Next Article in Journal
Impact of Voltage Application on Degradation of Biorefractory Pharmaceuticals in an Anaerobic–Aerobic Coupled Upflow Bioelectrochemical Reactor
Next Article in Special Issue
Trends and Determinants of Operative Vaginal Delivery at Two Academic Hospitals in Johannesburg, South Africa 2005–2019
Previous Article in Journal
Health Education Module Based on Information–Motivation–Behavioural Skills (IMB) for Reducing Depression, Anxiety, and Stress among Adolescents in Boarding Schools: A Clustered Randomised Controlled Trial
Previous Article in Special Issue
Future Perspectives of Ectopic Pregnancy Treatment—Review of Possible Pharmacological Methods
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 22
10.3390/ijerph192215363
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Oral Contraceptive Use and Assessment of Breast Cancer Risk among Premenopausal Women via Molecular Characteristics: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

by
Agnieszka Barańska
Department of Medical Informatics and Statistics with e-Health Lab, Medical University of Lublin, 20-094 Lublin, Poland
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(22), 15363; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192215363
Submission received: 27 September 2022 / Revised: 6 November 2022 / Accepted: 19 November 2022 / Published: 21 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Obstetrics and Gynecology in Public Health)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Breast cancer is divided into four molecular subtypes. Each one has distinct clinical features. The aim of this study was to assess individual breast cancer subtype risk in premenopausal women taking oral contraceptives (OCs). Databases (MEDLINE; PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library) were searched to January 2022 to identify case-control studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The influence of OCs intake on the risk of ER-positive breast cancer (ER+BC) was revealed to be non-significant with regard to reduction: OR = 0.9134, 95% CI: 0.8128 to 1.0265, p = 0.128. Assessment of ER-negative subtype breast cancer (ER−BC) risk indicated that OCs use significantly increased the risk: OR = 1.3079, 95% CI: 1.0003 to 1.7100, p = 0.050. Analysis for HER2-positive breast cancer (HER2+BC) risk showed that OCs use statistically non-significantly lowered the risk: OR = 0.8810, 95% CI: 0.5977 to 1.2984, p = 0.522. Meta-analysis with regard to Triplet-negative breast cancer (TNBC) risk showed non-statistically significant increased risk: OR = 1.553, 95% CI: 0.99 to 2.43, p = 0.055. The findings of the meta-analysis suggest that breast cancer risk in premenopausal women may vary with respect to molecular subtypes. Extensive scientific work is still necessary in order to understand the impact of OCs use on breast cancer risk in young women.

1. Introduction

Breast cancer is the leading type of cancer in women in most countries in the world. The incidence of breast cancer has increased dramatically in the past fifty years. Indeed, it is estimated that one in eight women will develop cancer during their lifetime. According to GLOBOCAN 2020 data, breast cancer is currently one of the most prevalently diagnosed cancers, with an estimated number of 2.3 million new cases worldwide. This figure represents 11.7% of all cancer cases globally [1,2,3,4]. Several procedures, such as preventive behaviors in general, as well as screening programs, are crucial to a possible minimization of breast cancer incidence rate and the implementation of early treatment [5].
Breast cancer remains the most common malignancy among younger patients. The incidence of breast cancer in young women is 5.6% and is rising rapidly [6]. Compared to older age groups, breast cancer in young patients is more likely to have a larger tumor size, family predisposition genes, unfavorable biological features, advanced disease at diagnosis, and, unfortunately, poor prognosis [6]. Breast cancer in young women requires special attention due to its specific morphologic and prognostic characteristics and unique aspects, including fertility preservation and psychosocial issues [7]. Diagnosing breast cancer at an earlier age may be associated with a concern that is less likely to be faced by older women [8,9,10].
Intrinsic molecular classification of subtypes of breast cancer was done according to gene expression patterns [11,12,13]. Four major intrinsic molecular subtypes have been characterized: luminal A (ER+/PR+/HER2− with low Ki67), luminal B (ER+/PR+/HER2+ with high Ki67), HER2-overexpressing (ER−/PR−/HER2+), and TNBC (ER−/PR−/HER2−) [14]. These molecular subtypes have been correlated with the clinicopathological characteristics of tumors [15,16]. The respective subtypes of breast cancer have a complex etiology that is influenced by, inter alia, endogenous endocrine and reproductive factors such as early menarche, long duration of menstruation, age (>30 years) of first pregnancy, and null parity and late menopause [17,18].
Prolonged exposure to ovarian hormones may increase the risk of breast cancer. Endogenous estrogens are involved in the development of breast tumors by stimulating proliferation, increasing the number of cell divisions, and accumulating DNA damage caused by replication, as well as generating genotoxic compounds [19,20].
Globally, around 140 million women, approximately 13% of all women between 15 and 49 years old, utilize OCs [21]. Although many investigations on the effects of OCs taking and the risk of breast cancer have been conducted, the relationship remains unresolved [22,23,24,25]. Our previous meta-analysis in the general population indicated that OCs use has diverse impacts on the risk of breast cancer when defined by molecular markers status. Summary analysis showed that each use of OCs led to a significantly increased risk of TNBC, as well as of ER−BC. There was also a significant reduction in the risk of ER+BC and a slight reduction in the risk of HER2+BC after taking OCs [26].
The aim of this study was to assess the risk of individual breast cancer subtypes in premenopausal women taking OCs.

