Cancer risk among users of oral contraceptives: cohort data from the Royal College of General Practitioner's oral contraception study
BMJ 2007; 335 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39289.649410.55 (Published 27 September 2007) Cite this as: BMJ 2007;335:651All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Strict exclusion and inclusion criteria should have been used. For example, ever users should have been defined in terms of duration of exposure and duration from when the pills were stopped and only then the risk of cancer should have been measured.
All the confounding factors should have either been excluded or matched or adjusted during analysis e.g. Body Mass Index for obesity, Polycystic ovarian syndrome, though the standardisation variables were age, smoking, parity, social class, and (for the general practitioner observation dataset) hormone replacement therapy1.
References:
1. BMJ 2007;335:651
Competing interests: No competing interests
I agree with Ellen Grant regarding the ridiculous conclusion that oral contraceptives are good because they appear to prevent ovarian cancer. Even if this were true, ovarian cancer is rare compared to cervical and breast cancer which the pill increases. How could the same hormones taken in younger women be protective, when in older women they dramatically increase the risk of breast cancer in the least, as well as heart disease and strokes? It is lethal to suggest all young women take the pill just to prevent a rare type of reproductive cancer, when in reality it increases the risk of the most common types of reproductive cancers.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Professor Hannaford and colleagues seem unwilling to accept the
implications for Pill follow-up studies which choose to include older
women, 50% of whom start HRT in their 40s or 50s, as never users of
hormones.1,2 In the latest report from the RCGP OC Study up to half of
the 715 cancers recorded in never takers might qualify to be added to the
936 cancers recorded in OC takers because of later hormone use. This could
increase the risk estimates for all cancers. Breast cancer increase due to
any hormone use might then be 2 to 3 fold or more, which in line with
their previous results and the results of the latest combined HRT study.3
A small extra 3 to 9% HRT use among past OC users would have little impact
on these risk estimates compared with the large effect of 50% of the never
OC users starting HRT and therefore joining the hormone user group.
When OC use is started at young ages before a first full-time birth
an important reason for an increased risk of breast cancer is that a
higher percentage of early-age starters continue with taking the pill for
more years. The original authors of the RCGP OC Study listed age and
parity for the 46,377 women (including 4,900 new takers and 18,800
previous takers) recruited in 1968 and 1969. Only 2.8% of all the women
(1,291) started OCs at ages 15-19 and only 7.7% (3,580) started OCs before
a first birth.4
20 years after enrolment, although few women had early age Pill use
before their first full-time pregnancy, the increased risk of breast
cancer was considerable.5 In 1988 Kay and Hannaford reported increases
of 2.53 for women aged 25-29; 3.33 for women aged 30-34; 10.17 for more
than 10 years of use; and 15.8 at 8-9 years after use. Breast cancer
mortality risk increased to 1.5 by 5-9 years after use.
There is no doubt now that breast cancer incidence and mortality
falls quickly and dramatically when progestogen/oestrogen use is
discontinued.6
Today, 40 years after enrolment and an average OC use of 44 months,
the authors seem to find reassurance because they included an unknown
large number of older HRT Takers with cancer in the Never (Pill) Taker
group.
I do not understand why these authors are happy with their results.
Their deeply flawed and underestimating analysis revealed a large and
significant increased risk of CNS or pituitary tumours (5.51, 1.38-22.05)
with less than 4 year of use. This is not very jolly!
1.Hannaford P C, Selvaraj S, Elliott AM, Angus V, Iversen L, Lee AJ.
Cancer risk among users of oral contraceptives: cohort data from the Royal
College of General Practitioner's oral contraception study. BMJ 2007;335:
651 bmj.39289.649410.55v1
2 Million Women Study Collaborators. Patterns of use of hormone
replacement therapy in one million women in Britain, 1996-2000. British
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2002, 109, 1319-1330.
3 Li CI, Malone KE, Porter PL, Lawton TJ, Voigt LF, Cushing-Haugen
KL, Lin MG, Yuan X, Daling JR. Relationship between Menopausal Hormone
Therapy and Risk of Ductal, Lobular, and Ductal-Lobular Breast Carcinomas.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008 Jan;17(1):43-50.
