of progestagen-only contraceptives, it is important to understand how their use is associated with breast cancer risk.

          What did the researchers do and find?
          • We carried out a nested case–control study in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), including almost 10,000 women aged <50 years with breast cancer, to assess the relationship between a woman’s recent use of hormonal contraceptives and her subsequent risk of breast cancer.

          • In our study, current or recent use of hormonal contraceptives was associated with a similarly increased risk of breast cancer regardless of whether the preparation last used was oral combined, oral progestagen-only, injectable progestagen, progestagen implant, or progestagen intrauterine device.

          • When our findings for progestagen-only contraceptives were combined with those of previous studies, there was evidence of a broadly similar increased risk of breast cancer in current and recent users of all four types of progestagen-only preparations.

          What do these findings mean?
          • Our findings suggest that there is a relative increase of around 20% to 30% in breast cancer risk associated with current or recent use of either combined oral or progestagen-only contraceptives.

          • When our findings for oral contraceptives are combined with results from previous studies (which included women in a wider age range), they suggest that the 15-year absolute excess risk of breast cancer associated with use of oral contraceptives ranges from 8 per 100,000 users (an increase in incidence from 0.084% to 0.093%) for use from age 16 to 20 to about 265 per 100,000 users (from 2.0% to 2.2%) for use from age 35 to 39.

          • These excess risks must be viewed in the context of the well-established benefits of contraceptive use in women’s reproductive years.

          • The lack of complete information on a woman’s prescription history means that this study was unable to assess the long-term associations of contraceptive use on breast cancer risk, but this should not have unduly affected the findings regarding their short-term associations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Data Resource Profile: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD)

          The Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) is an ongoing primary care database of anonymised medical records from general practitioners, with coverage of over 11.3 million patients from 674 practices in the UK. With 4.4 million active (alive, currently registered) patients meeting quality criteria, approximately 6.9% of the UK population are included and patients are broadly representative of the UK general population in terms of age, sex and ethnicity. General practitioners are the gatekeepers of primary care and specialist referrals in the UK. The CPRD primary care database is therefore a rich source of health data for research, including data on demographics, symptoms, tests, diagnoses, therapies, health-related behaviours and referrals to secondary care. For over half of patients, linkage with datasets from secondary care, disease-specific cohorts and mortality records enhance the range of data available for research. The CPRD is very widely used internationally for epidemiological research and has been used to produce over 1000 research studies, published in peer-reviewed journals across a broad range of health outcomes. However, researchers must be aware of the complexity of routinely collected electronic health records, including ways to manage variable completeness, misclassification and development of disease definitions for research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Type and timing of menopausal hormone therapy and breast cancer risk: individual participant meta-analysis of the worldwide epidemiological evidence