2. Methods

2.1. Search Strategy and Selection Criteria

Based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, electronic databases—MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library—were searched to identify works published to January 2022 examining the impact of oral contraception (OC) on the risk of the breast cancer molecular subtypes in premenopausal women [27,28]. The following word search terms have been used in various combinations: ‘oral contraceptives’ or ‘birth control pill’ AND ‘subtype breast cancer risk’ or ‘ER+ subtype’ or ‘ER− subtype’ or ‘HER2 positive’ or ‘TNBC’ AND ‘case-control studies’ AND ‘young women’ or ‘premenopausal women’. Relevant studies were identified using a combination of keywords in the electronic databases.
To evaluate a study’s eligibility for inclusion, titles, abstracts, and articles were reviewed independently. Two researchers independently graded the included studies with differences resolved by consensus between other investigators. A combined search was performed, looking for case-control studies (population and hospital design). The studies included in the meta-analysis provided information on the relationship between OC use and breast cancer by molecular status. The exclusion criteria were: postmenopausal women as participants; insufficient quantitative data, the results were reported as graphics; duplicate reports; case-only studies, and articles published in languages other than English.

2.2. Data Extraction

Data were extracted and subsequently reviewed for accuracy. From each of the included studies, the following data were extracted: (a) the first author’s last name, source of study, country, publication year, years of data collection, and the number of participants in subgroups; (b) information on the use of OCs in subgroups: ever/never, duration, age at first use, and years since last use prior to diagnosis; (c) in the original studies, different definitions and combinations of subgroup used; this meta-analysis included subtypes grouped into the four categories: ER-positive (regardless of their PR/HER2 status), ER-negative (regardless of their PR status), HER2-positive (absence of ER/PR), and Triplet-negative (absence of ER/PR/HER2).

2.3. Assessment of Study Quality

To evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies, we applied the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) [27]. Each of the included studies was assessed into three major components, including selection, comparability, and exposure for case-control studies. The scale ranged from zero to nine stars, with the latter representing the highest methodological quality.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Meta-analysis was performed using Statistica 13.3 software (StatSoft Poland, Kraków, Poland). The risks (odds ratios, ORs) of breast cancer in premenopausal women associated with the OC were estimated for each study. The distribution of cases and controls at risk, ORs, and 95% CI were separately identified by molecular characteristics and for OC use (ever or never). Summary risk was calculated as estimates (95% CIs) and values from single studies were combined using the random effects model (DerSimonian and Laird). Random effects incorporate an estimate of the between-study variance and tend to provide wider confidence intervals when the results of the constituent studies differ among themselves [28,29]. Heterogeneity between the studies was measured using Cochran’s Q test and I2. I considered the cuts off points of I2 suggested by Higgins et al. [28], categorized into no heterogeneity (0%), low (<25%), moderate (25–75%), and high (>75%).
The publication bias was assessed using Begg & Mazumdar’s rank correlation test and Egger’s regression test [30,31]. Funnel plot symmetry was also checked. In order to explain the possible influence of covariates, such as age at first OCs use, duration of OCs taking, and years since last OCs use prior to diagnosis, on breast cancer risk among premenopausal women, meta-regression and subgroup analyses were applied [32]. The limited number of studies available for meta-analysis prevented me from completing subgroup analyses and tests of publication bias. Subgroup analysis for variables (duration OC use, time of last use prior to diagnosis, and age at first OC use) was calculated when a minimum of the data from three studies were available.