4 Kay CR, Hannaford PC. Breast cancer and the pill. A further report
from The Royal College of General Practitioners Oral Contraception Study.
Br J Cancer 1988: 58: 678-80.
5 The Royal College of General Practitioners. Oral Contraception and
Health: An Interim Report. London: Pitman Medical 1974
6 Colditz GA. Decline in breast cancer incidence due to removal of
promoter: combination estrogen plus progestin. Breast Cancer Res. 2007 Nov
15;9:401.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
We thank the various correspondents for their thoughts on our paper.
The progestogens in the 61 oral contraceptive brands used by women in our
study included norethisterone, ethynodiol, lynestrenol, levonorgestrel,
megestrel, norethynodrel and chlormadinone. Most women used more than one
product and so it is impossible, even within a dataset as large as ours,
to disentangle the specific effects of different progestogens or brands of
oral contraceptives on cancer risk.
We agree with Professor Doren and colleagues of the importance of
studying the long term cancer effects of different periods of use of oral
contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy, especially among women who
have used both forms of exogenous hormones during their lifetime. That is
why we will continue to follow up the RCGP Oral Contraception Study. We
also agree that in principle randomised trials provide best evidence of
causal relationships in epidemiology, and that this is why randomised
trials are the greatly preferred options for studying the efficacy or
effectiveness of medications. This methodology, however, has important
limitations when trying to study adverse events resulting from drugs. One
major limitation is the size of study needed to investigate rare outcomes.
For example it has been estimated that a trial to study whether different
brands of oral contraceptives vary in their risk of deep vein thrombosis,
300,000 women would need to be recruited into each arm of a trial to
detect a doubling of risk between prepartions1. For events that take many
years to occur, such as cancer, the methodological challenges become even
greater, even if a trial which randomised women to different methods of
contraception were deemed acceptable to an ethics committee. For the
foreseeable future, we believe we will have to rely on observational
studies to inform us about the long-term risks associated with different
medications, with, of course, appropriate consideration of the limitations
that this approach introduces. It is not clear how propensity scores or
instrumental variables might be used to study the relationship between
oral contraception and cancer.
Dr Grant is concerned that we did not allow for hormone replacement
therapy use in the main dataset analysis of our paper. We agree that
ideally we should have been able to adjust for this variable (or even
better, examine the effect of this exposure after never or ever use of
oral contraception). As we explained in our paper, however, we do not
have this information for all the women and so could not adjust for it.
It is worth noting, however, that, like others2, we have found that ever
users of oral contraceptives are more likely to use hormone replacement
therapy than never users. As a consequence, any hormone replacement
therapy-related effects would tend to be stronger in the ever user group,
not the never user group.
Professor Brind asks why we did not adjust for age at first full-term
pregnancy. We could not do so because our study has never collected this
information. When we wrote our paper, we were conscious that no-one knows
the absolute truth in science. With this in mind, we were careful to
explore our data for important biases which might lead us to reach
erroneous conclusions about ‘the truth’. We also chose to present all the
relevant results so that the reader could decide for her/himself whether
their interpretation of the evidence fits with ours. Professor Brind
feels that the results relating to the analysis in which both ever and
never users lost to follow before the age of 38 years were excluded
(adjusted relative risk 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.02)
demonstrates serious bias and invalidates the main dataset results in
which only never users younger than 38 years were excluded (adjusted
relative risk 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.94). We would
remind Professor Brind that since the total populations in these two
analyses are different, the standardised results from the two analyses
should not be compared directly (in the same way that the standardised
results from the main and the general practitioner observation dataset
should not be compared directly, as indicated in the footnote to table 2).
Furthermore, since the standard populations are different there will
inevitably be some variation in the point estimates from each analysis.
We do not believe that the point estimate of 0.95 from the ‘fully excluded
analysis’ is materially different to that of 0.88 from the ‘partially
excluded dataset’, although the latter risk estimate is based on more
data. Furthermore, the upper 95% confidence interval of the ‘fully
excluded’ point estimate was just above unity, at 1.02, suggesting no
increased risk of overall cancer risk. We remain happy with our
interpretation of the evidence presented in our paper that ‘oral
contraception was not associated with an overall increased risk of cancer,
indeed it may even produce a net public health gain’.