            (2019)
            Summary Background Published findings on breast cancer risk associated with different types of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) are inconsistent, with limited information on long-term effects. We bring together the epidemiological evidence, published and unpublished, on these associations, and review the relevant randomised evidence. Methods Principal analyses used individual participant data from all eligible prospective studies that had sought information on the type and timing of MHT use; the main analyses are of individuals with complete information on this. Studies were identified by searching many formal and informal sources regularly from Jan 1, 1992, to Jan 1, 2018. Current users were included up to 5 years (mean 1·4 years) after last-reported MHT use. Logistic regression yielded adjusted risk ratios (RRs) comparing particular groups of MHT users versus never users. Findings During prospective follow-up, 108 647 postmenopausal women developed breast cancer at mean age 65 years (SD 7); 55 575 (51%) had used MHT. Among women with complete information, mean MHT duration was 10 years (SD 6) in current users and 7 years (SD 6) in past users, and mean age was 50 years (SD 5) at menopause and 50 years (SD 6) at starting MHT. Every MHT type, except vaginal oestrogens, was associated with excess breast cancer risks, which increased steadily with duration of use and were greater for oestrogen-progestagen than oestrogen-only preparations. Among current users, these excess risks were definite even during years 1–4 (oestrogen-progestagen RR 1·60, 95% CI 1·52–1·69; oestrogen-only RR 1·17, 1·10–1·26), and were twice as great during years 5–14 (oestrogen-progestagen RR 2·08, 2·02–2·15; oestrogen-only RR 1·33, 1·28–1·37). The oestrogen-progestagen risks during years 5–14 were greater with daily than with less frequent progestagen use (RR 2·30, 2·21–2·40 vs 1·93, 1·84–2·01; heterogeneity p<0·0001). For a given preparation, the RRs during years 5–14 of current use were much greater for oestrogen-receptor-positive tumours than for oestrogen-receptor-negative tumours, were similar for women starting MHT at ages 40–44, 45–49, 50–54, and 55–59 years, and were attenuated by starting after age 60 years or by adiposity (with little risk from oestrogen-only MHT in women who were obese). After ceasing MHT, some excess risk persisted for more than 10 years; its magnitude depended on the duration of previous use, with little excess following less than 1 year of MHT use. Interpretation If these associations are largely causal, then for women of average weight in developed countries, 5 years of MHT, starting at age 50 years, would increase breast cancer incidence at ages 50–69 years by about one in every 50 users of oestrogen plus daily progestagen preparations; one in every 70 users of oestrogen plus intermittent progestagen preparations; and one in every 200 users of oestrogen-only preparations. The corresponding excesses from 10 years of MHT would be about twice as great. Funding Cancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Contemporary Hormonal Contraception and the Risk of Breast Cancer

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: Formal analysisRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Funding acquisitionRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Journal
                PLoS Med
                PLoS Med
                plos
                PLOS Medicine
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1549-1277
                1549-1676
                21 March 2023
                March 2023
                : 20
                : 3
                : e1004188
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
                [2 ] Adelaide Medical School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
                Author notes

                The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0616-6282
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0561-4904
                Article
                PMEDICINE-D-22-03210
                10.1371/journal.pmed.1004188
                10030023
                36943819
                c45a5247-42fb-4e73-8e97-917b31d1fe49
                © 2023 Fitzpatrick et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 26 September 2022
                : 1 February 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 6, Tables: 1, Pages: 18
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000289, Cancer Research UK;
                Award ID: C570/A16491
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000289, Cancer Research UK;
                Award ID: C570/A29186
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000265, Medical Research Council;
                Award ID: MR/K02700X/1
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000697, Rhodes Scholarships;
                Award Recipient :
                Central data collection, checking, analysis, and manuscript preparation (DF, KP, GR, JG, VB) was supported by the core funding of the Cancer Epidemiology Unit by Cancer Research UK (C570/A16491 and A29186) and the Medical Research Council (MR/K02700X/1). DF was funded through the Rhodes Trust. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Oncology
                Cancers and Neoplasms
                Breast Tumors
                Breast Cancer
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Women's Health
                Obstetrics and Gynecology
                Contraception
                Female Contraception
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Medical Risk Factors
                Cancer Risk Factors
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Oncology
                Cancer Risk Factors
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmaceutics
                Drug Therapy
                Contraceptive Therapy
                Oral Contraceptive Therapy
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmacology
                Drugs
                Contraceptives
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Bioengineering
                Biotechnology
                Medical Devices and Equipment
                Contraceptives
                Engineering and Technology
                Bioengineering
                Biotechnology
                Medical Devices and Equipment
                Contraceptives
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Devices and Equipment
                Contraceptives
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
                Statistical Methods
                Metaanalysis
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Statistics
                Statistical Methods
                Metaanalysis
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Diagnostic Medicine
                Cancer Detection and Diagnosis
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Oncology
                Cancer Detection and Diagnosis
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Cancer Epidemiology
                Custom metadata
                The data used in this study were obtained from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). The licencing agreement between the University of Oxford and CPRD, and the data governance of CPRD, prevent the authors from distributing these data to other persons. Access to the data are available from CPRD for researchers who meet the criteria for access at https://cprd.com/data-access.

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article