3. Results

Details of the search and identification process are presented in Figure 1. The search through electronic databases and relevant bibliographies identified 325 articles. Based on the titles and/or abstracts reviewed, 286 items were excluded. The remaining 39 articles with potentially relevant works were then qualified for full-text evaluation. Among these, 30 studies were, among others, excluded due to data inconsistent with the work assumptions, the data presented were for total breast cancer, and no separate data were available for pre-and postmenopausal molecular subtypes of breast cancer, or other reasons. Finally, nine articles were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis.
This analysis is based on data from nine case-control studies evaluating the effect of OCs on the risk of specific molecular subtypes of breast cancer in premenopausal women. The quality of the studies included in the meta-analysis assessed on the basis of the NOS ranged between 4 and 8, and the average score was 6.89 for the included studies.
The characteristics of the selected works are summarized in Table 1. The works were published between 1999 and 2018 and were carried out in the years 1990 to 2010. Seven studies were conducted in the United States and one each in Canada and Australia. The studies involved a total of 15,796 women, including 5973 cases of breast cancer and 9823 persons as control aged 20–50years.
The presented meta-analysis is based on data from nine studies ascertaining the effect of OCs on the risk of individual molecular subtypes of breast cancer among premenopausal women.

3.1. Effects of Oral Contraceptive Use on ER-Positive Subtype

The meta-analysis of the influence of OC intake on the risk of ER+BC was based on data from seven studies [34,35,36,37,38,39,40], which included 10,322 women (cases: 3184, control: 7144). The analysis showed that, compared to not using OCs, ever-taking OCs statistically non-significantly reduced the risk of breast cancer: OR = 0.9134, 95% CI: 0.8128 to 1.0265, p = 0.128, I2 = 0.00%. Results of Begg’s test: tau b = −0.0476, z = −0.1502, p = 0.881, and Egger’s test: b0 = −0.0404, 95% CI: −3.3254 to 3.2445, t = −0.0316, p = 0.976 indicated the lack of evidence of publication bias (Figure 2).
The assessment of the influence of OC intake on modifying factors of ER+BC risk is presented in Table 2. Data from 4 studies [35,36,37,38] investigating the duration of OC use showed an insignificant increase of ER+BC risk for use longer than 5 years, as compared with less than 5 years: OR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.77, 1.04, p = 0.141, I2 = 00.00%. The meta-analysis of the risk of the ER+BC subtype depending on the period of discontinuation of taking of OCs before diagnosis was based on three studies [36,37,39] and was associated with a non-significant risk reduction: OR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.24, p = 0.493, I2 = 52.91%. Multivariable meta-regression with covariates of the age of first use of OCs (β = 0.03, 95% CI: −0.32 to 0.38, p = 0.860), duration of use of OCs (β = 0.06, 95% CI: −0.16 to 0.27, p = 0.602), and time since last use (β = 0.25, 95% CI: −0.14 to 0.64, p = 0.212) showed these covariates had a non-significant impact on breast cancer risk in premenopausal women.

3.2. Effects of Oral Contraceptive Use on ER-Negative Subtype

The results of the analysis regarding the association between OC use and the risk of ER−BC subtype were obtained from five studies [34,35,36,39,40], which included 6760 women (cases; 1282, control: 5477). The summary meta-analysis showed that ever-use of OCs generated significantly increased breast cancer risk, compared to non-taking OC: OR = 1.3079, 95% CI: 1.0003 to 1.7100, p = 0.050, with relatively moderate heterogeneity: I2 = 54.71% (Figure 3). No evidence of publication bias was seen after the application of Begg’s test: au b = −0.4000, z = −0.9798, p = 0.327, and Egger’s test: b0 = −3.6523, 95% CI; −12.1087, 4.8040, t = −1.3745, p = 0.263.
The influence of confounding factors on the first use of OC on the risk of ER–BC subtype could not be assessed as only one study was available for age [36], and two studies for the duration of OC use [35,36] and years since last use [36,39] (Table 2). Multivariable meta-regression duration of OC use did not confirm the impact of these covariates on this breast cancer subtype: β = −0.1832, 95% CI: −0.6131, 0.2464, p = 0.404. Meta-regression of years since last OCs use indicated no impact: β = 0.1061, 95% CI: −0.3481; 0.5603, p = 0.647.

3.3. Effects of Oral Contraceptive Use on HER2-Positive Subtype

The relationship between OC taking and HER2+BC risk was assessed based on data from four trials [33,36,38,39] in which 4414 women participated, including 564 as cases and 3850 controls. The conducted meta-analysis showed that ever-use of OCs statistically non-significantly lowered the risk of HER2+BC: OR = 0.8810, 95% CI: 0.5977 to 1.2984, p = 0.522, with moderate heterogeneity: 62.94% (Figure 4). Begg’s and Egger’s tests did not show evidence of publication bias: tau b = −1.0000, z = −1.5667, p = 0.117, and b0 = −3.2060, 95% CI: −10,6147 to 4.2026; t = −1.8619, p = 0.204, respectively.
Estimation of the effect of duration of use on the risk of HER2+BC was based on data from three studies [33,36,38]. The use of OCs over 5 years was associated with a non-significant increased risk of breast cancer: OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.67, 1.51, p = 0.991, I2 = 58.57% (Table 2). The relation between the years from the last use of OCs before diagnosis and the risk of HER2+BC was analyzed based on data from three studies [33,36,39]. With regard to the last use of OCs >5 years, a non-significant increased risk of cancer was found: OR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.64, 1.26, p = 0.537, I2 = 19.30% (Table 2). Multivariable meta-regression for the duration of OC use (β = 0.0186, 95% CI: −0.5998, 0.6370, p = 0.953), for age at first OC use (β = −0.2031, 95% CI: −0.6146, 0.2984, p = 0.333), and for years since last use (β = 0.2468, 95% CI: −0.1325, 0.6262, p = 0.202) has not confirmed the impact of these covariates on this breast cancer subtype.