1. Lewis MA, Spitzer WD, MacRae KD. Authors reply. British Medical
Journal 1996, 312, 577-578.
2. Million Women Study Collaborators. Patterns of use of hormone
replacement therapy in one million women in Britain, 1996-2000. British
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2002, 109, 1319-1330.
Competing interests:
PCH's academic department has recently received payment from Wyeth Pharmaceuticals for a lecture on the role of HRT in clinical practice, Wyeth also manufactures oral contraceptives
Competing interests: No competing interests
In their recent report of the Royal College of General Practitioner’s
oral contraception (OC) study, Hannaford et al.1 conclude that “oral
contraception was not associated with an overall increased risk of cancer;
indeed it may even produce a net public health gain.” The specific finding
underlying this conclusion was “a statistically significant 12% reduction
in the risk of any cancer (adjusted relative risk 0.88, 95% confidence
interval 0.83-0.94)”. Such a significant protective effect was widely
reported in the popular media as reassuring evidence of the safety of OC.
However, the report itself provides the evidence to dismiss this
significant protective effect as an artifact resulting from the authors’
asymmetrical exclusion criteria. Since some of the women in the study were
lost to follow-up for various reasons during the years between 1969 and
1996, it was indeed prudent to exclude participants under age 38 at time
of loss to follow-up, since their use of (OC) after that time would be
unknown. But inappropriately, the authors chose to exclude only those who
were non-users at the time of loss to follow-up, rather than all women in
the under 38 age group. They justified this differential exclusion on the
basis of the fact that “ever users” would of course remain classifiable as
“ever users” regardless of future use, whereas the classification of
“never users” under age 38 could never be certain once they were lost to
follow-up.
Astonishingly, Hannaford et al., in their discussion, reported that
they did indeed perform an analysis of the data with both the ever users
and never users under 38 at time of loss to follow-up excluded, in order
to determine if their differential exclusion of younger never users
affected their results. The result of this analysis was: “The adjusted
relative risk for any cancer was 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.88 to
1.02).” Although this result was presented without comment, it clearly
demonstrated that their selective exclusion criterion did indeed bias
their findings; in fact generating an artifactual significant decrease in
the risk of any cancer for ever users v. never users.
This author has never seen such a display before, in which the
authors of a study prove the distorting effect of their own flawed
methodology, yet proceed to use it anyway! Moreover, the demonstration
that the biased methodology produced an underestimation in the overall
relative risk for cancer implies that all the relative risks presented are
therefore underestimated.
Even so, certain of the findings are ominous. For example, whereas
others have found that the increased risk of breast cancer among current
and recent users declines after cessation of OC use and disappears within
10 years2, Hannaford et al. report a significant increase in risk
(relative risk 1.27) only beginning 10 years after cessation of use, and
rising to a relative risk of 2.45 between 15 and 20 years after cessation
of use, and finally declining only after 20 years. Moreover, the
significant elevation of risk (relative risk 1.22) for any cancer among
those who used OC’s for more than 8 years was matched by the relative risk
(1.22) for breast cancer among such users. While the authors note that
“less than a quarter of users” in their study had used OC for that long,
it is troubling that current patterns of OC use are different; usually for
much longer periods. In addition, it is odd that in such a detailed paper,
Hannaford et al. failed to present any data on differential risk between
women who began OC use before v. after their first full-term pregnancy
(FFTP). Such data had apparently been collected in their study, and
previous studies have suggested a three-fold greater risk increase among
women starting OC use before, rather than after FFTP3. Presumably, most of
the women in the Hannaford study began using OC only after FFTP, since the
average age at recruitment was 29, and since the study commenced in 1968,
only a few years after OC became widely available for use. This provides
yet another reason to suspect that the Hannaford results provide
substantial underestimates of real risk increases for a large proportion
of current users, who often start OC use in their teens and use them for
10 years or more before FFTP.
