Puzzling Over the Hurt Down-Under
Serious Mental Illness and Contraception
New 13-Cycle Vaginal Contraceptive System
The Future of Family Planning in Post-COVID America
New ASCCP Guidelines: Implications for FP
On the alert: mood disorders during 2020 stressors
Challenges old and new during the pandemic
Reproductive health in the time of Covid-19
Missed Pills: The Problem That Hasn’t Gone Away
Find the “yes! . . . and” rather than “no” or “but”
Digital Family Planning: the Future is Now
Irregular Bleeding Due to Contraceptives
Ouch! Best approaches to menstrual pain
Contraceptive efficacy: understanding how user and method characteristics play their part
Strategizing treatment for chronic heavy menstrual bleeding
Untangling the literature on obesity and contraception
High tech apps for no-tech FABM
Menstrual exacerbation of other medical conditions
From Princeton University: Thomas James Trussell (1949-2018)
The Short and Long of IUD Use Duration
Selecting a Method When Guidance Isn’t Clear-cut
Healthcare in the Time of Digital Expansion
The Scoop on Two New FDA-Approved Contraceptive Methods
Pregnancy of unknown location—meeting the challenge
Big “yes” (with caveats) to CHCs during perimenopause
The role of IUDs (LNG IUDs, too!) in emergency contraception
Combined pills’ effect on mood disorders
Abortion in the U.S.: safe, declining, and under threat
Hope for ovarian cancer screening test
Breast cancer still a small risk with some hormonal contraceptives
Record rate of HPV-related throat cancer
Viruses in semen potentially transmissible
Don’t Abstain from Your Role in Abstinence
Teens births declining but geographic ‘hotspots’ defy trend
Online Medical Abortion Service Effective and Safe
Do Women Really Need to Wait That Long?
Reassuring news on depression and OC use
PMDD: Genetic clues may lead to improved treatment
Breast cancer risk when there is a family history
Body weight link to breast and endometrial cancers (and 11 others)
Family Planning in 2017 and Beyond
Make Me Cry: Depression Link (Again)?
Managing implant users’ bleeding and spotting
Zika: Updated guidance for providers
Pharmacist-prescribed contraceptives
Hot off the press! 2016 MEC and SPR
Zika virus fears prompt increased request for abortion in nations outlawing abortions
Opioid use epidemic among reproductive-age women
Good news on the family planning home front!
War Against Planned Parenthood Hurts Women
Win-win for both treatment and prevention
Menopause, mood, mental acuity, and hormone therapy
Emergency contraception for teens
Postpartum Contraception: Now, Not Later
Are we practicing what we preach?
Be alert to VTE in hormonal contraceptive users
LARC among teens increased 15-fold, but not enough
Brain cancer and hormonal contraception
Free tools: Easy access to the US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use
Alcohol consumption when pregnancy is unwanted or unintended
Latest Data on Contraceptive Use in the United States
LateBreaker sampler from Contraceptive Technology conference
Emergency Contraceptive Pill Efficacy and BMI/Body Weight
Handout on Unintended Pregnancy and Contraceptive Choice
Ask About Withdrawal (Really!)
Rules to Practice By: Safety First and Cleanliness is Close to. . .
What’s Vanity Fair Got Against the NuvaRing?
Promising New Treatment for Hepatitis C
Numbers matter, so make them simple for patients
The Recession’s Effect on Unintended Pregnancies
Lessons Learned from the Contraceptive CHOICE Project: The Hull LARC Initiative
Applying the “New” Cervical Cytology Guidelines in Your Practice
Acute Excessive Uterine Bleeding: New Management Strategies
Medical indications for IUD use in teens

What does the new study showing a link between low-dose hormonal contraceptives and breast cancer really tell us in practical terms? First, that the risk has not gone away with the introduction of pills delivering newer and lower formulations, and second, that the risk is significant at the population level but tiny at the individual level.[1] It is important to unpack the study’s findings to really put them into perspective.
It has been decades since we learned that women who used combined oral contraceptives had an increased risk of developing breast cancer. What the researchers conducting the most recent study wanted to know was whether women using the newer forms of hormonal contraceptives—low-dose pills, progestin-containing IUDs, patches, rings, implants, and injectables—had enough hormonal exposure to continue to be at to a risk for breast cancer. Many researchers and providers have speculated that women exposed to lower doses or newer progestins might be less likely to develop breast cancer.
The prospective cohort study examined data on 1,797,932 Danish reproductive-age women from 1995 through 2012. The cohort accumulated 14 million person-years and 9,101 incident breast cancers. The average length of follow up was 11 years. Information on confounding factors was also collected: age, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, previous pregnancies, family history of breast cancer, history of endometriosis and PCOS, and education.
Women who were using hormonal contraceptives pills or IUDs, had an increased relative risk of developing breast cancer, RR 1.20, compared with women who had never used them. The findings were similar to those reported two decades ago,[2] surprising those who had expected that lower doses of hormone would result in a smaller risk. In the current study, the risk was similar across different preparations for combined pills. There were no findings that reach significance among women who had used progestin-only pills, patches, rings, implants or injectables, because it did not accumulate enough users or incident cases of breast cancer.
Women who used pills or IUDs for more than 10 years were 40% more likely to develop breast cancer. Among women who used the hormones for 5 years, the increased risk persisted for at least 5 years after they discontinued use, a finding not seen in previous studies, though those studies had not analyzed a 5-year minimum for use. The researchers said that the risk decreased rapidly among women who used hormonal contraceptives for less than 5 years.
More important to clinical decision-making, however, is the absolute risk for breast cancer. While relative risk describes a group’s risk compared to another group, absolute risk describes an individual’s risk. And that risk is what would occur above and beyond the baseline risk for women not exposed. In this study, the overall absolute risk among current and recent users was 13 cases per 100,000 person-years. The researchers estimated that the hormonal contraceptive use could result in 1 additional case of breast cancer for every 7,690 women using a hormonal method for 1 year. This is a small increase in risk. An individual woman’s absolute risk will vary according to her age and other characteristics. Younger women will have a fraction of the risk that older women will have.
How solid are these findings? As with all studies, there were limitations that could have introduced bias, ranging from incomplete information on confounders and other data to relying on prescription databases that cannot tell us whether a filled prescription was actually used correctly or used at all. The researchers were not able to adjust for age at menarche, breastfeeding, alcohol consumption or physical activity, and they had BMI measures for parous women only. And of course, this was a cohort study, which can show associations but not cause and effect.
Women who wish to reduce their exposure to the potential for risk can select nonhormonal contraceptives as complete childbearing or approach age 40, along with modifying known other risk factors. But for most women, their individual increased risk for breast cancer will be small and that risk may well be outweighed by the benefits of hormonal contraception, including the associated reduced risks for cancers of the ovary and endometrium and, possibly, the colon and rectum.
[1] Mørch LS, Skovlund CW, Hannford PC, et al. Contemporary hormonal contraception and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2017:377:2228-39.
[2] Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and hormonal contraceptives: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 53,297 women with breast cancer and 100,239 without breast cancer from 54 epidemiological studies. Lancet 1996;347:1713-27.