3.4. Effects of Oral Contraceptive Use on Triplet Negative Subtype

Changes in TNBC risk in 6918 women, including 945 cases and 5973 control, after taking OCs were assessed based upon five trials [36,37,38,39,41]. Compared with women not using OCs, the performed meta-analysis revealed non-statistically significant increased TNBC risk in women taking OCs: OR = 1.553, 95% CI: 0.99 to 2.43, p = 0.055, with relatively high heterogeneity, I2 = 77.97% (Figure 5). Begg’s test: b = 0.0000, z = 0.0000, p = 1.0000, and Egger’s test: b0 = −5.1703, 95% CI: −16.4055 to 6.0649, t = −1.4645, p = 0.239 did not show evidence of publication bias.
The analysis of the effect of the duration of OC use on the risk of TNBC was performed based on the results of three studies [36,37,38]. Meta-analysis showed a statistically insignificant increase in risk for last use <5 years: OR = 1.59, 95% CI: 0.76, 3.32, p = 0.218, I2 = 82.14% (Table 2). The influence of the time of last use prior to diagnosis on the TNBC risk was based on three studies [36,37,39]. Meta-analysis showed a statistically insignificant increase in risk for last use <5 years: OR = 1.47, 95% CI: 0.66, 3.25, p = 0.340, I2 = 81.18% (Table 2). Multivariable meta-regression for covariates duration of OC use (β = −0.279, 95% CI: −1.35, 0.818, p = 0.618), years since last use (β = 0.0525, 95% CI: −1.10, 1.21, p = 0.929), and age at the start of OC taking (β = −0.150, 95% CI: −2.062, 1.762, p = 0.878) did not confirm the impact of these covariates on this breast cancer subtype.