A further finding of an ominous nature in the Hannaford study is the
strong association found for “central nervous system or pituitary”
cancers. The relative risk for these cancers was found to be 3.23 for ever
users v. never users, and it also showed a significant trend of increasing
risk, rising from 1.70 for users of under 4 years’ duration, to 5.51 for
users of over 8 years’ duration.
It is indeed deeply troubling that, despite their demonstrated
methodological impropriety, Hannaford et al. still found even greater
cancer risks than previously suspected. Hence, their conclusion that “at
least in this relatively healthy UK cohort, the cancer benefits associated
with oral contraception outweigh the risks.” is nothing short of
irresponsible.
Respectfully submitted,
Joel Brind, Ph.D.
Department of Natural Sciences,
Baruch College, City University of New York,
New York, NY 10010 USA, and
Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 USA
email: joelbrind@yahoo.com
References:
1. Hannaford PC, Selvaraj S, Elliott AM, Angus V, Iversen L, Lee AJ.
Cancer risk among users of oral contraceptives; cohort data from the Royal
College of General Practitioner’s oral contraception study. BMJ ONLINE
FIRST 11 Sep 2007; doi:10.1136/bmj.39289.649410.55
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 women without breast
cancer from 54 epidemiological studies. Lancet 1996;347:1713-27.
3. Kahlenborn C, Modugno F, Potter DM, Severs WB. Oral contraceptive
use as a risk factor for premenopausal breast cancer: a meta-analysis.
Mayo Clin Proc 2006;81:1290-1302.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Professor Hannaford and colleagues report cancer risks from the Royal
College of General Practitioners’ oral contraception study from 1968 to
2004.1 No overall increased risk of cancer was demonstrated but
statistically significant trends of increasing risk for cervical cancers
and central nervous system and pituitary cancers were found. Previous
reports from the RCGP OC study have listed significant increases in breast
and cervical cancers and in deaths from breast, cervical, lung and liver
cancer in various sub-groups such as longer users. The data now presented
seemed to show that pill progestogens and oestrogens decreased the risk of
some cancers, especially of the ovaries and uterine body. These cancers
are known to be increased when progestogens and/or oestrogens are given as
HRT.2-4 Has confusing the effects of the pill and HRT caused important
mistakes?
The authors acknowledge that misclassification of never users (their
control, reference group) would underestimate pill related cancer risks.
They assumed never users older than 38 years leaving the study would not
subsequently start oral contraception. They seemed to forget that a
majority of menopausal women might start HRT. 92% of cancers listed in
this study are in women older than 39. Unfortunately, the authors have
kept no records of HRT use since 1996 when only 10% of never users and 12%
of pill users in the GP study base had used HRT. Over the next 8 years
most women originally enrolled in 1968-9 would have reached the menopause
and many would have restarted taking progestogens and oestrogens as HRT.
45% of postmenopausal women in the UK recruited into the Million Women
Study (MWS) in 1996-2001 had used HRT.2 It is therefore a serious
mistake to calculate risks by including any women taking HRT as never
users. This type of misclassification must be a main reason for the
study’s latest failure even to find an increased risk of breast cancer.
The increased risk of endometrial cancer with oestrogen HRT resulted
in a switch to progestogen dominant HRT since the 1970s.2 More recently
use of combined progestogen/oestrogen HRT has been confirmed to increase
the risk of ovarian cancer.3,4 Therefore increasing current HRT use among
never users of the pill would contribute to an apparently decreasing risk
of ovarian and uterine body cancers in past pill users.
Misclassification of never users may also apply to the smaller
numbers of younger women with cancer. So-called never users of oral
contraceptives may have taken fertility drugs or hormones for reasons
other than contraception.
This study was partly funded by the Imperial Cancer Research Fund,
British Heart Foundation, and by contraceptive pill and HRT manufacturers.
