Alison M Elliott1, Philip C Hannaford. 1. Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill Health Center, AB25 2AY Aberdeen, Scotland. a.m.elliott@abdn.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the risk of lung cancer among women who have used oral contraception or hormone replacement therapy (HRT), especially those exposed to both classes of exogenous hormones. DESIGN: This study is a nested case-control one using prospectively collected data from the Royal College of General Practitioners' Oral Contraception Study (OCS). The 162 case patients were women with a diagnosis of lung cancer recorded on the OCS database by August 2004. Each case patient was matched with 3 control subjects who were free of the disease at the time of the case patient's diagnosis, of similar age and with similar length of follow-up in the OCS. RESULTS: Compared with never use, current use of oral contraception was associated with a statistically nonsignificant reduced risk of lung cancer, with an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 0.47 and a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.08-2.95 (OR=0.86 and 95% CI=0.50-1.48 for former use; OR=0.84 and 95% CI=0.49-1.43 for ever use). Similar comparisons for HRT were current use (OR=1.21, 95% CI=0.23-6.37), former use (OR=0.62, 95% CI=0.23-1.68) and ever use (OR=0.71, 95% CI=0.28-1.78). The OR among women who had used both classes of hormones was 0.53 (95% CI=0.16-1.72), as compared with those who had used neither. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are compatible with findings from other studies that suggest that oral contraceptives may reduce the risk of lung cancer. Evidence for a beneficial effect of HRT is less convincing. Further study is needed to determine how long any benefit lasts and whether it is stronger in women exposed to both classes of exogenous hormones. The small number of events occurring in this very large cohort, however, shows that any public health benefit is likely to be marginal.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the risk of lung cancer among women who have used oral contraception or hormone replacement therapy (HRT), especially those exposed to both classes of exogenous hormones. DESIGN: This study is a nested case-control one using prospectively collected data from the Royal College of General Practitioners' Oral Contraception Study (OCS). The 162 case patients were women with a diagnosis of lung cancer recorded on the OCS database by August 2004. Each case patient was matched with 3 control subjects who were free of the disease at the time of the case patient's diagnosis, of similar age and with similar length of follow-up in the OCS. RESULTS: Compared with never use, current use of oral contraception was associated with a statistically nonsignificant reduced risk of lung cancer, with an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 0.47 and a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.08-2.95 (OR=0.86 and 95% CI=0.50-1.48 for former use; OR=0.84 and 95% CI=0.49-1.43 for ever use). Similar comparisons for HRT were current use (OR=1.21, 95% CI=0.23-6.37), former use (OR=0.62, 95% CI=0.23-1.68) and ever use (OR=0.71, 95% CI=0.28-1.78). The OR among women who had used both classes of hormones was 0.53 (95% CI=0.16-1.72), as compared with those who had used neither. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are compatible with findings from other studies that suggest that oral contraceptives may reduce the risk of lung cancer. Evidence for a beneficial effect of HRT is less convincing. Further study is needed to determine how long any benefit lasts and whether it is stronger in women exposed to both classes of exogenous hormones. The small number of events occurring in this very large cohort, however, shows that any public health benefit is likely to be marginal.
Authors: Susan E Olivo-Marston; Leah E Mechanic; Steen Mollerup; Elise D Bowman; Alan T Remaley; Michele R Forman; Vidar Skaug; Yun-Ling Zheng; Aage Haugen; Curtis C Harris Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 2010-08-20 Impact factor: 4.944
Authors: Cari L Meinhold; Amy Berrington de González; Elise D Bowman; Alina V Brenner; Raymond T Jones; James V Lacey; Christopher A Loffredo; Donna Perlmutter; Sara J Schonfeld; Glenwood E Trivers; Curtis C Harris Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2011-03-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Louise A Brinton; Lauren Schwartz; Margaret R Spitz; Yikyung Park; Albert R Hollenbeck; Gretchen L Gierach Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2012-02-25 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Ann G Schwartz; Roberta M Ray; Michele L Cote; Judith Abrams; Robert J Sokol; Susan L Hendrix; Chu Chen; Rowan T Chlebowski; F Allan Hubbell; Charles Kooperberg; JoAnn E Manson; Mary Jo O'Sullivan; Thomas Rohan; Marcia L Stefanick; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Heather Wakelee; Michael S Simon Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Christina S Baik; Gary M Strauss; Frank E Speizer; Diane Feskanich Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-08-25 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Lisa G Gallagher; Karin A Rosenblatt; Roberta M Ray; Wenjin Li; Dao L Gao; Katie M Applebaum; Harvey Checkoway; David B Thomas Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2013-04-13 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Joshua R Smith; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Donna Kritz-Silverstein; Deborah L Wingard; Wael K Al-Delaimy Journal: Menopause Date: 2009 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Karin A Rosenblatt; Dao L Gao; Roberta M Ray; Zakia C Nelson; Karen J Wernli; Wenjin Li; David B Thomas Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 2.506