4. Discussion

The presented meta-analysis conducts for the first time an assessment of breast cancer risk in premenopausal women as related to molecular subtypes. The influence of OCs intake on the risk of ER-positive breast cancer among women showed that, compared to not using OCs, ever-taking OCs statistically non-significantly reduced the risk of breast cancer: OR = 0.9134, 95% CI: 0.8128 to 1.0265, p = 0.128. Moreover, the meta-analysis risk of ER-negative subtype breast cancer indicated that ever-use of OCs significantly increased breast cancer risk, compared to non-taking OCs: OR = 1.3079, 95% CI: 1.0003 to 1.7100, p = 0.050. In addition, the relationship between OC taking and HER2+BC risk showed that ever-use of OCs statistically non-significantly lowered the risk: OR = 0.8810, 95% CI: 0.5977 to 1.2984, p = 0.522. Finally, the performed meta-analysis of TNBC risk showed non-statistically significant increased TNBC risk in women taking OCs: OR = 1.553, 95% CI: 0.99 to 2.43, p = 0.055.
Our previous meta-analysis of the effect of OC use on the risk of breast cancer was conducted for the general population [26]. We included 19 studies evaluating the impact of OCs on the risk of specific molecular subtypes of breast cancer (a total of 246,152 individuals, including 31,250 cases and 214,902 as a control). The results of our meta-analysis based on the general population indicated that each use of OCs significantly increased the risk of TNBC: OR = 1.37, 95% CI; 1.13 to 1.67, p = 0.002, as well as ER−BC: OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.40, p = 0.019. The summary meta-analysis also showed a significant reduction in the risk of ER+BC: OR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.86 to 0.99, p = 0.026, and a slight reduction in the risk of HER2+BC: OR = 0.95, 95% CI; 0.79 to 1.14, p = 0.561 after OC taking [26].
Similar results were seen in the meta-analysis of Li et al. [42] evaluating the association between OC use and TNBC risk in the general population. Results showed a significantly increased TNBC risk (OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.18–1.45; Z = 5.26, p < 0.00001). In addition, the meta-analysis of Kahlenborn et al. [43] performed for premenopausal women demonstrated that the use of OCs was associated with an increased risk of premenopausal breast cancer, in general (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.09–1.29), and across various patterns of OC use. The study of Bethea et al. [44] for the overall population examined the duration of OC use in relation to molecular subtypes of breast cancer in a pooled analysis of data from the African-American Breast Cancer Epidemiology and Risk Consortium. The work included 1848 women and revealed that OC use within the previous five years was associated with increased risk of ER+BC (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.81), ER- (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.43), and TNBC (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.53). The risk declined after cessation of use but was apparent for ER+ cancer for 15 to 19 years after cessation and ER−BC for an even longer interval after cessation. A long duration of use was also associated with an increased risk of each subtype, particularly ER−BC [44]. Results of the study of Gaudet et al. [45] suggest that both current use of contemporary OC preparations for 5 years or longer and lifetime OC durations of use of 15 years or longer confer an increased breast cancer risk among women ages 20 to 44. Our previous study evaluating the risk of breast cancer among OC users, in an overall estimate of 79 case-control studies conducted between 1960 and 2010, shows that OC use before a first full-term pregnancy significantly increased the risk of breast cancer (OR, 1.14, 1.01–1.28, p = 0.04), as did OC use longer than 5 years (1.09, 1.01–1.18, p = 0.02) [22]. A study by Bardaweel et al. conducted on 450 Jordanian women suggested that the duration of OC use was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (p > 0.05) [21]. My results also didn’t show an association between the duration of OC use and a statistically significant increased risk of breast cancer in premenopausal women.
The results of this meta-analysis should be interpreted in light of some limitations. The first may be the searching of publications submitted only in English and the fact that most of the included studies were conducted in North America. The second is that it can be difficult to define the cutoff point for the adopted age of the ‘premenopausal woman’ or ‘young woman’ categories (indeed, prior epidemiologic studies of young women’s breast cancer have used inconsistent cutoff points to classify young women–these ranging from 35 to 50 years of age). Thirdly, evidence for the associations between different OC formulations and breast cancer risk, especially by disease subtype, is limited. Fourthly, self-reporting of OC use may lead to an overestimation or underestimation of data. Fifthly, the number of cases was relatively small and previous case-control studies were based predominantly on older women. In addition, it was not reported which type of OCs they used. Moreover, there was a lack of information on confounders that could probably have had an influence on the statistical power limitations involved in examining subgroup associations.

