ArticleJAMA oncology2025
Hormonal Contraceptive Formulations and Breast Cancer Risk in Adolescents and Premenopausal Women.
Article in JAMA oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrasound-activated RuORSC advances · 2026Article
- Prescribed Short-Acting Hormonal Contraceptive Use Among Premenopausal Females.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- A concept for a new approach to combined oral contraception from adolescence to perimenopause: Continuous use of the oral GnRH antagonist Relugolix and the fetal estrogen Estetrol.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- LNG-IUD and breast cancer: Number 2 - 2026.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2026Article
- Estetrol and its implications for contraception, venous thromboembolism, and breast cancer: an integrative review.Jornal vascular brasileiro · 2026Review
- A detailed review of pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of progestogens in oral contraception.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Breast cancer risk during oral contraceptive use in women with high polygenic risk.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Hormonal contraceptives are widely used but how breast cancer risk differs by hormonal content remains unclear. Objective: To estimate the difference in breast cancer risk associated with different hormonal contraceptive formulations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This Swedish nationwide, population-based cohort study was conducted using linked national registers. All adolescent girls and women aged 13 to 49 years residing in Sweden as of January 1, 2006, with no history of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, cervical cancer, uterine cancer, bilateral oophorectomy, or infertility treatment were included and followed up from 2006 to 2019. Individuals were censored on meeting an exclusion criterion, reaching age 50 years, or study end, whichever occurred first. Data were analyzed from November 2023 to August 2025. Exposure: Ever use and duration of use of hormonal contraceptives, categorized by hormone formulations and route of administration. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time-dependent Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs for incident cases of in situ and invasive breast cancer. Results: Among 2 095 130 adolescent girls and women (median [IQR] age at diagnosis, 45 [41-48] years) who were followed up for 21 020 846 person-years, 16 385 breast cancer cases occurred. Ever use of any hormonal contraceptive was associated with increased breast cancer risk (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.20-1.28), corresponding to 1 additional case per 7752 (95% CI, 5350-14 070) users, with both combined (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.07-1.17) and progestin-only formulations (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.17-1.25) being associated. Higher risk was associated with oral desogestrel-only formulations (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.13-1.23) and oral desogestrel-combined formulations (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.08-1.31), as well as implants containing etonogestrel, desogestrel's active metabolite (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.11-1.35), compared to levonorgestrel-containing combined pills (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.03-1.15) and levonorgestrel, 52 mg, intrauterine system (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.09-1.18). No statistically significant increased risk was observed for medroxyprogesterone acetate injection, etonogestrel vaginal ring, or combined oral drospirenone, despite having many users. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this cohort study highlight that breast cancer risk varies substantially by progestin content in hormonal contraceptives, providing valuable insights to support more informed contraceptive prescription.
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.