Posted on 06/26/2002 10:03:11 PM PDT by jlogajan
The pill does not raise the risk of breast cancer, not even among women who started taking it early or have close relatives with the disease, a new study found.
Previous research had reached conflicting conclusions, though two of the most recent studies had found a higher risk for some women. And since nearly 80 percent of U.S. women born since 1945 have used oral contraceptives, even a small increase was reason for concern.
In this new study, published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health looked at more than 9,200 women ages 35 to 64 - a group that includes the first generation of women to take the pill.
"It was a chance to look at women over a lifetime to see what the risk has been," said Robert Spirtas, chief of the contraception and reproductive health branch of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. "That hasn't been possible before, because the first oral contraceptive users started off in the 1960s. They're just getting to the age where the breast cancer risk is highest."
Researchers in Atlanta, Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Seattle interviewed 4,575 women who had breast cancer and 4,682 who did not. Seventy-seven percent of the cancer patients and 79 percent of the cancer-free women had taken some type of oral contraceptive.
Those who had never taken the pill were about as likely to have breast cancer as those who were taking it or had taken it.
It did not matter whether they were black or white; whether they were fat, skinny or of average weight; whether they took the early variety of the pill containing high doses of hormones, or a later, lower-dose pill; or whether they had a family history of breast cancer, had gone through menopause or started taking contraceptives before they were 20.
"I think that what was impressive was that, no matter which way you looked at the data, no matter which subset, the result was null," said Dr. Kathy J. Helzlsouer, a cancer specialist in the epidemiology department at Johns Hopkins University's school of public health. "It's nice to be able to give good news to women about something so many women take or have taken."
A 1996 analysis of 54 studies had concluded that the pill does seem to raise the breast cancer risk, perhaps by about one-quarter. And a more recent study indicated that oral contraceptives can at least triple the risk in women whose relatives have had breast cancer.
Dr. Claudine Isaacs, clinical director of the breast cancer program at Georgetown University Hospital, said the latest study did not look far enough to say with certainty whether the pill raises the risk for women whose relatives have had the disease.
For one thing, women were asked only if their mother or any sister or daughter had breast or ovarian cancer, not whether it had been found in any aunts, cousins or grandmothers, Isaacs said.
"I think we still have to be a little cautious about women with a strong family history, or who we know have mutations. Studies are going to be coming out shortly about those," she said.
But, she said, the latest findings should reassure the vast majority of women.
"I think this is a definitive study," she said.
Oh, well - science isn't a democracy, and doesn't work by votes.
So I guess since there is no link, he must be showing his approval? No? -- Oh I guess it never seems to work that way. heh heh
This has nothing to do with God. Estrogen has now been listed as a carcinogen. Birth control pills contain estrogen. Even my pro-choice OB/GYN knows this. When you go for your mammogram (and I know you won't), you'll be asked if you take birth control pills or hormone replacement therapy. Why? Because they both feed benign and cancerous conditions of the breast.
Actually, the largest study of its kind, the Denmark study, found no link between abortion and breast cancer. That's also the position of the American Cancer Society -- they say, no link.
Probably not the position of the American Bible Society, but thems the breaks.
The dose makes the poison. That same panel that voted to list estrogen as a carcinogen also voted to list wood dust as a carcinogen. Heck, plain old cane sugar is a carcinogen in the right dosage. But estrogen amounts in birth control pills today are far lower than when the pill was first introduced - originally, the pill contained between 100 and 175 micrograms of estrogen per dose, whereas today, the pill typically has between 20 and 30 micrograms of estrogen, and no brand has more than 50 micrograms. And the few that have 50 micrograms have had their labeling changed by the FDA to indicate that they should only be used in cases of significant medical necessity.
Saying that something is a carcinogen doesn't mean much - not all carcinogens are the same. The question is how much risk is added by exposure to that substance, and in the case of estrogen, the risk appears to be negligible, particularly in the amount present in current birth control pills.
Here's a big *smooch* for you.
I know, I've done enough assessments and interviews. We don't ask these questions just for our own amusement. There's always a reason.
Ah, so the formal studies of the risks of estrogen are not the true indication of its nature, then - it's the fact that doctors ask about it. Interesting. Presumably, then, if doctors started asking people for their astrological signs, that would indicate that astrology is legitimate and valid, correct?
By who, the American Bible Society? The American Cancer Society still cites it. Hmmm.
It was inherently flawed in its methodology.
That would be the assertion of the ABS. But it isn't the case.
Plus, when you study medical research, you have to look at all the studies combined, not just the one you like
One always has to consider all the data. In this case almost all of the studies showing a link were found to be flawed due to the "recall bias." Healthy women were less likely to mention ever having an abortion, whereas women with cancer were more likely to list every past possibility. Hence abortions in healthy women were underreported in all the studies you like. Thus giving rise to the false conclusion that there was a link. The link disappeared when recall bias was eliminated.
This argument has nothing to do with religion. It does, however, have everything to do with politics. Politicians and activists need to get the heck out of medicine. They don't know what they are talking about and have no right dictating care. They need to leave us alone to do our research and work.
Really? I don't think so. You seemed to be saying that the bare fact that doctors ask their patients whether they are taking birth control pills is itself indicative that birth control pills significantly increase the risk of cancer. And I'm saying the fact that doctors ask means no such thing in and of itself. There are may other reasons that doctors might ask about the pill that have nothing to do with the perceived cancer risk due to estrogen, most significantly the fact that birth control pills can have unwanted interactions with other medications. To suggest that doctors ask about it because they all think its a cancer risk is misleading, IMO.
I find it amusing, if typical, that you've already turned this into an exercise in Bible-bashing. Why don't you just convert to Christianity and get it over with?
That's exactly what I'm saying. We don't ask this question simply for our entertainment. The research has already proven this out. Ask any physician. The American Cancer Society has now listed estrogen as a carcinogen and a risk factor.
There are may other reasons that doctors might ask about the pill that have nothing to do with the perceived cancer risk due to estrogen, most significantly the fact that birth control pills can have unwanted interactions with other medications.
Partially true. However, when a woman goes in for a mammogram no medications are given. They don't ask "What medications do you take?" They don't ask "Do you use birth control?" Why not? Because it's not relevant! The question they ask is this "Do you take hormones of any kind such as birth control pills or estrogen?" Hormones, general. Most breast cancers are estrogen fueled. The others are genetically predisposed.
I am an RN who has worked in medical research. I am female. I am on both sides of this issue as a professional and a patient. Do the research yourself and quit attacking me because I'm giving you information you don't want to hear.
If you do as you have done, maybe, and simply dismiss any research to the contrary, such as this article here.
The American Cancer Society has now listed estrogen as a carcinogen and a risk factor.
They also list wood dust and talcum powder as carcinogens. They list everything remotely suspected of being carcinogenic, without regard to the actual risk of the thing. The ACS is hardly infallible.
Most breast cancers are estrogen fueled.
"Most"? May I see your source for this?
Do the research yourself and quit attacking me because I'm giving you information you don't want to hear.
I have done the research, having spent some time on Medline and CancerLit. I am not attacking you - simply disagreeing with you. Perhaps you should step back a bit, take a break, and come back when you are less likely to take this discussion personally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.