The wide-spread publicity given to this flawed report is particularly
unfortunate at a time when breast cancer deaths are falling rapidly. This
is because large numbers of women have stopped taking HRT since 2004 to
avoid the proven increases in breast cancer, strokes, thromboses and heart
attacks.5
1 Hannaford P C, Selvaraj S, Elliott AM, Angus V, Iversen L, Lee AJ.
Cancer risk among users of oral contraceptives: cohort data from the Royal
College of General Practitioner's oral contraception study. BMJ 2007; 0:
bmj.39289.649410.55v1
2 Beral V, Bull D, Reeves G: Million Women Study Collaborators.
Endometrial cancer and hormone-replacement therapy in the Million Women
Study. Lancet 2005;365:1543-51.
3 Beral V: Million Women Study Collaborators, Bull D, Green J, Reeves
G. Ovarian cancer and hormone replacement therapy in the Million Women
Study .Lancet. 2007; 369:1703-10.
4 Greiser CM, Greiser EM, Doeren M. Menopausal hormone therapy and
risk of ovarian cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Human
Reproduction Update, pp. 1–11, 2007
5 Colditz G A. Decline in breast cancer incidence due to removal of
promoter: combination estrogen plus progestin. Breast Cancer Research
2007, 9:108 doi:10.1186/bcr1736
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
We feel that the effects of long term use of oral contraceptives (OC)
as defined (>8 years) are not adequately discussed in the Royal College
of General Practitioners` oral contraception study.1 Public health is at
stake if there is an increased risk of any cancer (adjusted relative risk
1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.39), as the authors report for
this subgroup which amounts to less than a quarter of the total of users.
Long term use of OC is common in many industrialized countries,
including the UK and even more so Germany, the latter possibly with both
one of the highest prevalences reported for OC use2,3 and, unfortunately,
a lack of data about the effects of OC on cancer risks.
Health effects due to exposure to OC and later menopausal hormone therapy
(MHT) are of increasing public health relevance, given substantial
proportions of women using OC since the 60ies, many of whom administer MHT
later4. Available epidemiologic evidence suggests at least uncertain5-13,
possibly a negative effect due to cumulative exposure to both types of sex
steroid therapy14 regarding increased breast cancer risk.
Thus, careful assessment of effects of life time exposure to
exogenous hormones in countries with long standing availability of both
types of hormone therapy, a suggestion brought forward many years ago15,
appears ever more necessary to delineate the burden of cancers in women
across the life span attributable to these types of exogenous hormones.
In general, observational studies are of limited value to assess the
risk of pharmaceutical and other treatment strategies. Higher outcome
risks in treated than non-treated subjects might not necessarily be
causally related with the treatment. Rather, it might be related to
patient characteristics that have promoted the decision for a specific
treatment. For example, sexual dysfunction commonly observed in men
treated with beta-blockers is most probably due to cardiovascular disease
that has indicated the drug therapy16. In the study of Hannaford et al.
e.g. differences in life style factors may also explain divergent outcomes
in women with and without oral contraceptives. In the absence of proper
randomisation, the application of propensity scores and instrumental
variables (for review see e.g.17) might be powerful tools to distinguish
between drug effects and outcomes related to therapy inducing variables.
Martina Dören, Professor of Women´s Health and Sabine Schwarz,
Research Fellow
Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin
Hindenburgdamm 30
D-12200 Berlin, Germany
Martina.doeren@charite.de
Henry Völzke, Senior Researcher
Institute for Community Medicine, SHIP/ Clinical-Epidemiological Research
Walther Rathenau Str 48
D-17487 Greifswald, Germany
Competing interests: none.
References
1. Hannaford PC, Selvaraj S, Elliott AM, Angus V, Iversen L, Lee AJ.
Cancer risk among users of oral contraceptives: cohort data from the Royal
College of General Practitioner`s oral contraception study. BMJ,
doi:10.1136/bmj.39289.649410.55, (published 12 September 2007)
2. Lundberg V, Tolonen H, Stegmayr B, Kuulasmaa K, Asplund K, WHO MONICA
Project. Use of oral contraceptives and hormones replacement therapy in
the WHO MONICA project. Maturitas 2004;48: 39-49.
3. Schwarz S, Völzke H, Alte D, Hoffmann W, John U, Dören M.
Gynaecological health care utilization and use of sex hormones - the Study
of Health in Pomerania (SHIP). Hum Reprod 2005;20: 2916-2922.
