Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cervical cancer and methods of contraception

  • ESC Meeting
  • Published:
Advances in Contraception

Abstract

When evaluating whether the use of a particular method of contraception is associated with an increased or decreased risk of cervical cancer, it is important to be aware of the epidemiological factors which might lead to incorrect conclusions. After careful consideration of the issues, and examination of the available data, it is concluded that women who use oral contraceptives are possibly at increased risk of invasive cervical cancer; users of barrier methods probably have a decreased risk (although the protective effect may differ between the various types of barrier method); and that users of other methods of contraception do not have an altered risk.

Resumé

Lorsqu'on évalue si l'utilisation d'une méthode particulière de contraception est associée à une augmentation ou à une diminution du risque de cancer du col, il importe de tenir compte du fait que les facteurs épidémiologiques peuvent amener à tirer des conclusions erronées. Après avoir convenablement examiné ces questions et les données disponibles, il est permis de conclure que les femmes qui utilisent les contraceptifs oraux sont peut-être plus exposées au risque de cancer cervical invasif; que les utilisatrices des méthodes de barrière le sont probablement moins (encore que l'effet de protection puisse varier d'un type de méthode à l'autre), et que les risques ne sont en rien modifiés dans le cas des femmes qui font appel à d'autres méthodes contraceptives.

Resumen

Al evaluarse si la utilización de un método en particular de anticoncepción está asociado a un aumento o a una disminución del riesgo de cáncer de cuello, es necesario tener en cuenta que los factores epidemiológicos pueden llevar a extraer conclusiones erróneas. Tras considerar cuidadosamente estas cuestiones y los datos disponibles, se puede llegar a la conclusión de que las mujeres que utilizan anticonceptivos orales corren posiblemente un riesgo mayor de cáncer cervical invasivo; que las usuarias de métodos de barrera probablemente corran un riesgo menor (si bien el efecto de protección puede variar de un tipo de método a otro), y que los riesgos no se modifican en absoluto entre las mujeres que utilizan otros métodos anticonceptivos.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Swann, S.H. and Petitti, D.B. (1982). A review of problems of bias and confounding in epidemiologic studies of cervical neoplasia and oral contraceptive use.Am. J. Epidemiol.,115, 10–18

    Google Scholar 

  2. WHO Collaborative Study of Neoplasia and Steroid Contraceptives (1985). Invasive cervical cancer and combined oral contraceptives.Br. Med. J.,290, 961–965

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brinton, L.A., Huggins, G.R., Lehman, H.F. et al. (1986). Long-term use of oral contraceptives and risk of invasive cervical cancer.Int. J. Cancer,38, 339–344

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. LaVecchia, C., Decarli, A, Fasoli, M. et al. (1986). Oral contraceptives and cancers of the breast and of the female genital tract. Interim results from a case-control study.Br. J. Cancer,54, 311–317

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Parazzini, F., LaVecchia, C., Negri, E. and Maggi, R. (1990). Oral contraceptive use and invasive cervical cancer.Int. J. Epidemiol.,19, 259–263

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vessey, M.P., Lawless, M., McPherson, K. and Yeates, D. (1983). Neoplasia of the cervix uteri and contraception: a possible adverse effect of the pill.Lancet,2, 930–934

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Beral, V., Hannaford, P. and Kay, C. (1988). Oral contraceptive use and malignancies of the genital tract.Lancet,2, 1331–1335

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Andolsek, L., Kovacic, J., Kozuh, M. and Litt, B. (1983). Influence of oral contraceptives on the incidence of premalignant lesions of the cervix.Contraception,28, 505–519

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Stern, E., Forsythe, A.B., Youkeles, L. et al. (1977). Steroid contraceptive use and cervical dysplasia: increased risk of progression.Science,196, 1460–1462

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Peters, R.K., Thomas, D., Hagan, D.G., Mack, T.M. and Henderson, B.E. (1986). Risk factors for invasive cervical cancer among Latinas and non-Latinas in Los Angeles County.J. N. C. I.,77, 1063–1077

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ebeling, K., Nischan, P. and Schindler, C. (1987). Use of oral contraceptives and risk of invasive cervical cancer in previously screened women.Int. J. Cancer,39, 427–430

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Celentano, D.D., Klassen, A.C., Weisman, C.S. and Rosenhein, N.B. (1987). The role of contraceptive use in cervical cancer: The Maryland Cervical Cancer Case-Control Study.Am. J. Epidemiol.,126, 592–604

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Irwin, K.L., Rosero-Bixby, L., Oberle, M.W. et al. (1988). Oral contraceptives and cervical cancer risk in Costa Rica. Detection bias or causal association?J. Am. Med. Assoc.,259, 59–64

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Slattery, M.L., OverallJr., J.C., Abbott, T.M., French, T.K., Robison, L.M. and Gardner, J. (1989). Sexual activity, contraception, genital infections, and cervical cancer: support for a sexually transmitted disease hypothesis.Am. J. Epidemiol.,130, 248–258

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Brinton, L.A., Reeves, W.C., Brenes, M.M. et al. (1990). Oral contraceptive use and risk of invasive cervical cancer.Int. J. Epidemiol.,19, 4–11

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wright, N.H., Vessey, M.P., Kenward, B., McPherson, K. and Doll, R. (1978). Neoplasia and dysplasia of the cervix uteri and contraception: a possible protective effect of the diaphragm.Br. J. Cancer,38, 273–279

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fasal, E., Simmons, M.E. and Kampert, J.B. (1981). Factors associated with high and low risk of cervical neoplasia.J. N. C. I.,66, 631–636

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Parazzini, F., Negri, E., LaVecchia, C. and Fedele, L. (1989). Barrier methods of contraception and the risk of cervical neoplasia.Contraception,40, 519–530

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hildesheim, A., Brinton, L.A., Mallin, K. et al. (1990). Barrier and spermicidal contraceptive methods and risk of invasive cervical cancer.Epidemiology,1, 266–272

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. WHO Collaborative Study of Neoplasia and Steroid Contraceptives (1986). Depot-Medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) and cancer: Memorandum from a WHO Meeting.Bull. WHO,64, 375–382

    Google Scholar 

  21. Thomas, D.B., Molina, R., Cuevas, H.R. et al. (1989). Monthly injectable steroid contraceptives and cervical carcinoma.Am. J. Epidemiol.,130, 237–247

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Manchester Research Unit, Royal College of General Practitioners, 8 Barlow Moor Road, M20 0TR, Manchester, UK

    P. C. Hannaford

Authors
  1. P. C. Hannaford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hannaford, P.C. Cervical cancer and methods of contraception. Adv Contracept 7, 317–324 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02340177

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02340177

Keywords

Search

Navigation