5. Conclusions

The findings of the study suggest that breast cancer risk in premenopausal women may vary by molecular subtype. This conclusion prompts the suggestion that young women who use OCs should be examined more closely in population screenings of breast cancer. Unquestionably, extensive scientific work is still necessary in order to understand the impact of OC use on breast cancer risk in premenopausal women.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Łukasiewicz, S.; Czeczelewski, M.; Forma, A.; Baj, J.; Sitarz, R.; Stanisławek, A. Breast Cancer—Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Classification, Prognostic Markers, and Current Treatment Strategies—An Updated Review. Cancers 2021, 13, 4287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Sharma, R. Global, regional, national burden of breast cancer in 185 countries: Evidence from GLOBOCAN 2018. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2021, 187, 557–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lynch, H.; Synder, C.; Wang, S.M. Considerations for comprehensive assessment of genetic predisposition in familial breast cancer. Breast J. 2015, 21, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ginsburg, O.; Yip, C.H.; Brooks, A.; Cabanes, A.; Caleffi, M.; Dunstan Yataco, J.A.; Gyawali, B.; McCormack, V.; McLaughlin de Anderson, M.; Mehrotra, R.; et al. Breast cancer early detection: A phased approach to implementation. Cancer 2020, 126 (Suppl. S10), 2379–2393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Latif, S.; Perveen, S.; Najib, S. Epidemiology of Carcinoma Breast in Young Adolescence Women. Cureus 2022, 14, e23683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gabriel, C.A.; Domchek, S.M. Breast cancer in young women. Breast Cancer Res. 2010, 12, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Borstelmann, N.A.; Gray, T.F.; Gelber, S.; Rosenberg, S.; Zheng, Y.; Meyer, M.; Ruddy, K.J.; Schapira, L.; Come, S.; Borges, V.; et al. Psychosocial issues and quality of life of parenting partners of young women with breast cancer. Support. Care Cancer 2022, 30, 4265–4274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Avis, N.E.; Crawford, S.; Manuel, J. Psychosocial problems among younger women with breast cancer. Psychooncology 2004, 13, 295–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Howell, D.M.; Metcalfe, K.; Kong, S.; Stephen, J.; Olivotto, I.A.; Baxter, N.; Friedenreich, C.M.; Warner, E.; Akbari, M.R.; McBain, K.; et al. Risk factors for psychological morbidity and the protective role of coping self-efficacy in young women with breast cancer early in diagnosis: A national multicentre cohort study. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2022, 194, 91–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, X.; Zhou, J.; Xiao, M.; Zhao, L.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, S.; Gao, S.; Zhuang, Y.; Niu, Y.; Li, S.; et al. Uncovering the Subtype-Specific Molecular Characteristics of Breast Cancer by Multiomics Analysis of Prognosis-Associated Genes, Driver Genes, Signaling Pathways, and Immune Activity. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2021, 1, 689028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Munzone, E.; Botteri, E.; Sandri, M.T.; Esposito, A.; Adamoli, L.; Zorzino, L.; Sciandivasci, A.; Cassatella, M.C.; Rotmensz, N.; Aurilio, G.; et al. Prognostic value of circulating tumor cells according to immunohistochemically defined molecular subtypes in advanced breast cancer. Clin. Breast Cancer 2012, 12, 340–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ferguson, N.L.; Bell, J.; Heidel, R.; Lee, S.; Vanmeter, S.; Duncan, L.; Munsey, B.; Panella, T.; Orucevic, A. rognostic value of breast cancer subtypes, Ki-67 proliferation index, age, and pathologic tumor characteristics on breast cancer survival in Caucasian women. Breast J. 2013, 19, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Colombo, P.-E.; Milanezi, F.; Weigelt, B.; Reis-Filho, J.S. Microarrays in the 2010s: The contribution of microarray-based gene expression profiling to breast cancer classification, prognostication and prediction. Breast Cancer Res. 2011, 13, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Coleman, W.B.; Anders, C.K. Discerning clinical responses in breast cancer based on molecular signatures. Am. J. Pathol. 2017, 187, 2199–2207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Rosato, V.; Bosetti, C.; Negri, E.; Talamini, R.; Dal Maso, L.; Malvezzi, M.; Falcini, F.; Montella, M.; La Vecchia, C. Reproductive and hormonal factors, family history, and breast cancer according to the hormonal receptor status. Eur. J. Cancer Prev. 2014, 23, 412–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lambertini, M.; Santoro, L.; Del Mastro, L.; Nguyen, B.; Livraghi, L.; Ugolini, D.; Peccatori, F.A.; Azim, H.A., Jr. Reproductive behaviors and risk of developing breast cancer according to tumor subtype: A systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2016, 49, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Hankinson, S.E. Endogenous steroid hormone concentrations and risk of breast cancer among premenopausal women. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2006, 98, 1406–1415. [Google Scholar]