4. Cogliano V, Grosse Y, Baan R, Straif K, Secreta B, El Ghissassi F.
Carcinogenicity of combined oestrogen-progestagen contraceptives and
menopausal treatment. Lancet Oncol 2056:552-553.
5. Mills PK, Beeson WL, Phillips RL, Fraser G. Prospective study of
exogenous hormones use and breast cancer in Seventh-day Adventists. Cancer
1989;64: 591-597.
6. Stanford JL,. Brinton LA, Hoover RN. Oral contraceptives and breast
cancer: results from n expanded case-control study. Br J Cancer 1989;60:
375-381.
7. Schuurman AG, van den Brandt P, Goldbohm RA. Exogenous hormones use and
the risk of postmenopausal cancer: results from the Netherlands Cohort
Study. Cancer Causes Control 1995;6: 416-424.
8. Stanford JL, Weiss NS, Voigt LF, Daling JR, Habel LA, Rossing MA.
Combined estrogen and progestin hormone replacement therapy in relation to
risk of breast cancer in middle-aged women. JAMA 1995;274: 137-142.
9. Brinton LA, Brogan DR, Coatzes R, Swanson C, Potischman N, Stanford JL.
Breast cancer risk among women under 55 years of age by joint effects of
usage of oral contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy. Menopause
1998;5: 145-151.
10. Ursin G, Tsen C-C, Paganini-Hill A, Enger S, Wan PC, Formenti S, et
al. Does menopausal hormone replacement therapy interact with known
factors to increase risk of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002;20: 699-706.
11. Norman SA, Berlin JA, Weber AL, Strom BL, Daling JR, Weiss LK, et al.
Combined effect of oral contraceptive use and hormone replacement therapy
on breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women. Cancer Causes Control
2003;14: 933-943.
12. Dumeaux V, Fournier A, Lund E, Clavel-Chapelon F. Previous oral
contraceptive use and breast cancer risk according to hormone replacement
therapy use among postmenopausal women. Cancer Causes Control 2005;16: 537
-544.
13. Shantakumar S, Terry MB, Paykin A, Teitelbaum SL, Britton JA, Moorman
PG, et al. Age and menopausal effects of hormonal birth control and
hormone replacement therapy in relation to breast cancer risk. Am J
Epidemiol 2007;165:1187-1198.
14. Lund E, Bakken K, Dumeaux V, Andersen V, Kumle M. Hormone replacement
therapy and breast cancer in former users of oral contraceptives – The
Norwegian Women and Cancer study. Int J Cancer 2007;121:645-648.
15. Committee on the Relationship between Oral Contraceptives and Breast
Cancer. Oral Contraceptives and Breast Cancer. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press, 1991.
16. Böhm M, Baumhäkel M, Probstfield JL, Schmieder R, Yusuf S, Zhao F, et
al. Sexual function, satisfaction, and association of erectile dysfunction
with cardiovascular disease and risk factors in cardiovascular high-risk
patients: substudy of the ONgoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination
with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial/Telmisartan Randomized AssessmeNT
Study in ACE-INtolerant Subjects with Cardiovascular Disease
(ONTARGET/TRANSCEND). Am Heart J 2007; 154: 94-101.
17. Wunsch H, Linde-Zwirble WT, Angus DC. Methods to adjust for bias and
confounding in critical care health services research involving
observational data. J Crit Care 2006;21: 1-7.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
This is one of the most relevant studies related to cancer risk and
oral contraception use. But in this research is missing the type of
progestin used. Maybe this could be another extension to look for. Some
progestins have more androgenic, antiandrogenic or progestagenic effects
and could act in differently way over susceptible tissues.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Cancer risk among users of oral contraceptives: cohort data from the Royal College of General Practitioner's oral contraception study
Recent evidence from long term observations of hundreds of thousands of women, in 10 European Countries, clearly demonstrated that the use of oral contraceptives reduced mortality by roughly 10%.
Newer oral contraceptives increase womens' overall survival.
Reference
doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0484-3.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4627614/
Competing interests: No competing interests