The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Lifetime cancer risk and combined oral contraceptives: the Royal College of general practitioners' oral contraception study
Open accessAbstract
Background Oral contraceptives have been used by hundreds of millions of women around the world. Important questions remain regarding the very long-term cancer risks that are associated with oral contraception. Despite previous research, important questions remain about the safety of these contraceptives: (1) How long do endometrial, ovarian, and colorectal cancer benefits persist? (2) Does combined oral contraceptive use during the reproductive years produce new cancer risks later in life? (3) What is the overall balance of cancer among past users as they enter the later stages of their lives?Objectives The purpose of this study was to examine the very long-term cancer risks or benefits associated with the use of combined oral contraceptives, including the estimated overall life-time balance.Study design The 46,022 women who were recruited to the UK Royal College of General Practitioners' Oral Contraception Study in 1968 and 1969 were observed for up to 44 years. Directly standardized rates of specific and any cancer were calculated for "ever" and "never" users of combined oral contraceptives; data were standardized for age, parity, social class, and smoking. Attributable risk and preventive fraction percentages were calculated. Poisson regression that adjusted for the same variables was used to estimate incidence rate ratios between ever and never users and to examine effects by time since last oral contraceptive use.Results There were 4661 ever users with at least 1 cancer during 884,895 woman-years of observation and 2341 never users with at least 1 cancer during 388,505 woman-years of observation. Ever use of oral contraceptives was associated with reduced colorectal (incidence rate ratio, 0.81; 99% confidence interval, 0.66-0.99), endometrial (incidence rate ratio, 0.66; 99% confidence interval, 0.48-0.89), ovarian (incidence rate ratio, 0.67; 99% confidence interval, 0.50-0.89), and lymphatic and hematopoietic cancer (incidence rate ratio, 0.74; 99% confidence interval, 0.58-0.94). An increased risk of lung cancer was seen only among ever users who smoked at recruitment. An increased risk of breast and cervical cancer that was seen in current and recent users appeared to be lost within approximately 5 years of stopping oral contraception, with no evidence of either cancer recurring at increased risk in ever users with time. There was no evidence of new cancer risks appearing later in life among women who had used oral contraceptives. Thus, the overall balance of cancer risk among past users of oral contraceptives was neutral with the increased risks counterbalanced by the endometrial, ovarian, and colorectal cancer benefits that persist at least 30 years.Conclusion Most women who choose to use oral contraceptives do not expose themselves to long-term cancer harms; instead, with some cancers, many women benefit from important reductions of risk that persist for many years after stopping.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A long-term cohort study of 46,022 women in the United Kingdom found an overall neutral balance between short- and long-term cancer risks and benefits in past combined oral contraceptive users after 30 years of follow-up.
“A long-term cohort study of 46,022 women in the United Kingdom showed an overall neutral balance between short-and long-term cancer risks and benefits in past COC users after 30 years of follow-up.214”
From Guidelines of care for the management of acne vulgaris (2024) · cites this paper as [214]
The Results report no statistically significant difference in overall cancer incidence between ever and never users (IRR 0.96, 99% CI 0.90–1.03), supporting the description of an overall neutral balance. The Introduction describes 44 years of follow-up, however, and the Results give a median of 40.7 years—not 30 years. Materials and Methods describe approximately 23,000 users and 23,000 never users recruited across the UK, but the retrieved passage does not establish the exact figure of 46,022. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSystematic reviews associate combined oral contraceptives with small increases in breast and cervical cancer risks and decreases in endometrial, ovarian, and colorectal cancer risks.
“COCs have been associated with small increases in breast cancer and cervical cancer risks and decreases in endometrial, ovarian, and colorectal cancer risks in systematic reviews.”
From Guidelines of care for the management of acne vulgaris (2024) · cites this paper as [214]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 277
Metadata
- Authors
- Iversen, L., Sivasubramaniam, S., Lee, A. J., Fielding, S., & Hannaford, P. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Aberdeen (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Iversen, Lisa
- Venue
- American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-06
- Volume
- 216
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 580.e1-580.e9
- ISSN
- 0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2587440352
- Semantic Scholar
- dd05baa0cd61264f9ee768cb6351bb948a884bee
- Cited by
- 277
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 14
- FWCI
- 28.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Royal College of General Practitioners
- Medical Research Council
- British Heart Foundation
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Risks and Factors
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Inflammatory mediators and NSAID effects
- Keywords
- combined oral contraceptives, lifetime cancer risk, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, lung cancer, smoking, cancer incidence, attributable risk, long-term contraceptive use, women's health, cancer prevention, benefits and risks
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Breast Neoplasms, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Contraceptives, Oral, Contraceptives, Oral, Combined, Female, Follow-Up Studies, United Kingdom, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Risk Factors, Smoking, Time Factors, Colorectal Neoplasms, Endometrial Neoplasms, Hematologic Neoplasms
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review