  19. Barnard, M.E.; Boeke, C.E.; Tamimi, R.M. Established breast cancer risk factors and risk of intrinsic tumor subtypes. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2015, 1856, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gonzalez, R.; Reingold, B.K.; Gao, X.; Gaidhu, M.P.; Tsushima, R.G.; Unniappan, S. Nesfatin-1 exerts a direct, glucose-dependent insulinotropic action on mouse islet beta- and MIN6 cells. J. Endocrinol. 2011, 208, R9–R16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Bardaweel, S.K.; Akour, A.A.; Al-Muhaissen, S.; AlSalamat, H.A.; Ammar, K. Oral contraceptive and breast cancer: Do benefits outweigh the risks? A case—Control study from Jordan. BMC Women Health 2019, 19, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kanadys, W.; Barańska, A.; Malm, M.; Błaszczuk, A.; Polz-Dacewicz, M.; Janiszewska, M.; Jędrych, M. Use of oral contraceptives as a potential risk factor for breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies up to 2010. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Barańska, A.; Błaszczuk, A.; Kanadys, W.; Malm, M.; Drop, K.; Polz-Dacewicz, M. Oral contraceptive use and breast cancer risk assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies, 2009–2020. Cancers 2021, 13, 5654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mørch, L.S.; Skovlund, C.W.; Hannaford, P.C.; Iversen, L.; Fielding, S.; Lidegaard, Ø. Contemporary Hormonal Contraception and the Risk of Breast Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 77, 2228–2239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hunter, D.J.; Colditz, G.A.; Hankinson, S.E.; Malspeis, S.; Spiegelman, D.; Chen, W.; Stampfer, M.J.; Willett, W.C. Oral contraceptive use and breast cancer: A prospective study of young women. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2010, 19, 2496–2502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Barańska, A.; Dolar-Szczasny, J.; Kanadys, W.; Kinik, W.; Ceglarska, D.; Religioni, U.; Rejdak, R. Oral contraceptive use and breast cancer risk according to molecular subtypes status: A systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies. Cancers 2022, 14, 574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Stang, A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in metaanalyses. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2010, 25, 603–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Higgins, J.P.; Thompson, S.G.; Deeks, J.J.; Altman, D.G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003, 327, 557–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Begg, C.B.; Mazumdar, M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994, 50, 1088–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Egger, M.; Smith, G.D.; Schneider, M.; Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997, 315, 629–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  31. Duval, S.; Tweedie, R. Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000, 56, 455–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Baker, W.L.; White, C.M.; Cappelleri, J.C.; Kluger, J.; Coleman, C.I. Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics (HOPE) Collaborative Group. Understanding heterogeneity in meta-analysis: The role of meta-regression. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 2009, 63, 1426–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Gammon, M.D.; Hibshoosh, H.; Terry, M.B.; Bose, S.; Schoenberg, J.B.; Brinton, L.A.; Bernstein, J.L.; Thompson, W.D. Oral contraceptive use and other risk factors in relation to HER-2/neu overexpression in breast cancer among young women. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 1999, 8, 413–419. [Google Scholar]
  34. McCredie, M.R.; Dite, G.; Southey, M.C.; Venter, D.J.; Giles, G.; Hopper, J.L. Risk factors for breast cancer in young women by oestrogen receptor and progesterone receptor status. Br. J. Cancer 2003, 89, 1661–1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Cotterchio, M.; Kreiger, N.; Theis, B.; Sloan, M.; Bahl, S. Hormonal factors and the risk of breast cancer according to estrogen and progesterone-receptor subgroup. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2003, 12, 1053–1060. [Google Scholar]
  36. Dolle, J.M.; Daling, J.R.; White, E.; Brinton, L.A.; Doody, D.R.; Porter, P.L.; Malone, K.E. Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2009, 18, 1157–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Ma, H.; Wang, Y.; Sullivan-Halley, J.; Weiss, L.; Marchbanks, P.A.; Spirtas, R.; Ursin, G.; Burkman, R.T.; Simon, M.S.; Malone, K.E.; et al. Use of four biomarkers to evaluate the risk of breast cancer subtypes in the women’s contraceptive and reproductive experiences study. Cancer Res. 2010, 70, 575–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Li, C.I.; Beaber, E.F.; Tang, M.T.C.; Porter, P.L.; Daling, J.R.; Malone, K.E. Reproductive factors and risk of estrogen receptor positive, triple-negative, and HER2-neu overexpressing breast cancer among women 20–44 years of age. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2013, 137, 579–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Beaber, E.F.; Malone, K.E.; Tang, M.-T.C.; Barlow, W.E.; Porter, P.L.; Daling, J.R.; Li, C. Oral contraceptives and breast cancer risk overall and by molecular subtype among young women. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2014, 23, 755–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Chollet-Hinton, L.; Olshan, A.F.; Nichols, H.B.; Anders, C.K.; Lund, J.L.; Allott, E.H.; Bethea, T.N.; Hong, C.C.; Cohen, S.M.; Khoury, T.; et al. Biology and etiology of young-onset breast cancers among premenopausal African American women: Results from the AMBER Consortium. