Lauren A King1,2, Kara A Michels3, Barry I Graubard3, Britton Trabert3. 1. Metabolic Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIH, DHHS, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892-9774, USA. lak9um@virginia.edu. 2. University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA. lak9um@virginia.edu. 3. Metabolic Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIH, DHHS, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892-9774, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Since the 1960s, increasing oral contraceptive (OC) use has mirrored decreasing ovarian cancer incidence. The impact of intrauterine devices (IUDs) on cancer risk is less well established. With improved access and increased options, we must consider how changing usage can affect cancer risks. METHODS: Nationally representative data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 1999-2016) and the National Survey for Family Growth (NSFG, 2006-2017) were used to evaluate contraceptive use over time in premenopausal women (NHANES n = 13,179; NSFG n = 26,262). Trends were assessed overall and by race, age, pregnancy history, education, and body mass index. RESULTS: The average annual absolute increase in self-reported IUD use was 0.81% (NSFG), while OC use decreased 0.49% in NSFG and 0.47% in NHANES. This represents a significant decrease in OC use in NSFG [annual percent change (APC) - 2.2% (95% CI - 3.4, - 1.0%), p < 0.01]. Trends in OC use varied somewhat by pregnancy history in NHANES (p-interaction = 0.054). In contrast, IUD use increased 6.2% annually [(1.4, 11.2%), p = 0.03] and varied significantly by pregnancy history (p-interaction < 0.01). Nulligravid women increased IUD use 11.0% annually [(2.6, 20.1%), p = 0.02] compared to women with prior pregnancy at 5.2% [(0.4, 10.2%), p = 0.04]. In 2015-2017, IUD use was 76.5% hormonal (71.1, 81.8%) and 22.9% copper (17.4, 28.3%) with greater hormonal IUD use in obese women [89.4%, (82.9, 95.9%)]. CONCLUSION: Increasing IUD use outpaced declining OC use in premenopausal US women. There may be a resulting decreased gynecologic cancer risk as more women gain access to potentially risk-reducing contraceptives.
PURPOSE: Since the 1960s, increasing oral contraceptive (OC) use has mirrored decreasing ovarian cancer incidence. The impact of intrauterine devices (IUDs) on cancer risk is less well established. With improved access and increased options, we must consider how changing usage can affect cancer risks. METHODS: Nationally representative data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 1999-2016) and the National Survey for Family Growth (NSFG, 2006-2017) were used to evaluate contraceptive use over time in premenopausal women (NHANES n = 13,179; NSFG n = 26,262). Trends were assessed overall and by race, age, pregnancy history, education, and body mass index. RESULTS: The average annual absolute increase in self-reported IUD use was 0.81% (NSFG), while OC use decreased 0.49% in NSFG and 0.47% in NHANES. This represents a significant decrease in OC use in NSFG [annual percent change (APC) - 2.2% (95% CI - 3.4, - 1.0%), p < 0.01]. Trends in OC use varied somewhat by pregnancy history in NHANES (p-interaction = 0.054). In contrast, IUD use increased 6.2% annually [(1.4, 11.2%), p = 0.03] and varied significantly by pregnancy history (p-interaction < 0.01). Nulligravid women increased IUD use 11.0% annually [(2.6, 20.1%), p = 0.02] compared to women with prior pregnancy at 5.2% [(0.4, 10.2%), p = 0.04]. In 2015-2017, IUD use was 76.5% hormonal (71.1, 81.8%) and 22.9% copper (17.4, 28.3%) with greater hormonal IUD use in obese women [89.4%, (82.9, 95.9%)]. CONCLUSION: Increasing IUD use outpaced declining OC use in premenopausal US women. There may be a resulting decreased gynecologic cancer risk as more women gain access to potentially risk-reducing contraceptives.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer risk; Gynecologic oncology; Intrauterine devices; Oral contraceptives; Women’s health
Authors: Polly A Marchbanks; Jill A McDonald; Hoyt G Wilson; Suzanne G Folger; Michele G Mandel; Janet R Daling; Leslie Bernstein; Kathleen E Malone; Giske Ursin; Brian L Strom; Sandra A Norman; Phyllis A Wingo; Ronald T Burkman; Jesse A Berlin; Michael S Simon; Robert Spirtas; Linda K Weiss Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-06-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lina S Mørch; Charlotte W Skovlund; Philip C Hannaford; Lisa Iversen; Shona Fielding; Øjvind Lidegaard Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David Hubacher; Courtney A Schreiber; David K Turok; Jeffrey T Jensen; Mitchell D Creinin; Kavita Nanda; Katharine O'Connell White; Ila Dayananda; Stephanie B Teal; Pai-Lien Chen; Beatrice A Chen; Alisa B Goldberg; Jennifer L Kerns; Clint Dart; Anita L Nelson; Michael A Thomas; David F Archer; Jill E Brown; Paula M Castaño; Anne E Burke; Bliss Kaneshiro; Diana L Blithe Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2022-07-16