ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2007
Cancer risk among users of oral contraceptives: cohort data from the Royal College of General Practitioner's oral contraception study.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
65 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 331 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hormone therapy and the risk of central nervous system tumors in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Oral contraceptive use and risk of liver cancer: a population-based study, systematic review, and meta-analysis.The Lancet. Oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Oral Contraceptives Use and Liver Cancer Risk: A Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.Medicine · 2015Pooled it
- Adverse effects of the common treatments for polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2013Pooled it
- Reproductive and exogenous hormone factors in relation to risk of meningioma in women: a meta-analysis.PloS one · 2013Pooled it
- Menstrual and reproductive factors, and hormonal contraception use: associations with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in a pooled analysis of InterLymph case-control studies.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2012Pooled it
- Hormonal Contraceptive Use and Affective Disorders: An Updated Review.Open access journal of contraception · 2025Review
- Previous Use of Combined Oral Contraception in High Complexity Assisted Reproduction Treatments in Protocol with Oral Progestin - Previous use of COC and ART.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2024Article
- Impact of khat (Catha edulis) and oral contraceptive use on telomerase levels and tumor suppressor genes p53 and p21 in normal subjects and breast cancer patients.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Ovarian Cancer in Iran: National Based Study.Iranian journal of public health · 2023Article
- Re-Evaluating the Association Between Hormonal Contraception and Breast Cancer Risk.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2023Review
- RETRACTED: Menstrual Factors, Reproductive History and Liver Cancer Risk: Findings from a Prospective Cohort Study in Chinese Women.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022Article
- Hormonal contraception and risk of breast cancer and breast cancer in situ among Swedish women 15-34 years of age: A nationwide register-based study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2022Article
- Adult and Elderly Risk Factors of Mortality in 23,614 Emergently Admitted Patients with Rectal or Rectosigmoid Junction Malignancy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Exogenous Hormone Factors in Relation to the Risk of Malignant Melanoma in Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2022Review
- Risk of Gynecological Cancers in Cholecystectomized Women: A Large Nationwide Cohort Study.Cancers · 2022Article
- Thromboembolic safety of norethisterone vs levonorgestrel in combined oral contraceptive users: a pooled analysis of 4 large prospective cohort studies.AJOG global reports · 2022Article
- Association of Insulin Resistance and Elevated Androgen Levels with Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS): A Review of Literature.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Review
- Effect of Exogenous Hormones and Reproductive Factors in Female Melanoma: A Meta-Analysis [Response to Letter].Clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- Review of the literature on combined oral contraceptives and cancer.Ecancermedicalscience · 2022Review
5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the absolute risks or benefits on cancer associated with oral contraception, using incident data.
designInception cohort study.
settingRoyal College of General Practitioners' oral contraception study.
participantsDirectly standardised data from the Royal College of General Practitioners' oral contraception study.
main outcome measuresAdjusted relative risks between never and ever users of oral contraceptives for different types of cancer, main gynaecological cancers combined, and any cancer. Standardisation variables were age, smoking, parity, social class, and (for the general practitioner observation dataset) hormone replacement therapy. Subgroup analyses examined whether the relative risks changed with user characteristics, duration of oral contraception usage, and time since last use of oral contraception.
resultsThe main dataset contained about 339,000 woman years of observation for never users and 744,000 woman years for ever users. Compared with never users ever users had statistically significant lower rates of cancers of the large bowel or rectum, uterine body, and ovaries, tumours of unknown site, and other malignancies; main gynaecological cancers combined; and any cancer. The relative risk for any cancer in the smaller general practitioner observation dataset was not significantly reduced. Statistically significant trends of increasing risk of cervical and central nervous system or pituitary cancer, and decreasing risk of uterine body and ovarian malignancies, were seen with increasing duration of oral contraceptive use. Reduced relative risk estimates were observed for ovarian and uterine body cancer many years after stopping oral contraception, although some were not statistically significant. The estimated absolute rate reduction of any cancer among ever users was 45 or 10 per 100,000 woman years, depending on whether the main or general practitioner observation dataset was used.
conclusionIn this UK cohort, oral contraception was not associated with an overall increased risk of cancer; indeed it may even produce a net public health gain. The balance of cancer risks and benefits, however, may vary internationally, depending on patterns of oral contraception usage and the incidence of different cancers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.