Substance use disorder: contraceptive options counseling

What’s New in Contraception?

Contraceptive Technology Conference!

Biologic sexism of STIs

Excess breast cancer deaths after COVID-19

Contraception for patients with medical conditions

Pelvic Floor Dysfunction

Treating vulvodynia

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

Sex in the Time of COVID-19

Challenges old and new during the pandemic

Reproductive health in the time of Covid-19

Talking about toys

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

When she’s low on libido…

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

New treatment modality for BV

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

Center of the Storm


Menopause, mood, mental acuity, and hormone therapy

Emergency contraception for teens

Postpartum Contraception: Now, Not Later

Reproductive tract infections, sexually transmitted infections, or sexually transmitted diseases: “a rose by any other name…”

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

Whatever happened to PID?

Update on Emergency Contraception New and Improved

Breast cancer still a small risk with some hormonal contraceptives
January 2018


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.