Oral contraceptive use and risk of breast carcinoma in situ (United States) (original) (raw)

Abstract

Objective

Our study assesses the impact of oral contraceptive use on breast carcinoma in-situ (BCIS) risk.

Methods

We conducted a population based case–control study of incident BCIS among black and white women ages 35–64 years residing in Los Angeles County. Case patients (n = 567) were newly diagnosed with BCIS and control participants (n = 614) were identified by random digit dialing between 1 March 1995 and 31 May 1998. All subjects were required to have had a mammogram in the 2 years before case diagnosis or control recruitment. Data were collected during in-person interviews. Multivariable logistic regression analyses provide estimates of odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

Results

Oral contraceptive use was not associated with risk of BCIS (OR = 1.04, 95% CI (0.76–1.42)). Risk did not increase with longer periods of use. No associations with BCIS risk were observed for oral contraceptive use before first term pregnancy, age at first oral contraceptive use, or for time since last use. Risk was not modified by estrogen dose, age, race, or parity.

Conclusions

Our results are consistent with recent results on invasive breast cancer reported for the Women’s Contraceptive and Reproductive Experiences Study and show no association between oral contraceptive use and risk of BCIS.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mosher WD, Martinez GM, Chandra A, Abma JC, Willson SJ (12-10-2004) Use of contraception and use of family planning services in the United States: 1982–2002. Vital Health Stat. 23
  2. Henderson BE, Feigelson HS (2000) Hormonal carcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis 21:427–433
    Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  3. Katzung BG (ed.) (2000) Basic and clinical pharmacology, 8th edn. McGraw-Hill, Appleton & Lange
  4. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer (1996) 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. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Lancet 347:1713–1727
    Article Google Scholar
  5. Marchbanks PA, McDonald JA, Wilson HG, et al (2002) Oral contraceptives and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 346:2025–2032
    Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  6. Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Jensen RA, Schuyler PA (1995) Continued local recurrence of carcinoma 15–25 years after a diagnosis of low grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast treated only by biopsy. Cancer 76:1197–1200
    Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  7. Eusebi V, Feudale E, Foschini MP, et al (1994) Long-term follow-up of in situ carcinoma of the breast. Semin Diagn Pathol 11:223–235
    PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  8. Ringberg A, Anagnostaki L, Anderson H, Idvall I, Ferno M (2001) Cell biological factors in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast-relationship to ipsilateral local recurrence and histopathological characteristics. Eur J Cancer 37:1514–1522
    Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  9. Farabegoli F, Champeme MH, Bieche I, et al (2002) Genetic pathways in the evolution of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. J Pathol 196:280–286
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  10. Krishnamurthy S, Sneige N (2002) Molecular and biologic markers of premalignant lesions of human breast. Adv Anat Pathol 9:185–197
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  11. Warnberg F, Nordgren H, Bergkvist L, Holmberg L (2001) Tumour markers in breast carcinoma correlate with grade rather than with invasiveness. Br J Cancer 85:869–874
    Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  12. Claus EB, Stowe M, Carter D (2003) Oral contraceptives and the risk of ductal breast carcinoma in situ. Breast Cancer Res Treat 81:129–136
    Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  13. Trentham-Dietz A, Newcomb PA, Storer BE, Remington PL (2000) Risk factors for carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 9:697–703
    PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  14. Marchbanks PA, McDonald JA, Wilson HG, et al (2002) The NICHD Women’s Contraceptive and reproductive experiences study: methods and operational results. Ann Epidemiol 12:213–221
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  15. Kleinbaum DG (1994) Logistic regression : a self-learning text. New York, Springer
    Google Scholar
  16. Meeske K, Press M, Patel A, Bernstein L (2004) Impact of reproductive factors and lactation on breast carcinoma in situ risk. Int J Cancer 110:102–109
    Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  17. Patel AV, Press MF, Meeske K, Calle EE, Bernstein L (2003) Lifetime recreational exercise activity and risk of breast carcinoma in situ. Cancer 98:2161–2169
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  18. Kleinbaum G, Kupper L., Morgenstern H. (1982) Epidemiologic research: principles and quantitative methods. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York
    Google Scholar
  19. Dumeaux V, Alsaker E, Lund E (2003) Breast cancer and specific types of oral contraceptives: a large Norwegian cohort study. Int J Cancer 105:844–850
    Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Jane Sullivan-Halley for her programming assistance and all of the women who participated in the study. The following grants and contracts supported this research effort: Department of Defense U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command Grant number: DAMD17-96-6156; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Contract number: N01-HD-3-3175; National Cancer Institute Contract numbers: N01-CN-67010 and N01-PC-35139; California Department of Health Services Grant number: 050Q-8709-S1528. The collection of cancer incidence data used in this publication was supported by the California Department of Health Services as part of the statewide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885. The ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors, and no endorsement by the State of California, Department of Health Services is intended or should be inferred.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Etiology Program, Cancer Research Center of Hawaii, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, USA
    Jasmeet K. Gill
  2. Department of Pathology and Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
    Michael F. Press
  3. Department of Epidemiology and Surveillance Research, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, USA
    Alpa V. Patel
  4. Department of Preventive Medicine and Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, 1441 Eastlake Ave. (MS44), Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA
    Leslie Bernstein

Authors

  1. Jasmeet K. Gill
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  2. Michael F. Press
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  3. Alpa V. Patel
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  4. Leslie Bernstein
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence toLeslie Bernstein.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gill, J.K., Press, M.F., Patel, A.V. et al. Oral contraceptive use and risk of breast carcinoma in situ (United States).Cancer Causes Control 17, 1155–1162 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-006-0056-0

Download citation

Keywords