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2017, 26, 1722–1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. John, E.M.; Hines, L.M.; Phipps, A.I.; Koo, J.; Longacre, T.A.; Ingles, S.A.; Baumgartner, K.B.; Slattery, M.L.; Wu, A.H. Reproductive history, breast-feeding and risk of triple negative breast cancer: The Breast Cancer Etiology in Minorities (BEM) study. Int. J. Cancer 2018, 142, 2273–2285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Li, L.; Zhong, Y.; Zhang, H.; Yu, H.; Huang, Y.; Li, Z.; Chen, G.; Hua, X. Association between oral contraceptive use as a risk factor and triple-negative breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Mol. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 7, 76–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Kahlenborn, C.; Modugno, F.; Potter, D.M.; Severs, W.B. Oral contraceptive use as a risk factor for premenopausal breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2006, 81, 1290–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Bethea, T.N.; Rosenberg, L.; Hong, C.C.; Troester, M.A.; Lunetta, K.L.; Bandera, E.V.; Schedin, P.; Kolonel, L.N.; Olshan, A.F.; Ambrosone, C.B.; et al. A case–control analysis of oral contraceptive use and breast cancer subtypes in the African American Breast Cancer Epidemiology and Risk Consortium. Breast Cancer Res. 2015, 17, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Gaudet, M.M.; Press, M.F.; Haile, R.W.; Lynch, C.F.; Glaser, S.L.; Schildkraut, J.; Gammon, M.D.; Thompson, W.D.; Bernstein, J.L. Risk factors by molecular subtypes of breast cancer across a population-based study of women 56 years or younger. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2011, 130, 587–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 19 15363 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow diagram of literature search and research selection procedure.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of literature search and research selection procedure.
Ijerph 19 15363 g001
Ijerph 19 15363 g002 550
Figure 2. Forest plot for the association of OC intake on the risk of ER+BC.
Figure 2. Forest plot for the association of OC intake on the risk of ER+BC.
Ijerph 19 15363 g002
Ijerph 19 15363 g003 550
Figure 3. Forest plot for the association between OC use and the risk of ER−BC.
Figure 3. Forest plot for the association between OC use and the risk of ER−BC.
Ijerph 19 15363 g003
Ijerph 19 15363 g004 550
Figure 4. Forest plot for the relationship between OC taking and HER2+BC risk.
Figure 4. Forest plot for the relationship between OC taking and HER2+BC risk.
Ijerph 19 15363 g004
Ijerph 19 15363 g005 550
Figure 5. Forest plot for effects of OC use on the Triplet Negative subtype.
Figure 5. Forest plot for effects of OC use on the Triplet Negative subtype.
Ijerph 19 15363 g005
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.
Authors [Ref.] Publication Year CountryStudy YearAge RangeBreast Cancer Subtype; N (n%) NOS Score
Gammon [33] 1999USA1990–199220–40HER2+: 159 (69.8); CRL: 462 (63.6)4
McCredie [34] 2003Australia1992–1999<40ER+: 357 (92.7); ER−: 261 (93.5);
CRL: 564 (91.0) 		6
Cotterchio [35] 2003 Canada1995–1998<50ER+: 439 (67.0); ER−: 240 (77.1); CRL: 1118 (70.6)6
Dolle [36] 2009USA1983–199221–45ER+: 532 (74.1); ER−: 364 (83.8); HER2+: 289 (74.7);
TN: 187 (88.2); CRL: 1569 (74.1)		8
Ma [37] 2010USA1994–199835–44ER+: 197 (88.8%); TN: 154 (86.4%);
CRL: 721 (89.7%)		7
Li [38] 2013USA2004–201020–44ER+: 767 (88.1); HER2+: 60 (81.7); TN: 181 (91.7);
CRL: 937 (89.1)		8
Beaber [39] 2014USA2004–201020–44ER+: 730 (87.4), ER−: 246 (89.4);
HER2+: 56 (80.4); TN: 171 (91.2);
CRL: 882 (88.3)		8
Chollet-Hinton [40] 2017USA1996–2001<40ER+: 162 (81.5); ER−: 169 (86.6); CRL: 1347 (86.8)8
John [41] 2018USA1995–2009<50TN: 252 (78.6); CRL: 2223 (67.8) 7
Table
Table 2. Subgroup analysis.
Table 2. Subgroup analysis.
Molecular Subtypes of Breast Cancer
ER-PositiveER-NegativeHER2-OverexpressingTriplet-Negative
OR (95% CI)pI2 (%)Ref.OR (95% CI)pI2 (%)Ref.OR (95% CI)pI2 (%)Ref.OR (95% CI)pI2 (%)Ref.
Cases/ControlsCases/ControlsCases/ControlsCases/Controls
Use of contraceptive0.91 (0.81, 1.03)0.12800.00[34,35,36,37,38,39,40]1.31 (1.00, 1.71)0.05054.71[34,35,36,39,40]0.88 (0.60, 1.30)0.52262.94[33,36,38,39]1.55 (0.99, 2.43)0.05577.97[36,37,38,39,41]
ever/never3184/71441282/5477564/3850945/5973
Duration of contraceptive use0.89 (0.77, 1.04)0.14100.00[35,36,37,38]Inaccessible1.00 (0.67, 1.51)0.99158.57[33,36,38]1.59 (0.76, 3.32)0.21882.14[36,37,38]
≥5 y/<5 y1539/3111 376/2291464/2644
Time last use prior to diagnosis0.89 (0.64, 1.24)0.49352.91[36,37,39]Inaccessible0.90 (0.64, 1.26)0.53719.30[33,36,39]1.47 (0.66, 3.25)0.34081.18[36,37,39]
<5 y/≥5 y869/2096349/1743368/2196
Age at first Ocs useInaccessibleInaccessibleInaccessibleInaccessible
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Barańska, A. Oral Contraceptive Use and Assessment of Breast Cancer Risk among Premenopausal Women via Molecular Characteristics: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 15363. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192215363

AMA Style

Barańska A. Oral Contraceptive Use and Assessment of Breast Cancer Risk among Premenopausal Women via Molecular Characteristics: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(22):15363. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192215363

Chicago/Turabian Style

Barańska, Agnieszka. 2022. "Oral Contraceptive Use and Assessment of Breast Cancer Risk among Premenopausal Women via Molecular Characteristics: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 22: 15363. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192215363

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop