Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

The Pill may lower cancer risk

ANDRÉ PICARD

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 6:54 AM EDT 29/01/08

The longer a woman takes birth-control pills, the lower her risk of developing ovarian cancer, says study ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Sarah Bee from Canada writes: So I guess then the question becomes what are you more at risk of - heart attack and stroke or ovarian cancer. If cancer, take the pill forever! If heart and stroke, then no pill for you. We'll find a better manufacturered drug company solution for you that will require daily medication at your expense and our profit.
  2. anne macpherson from vancouver, Canada writes: Once again we are presented with confusing data. The fact that taking oral contraceptives can POSSIBLY prevent ovarian cancer does not consider the fact that these same pills can cause blood clots, breast cancer, heart attacks etc. It is irresponsible journalism for a so-called medical magazine to print articles such as this one. It is misleading the public about the other side effects just as dangerous.
  3. d. duck from burlington, Canada writes: Simple info: 1) baseline incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT=blood clot in leg) is approx. 4-8/100,000 (0.004% to 0.008%) in health reproductive age women. 2) Birth control pills doubles this risk for DVT to 0.008% to 0.016%. 3) Pregnancy is a five fold increase in DVT (0.02% to 0.0.4%) in healthy reproductive women with significant risk of DVT going to the lung (pulmonary emboli) and high mortality rate if undiagnosised and hence untreated (approx 30% mortality). 4) NO women should receive oral birth control pill if they have a history of heart disease/smoker and >35yo/uncontrolled hypertension and diabetes/SLE/aPL syndrome/history of DVT or PE (to mention a few). These significantly increase the risk of DVT and heart disease (from embolic event). 5) Does not cause breast cancer or heart disease (from fat plaques) and MAY help women predisposed to ovarian cancer (genetic BRCA 1) from acquiring the cancer till reproduction is completed (if that is what they wish). 6) Older OBCP are much worse then todays low-dose OCBP and don't confuse older studies using the 50mcg estrogen (now 20-35mcg). 7) Remember get all the facts! Everything in life has risks and benefits (and there are many benefits to the OBCP). Finally, OBCP is voluntary and there are other methods of birth control (some good and others...ugh) until the male-pill arrives. cheers
  4. Charles Martel from From Low Earth Orbit, Canada writes: 'The Pill may lower cancer risk'

    ========

    Side effects may include a catastrophic loss of population, with unintended immigration side-effects unforeseen by social engineers
  5. Scrappy Doo from Canada writes: Don't forget (Sarah Bee) that the primary reason to take the OCP is, of course, to prevent unwanted pregnancy! The other associated risks/benefits shouldn't be thought of as the indication for that medication.

    Nobody is saying the OCP should be prescribed as a cancer preventing therapy.
  6. Byron Perry from Toronto, Canada writes: 'unwanted pregnancy' Has our civilzation advanced that far, or low, that such a term can be used as a legitimate reason? Has anyone in favour of the pill ever held a child's hand?
  7. whatevah D from Canada writes: Byron Perry from Toronto, Canada writes: 'unwanted pregnancy' Has our civilzation advanced that far, or low, that such a term can be used as a legitimate reason? Has anyone in favour of the pill ever held a child's hand?

    what do you not have sex?

    d. duck: thanks for a great post on this topic.
  8. K S from Toronto, Canada writes: This is not news. In the reproductive health field, we have been counselling women for many, many years about the lower incidence of ovarian cancer amongst Pill users. For the first 2 posters: get your facts straight. We also counsel women on the potential serious side effects, but taking the birth control pill is still a lot safer than being pregnant.
  9. Byron Perry from Toronto, Canada writes: 'whatevah D from Canada writes: what do you not have sex?'

    You aren't answering the question: Can any pregnancy be unwanted?
  10. K S from Toronto, Canada writes: To Byron Perry:

    Can any pregnancy be unwanted? OF COURSE! As a man, you have no idea how pregnancy can affect every single system in a woman's body, with health risks far outweighing those of taking the Pill. However, the majority of pregnancies are probably unplanned not unwanted.
  11. Stephanie Douma from Ottawa, Canada writes: So does Soya (soy) lower your risk of ovarian cancer and its far healthier than taking synthetic hormones. Have a look at the following study on soy.... Stephanie Douma MSc. Nutr Cancer. 2007;57(2):138-45. Links Dietary habits and risk of ovarian cancer death in a large-scale cohort study (JACC study) in Japan.Sakauchi F, Khan MM, Mori M, Kubo T, Fujino Y, Suzuki S, Tokudome S, Tamakoshi A; JACC Study Group. Department of Public Health, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, Japan. sakauchi@sapmed.ac.jp The Japan Collaborative Cohort (JACC) Study was established in 1988-1990 and consisted of 46,465 men and 64,327 women observed until the end of 2003. A self-administered food frequency questionnaire was used as a baseline survey, and associations of dietary habits with the risk of ovarian cancer death were evaluated, taking into consideration age, menstrual and reproductive, anthropometric, and lifestyle factors. During the observation period, 77 women died of ovarian cancer. Hazard ratios for dietary factors were calculated by Cox's proportional hazards model. Being adjusted only for age, high intakes of dried or salted fish and Chinese cabbage were positively associated with the risk of ovarian cancer death, and the risk increased dose-dependently. In contrast, intake of soybean curd (tofu) was inversely associated with the risk. After being adjusted for age and potential confounding factors, the results regarding the intakes of dried or salted fish and Chinese cabbage did not change. However, the significance relating to the intake of soybean curd (tofu) was attenuated. From the results of this cohort study, it was suggested that high intakes of dried or salted fish and Chinese cabbage were potential risk factors of ovarian cancer death. In contrast, however, a high intake of soy bean curd (tofu) might have preventive effects against the risk. PMID: 17571946 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
  12. xxxx xxxx from Vancouver, Canada writes: First of all, I'd like to see a study done on OCBP and fertility rates. Of several women I've known who have been on the pill for 7 years, it takes on average of 2 - 3 years to get pregnant rather than the three months that I've seen claimed.

    And for any person wondering if a pregnancy can be unwanted - give me a break. I'm sure teen pregnancies are ALL wanted. Get a life and stop applying your obviously skewed morals to a situation you can't even begin to relate to.
  13. whatevah D from Canada writes: Byron Perry from Toronto, Canada writes: 'whatevah D from Canada writes: what do you not have sex?'

    You aren't answering the question: Can any pregnancy be unwanted?

    of course it can... and yes, I am in favour of the pill and I have held a child's hand (my own child's). I don't get it. you're actually saying women shouldn't take the pill to avoid pregnancy?? some don't and how has that helped our society?
  14. whatevah D from Canada writes: xxxx xxxx from Vancouver, Canada writes: First of all, I'd like to see a study done on OCBP and fertility rates. Of several women I've known who have been on the pill for 7 years, it takes on average of 2 - 3 years to get pregnant rather than the three months that I've seen claimed.

    Well, I was on the pill for 15 years and got pregnant the second time we tried...
  15. Scrappy Doo from Canada writes: Ummmmm, yeah Byron, plenty of pregnancies are unwanted. Your post wasn't so much provocative as, well, just plain corny... Nice try though.
  16. Chris H from Canada writes: Wait a minute. Just because the women who take birth control pills are, as a group, less likely to contract ovarian cancer, does not mean that the Pill prevents it. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that you cannot get your prescription filled without having a full physical performed every year. Perhaps the women who are visiting to doctor so regularly are in general, much healthier.
  17. d. duck from burlington, Canada writes: xxxx xxxx from Vancouver, Canada writes: First of all, I'd like to see a study done on OCBP and fertility rates. Of several women I've known who have been on the pill for 7 years, it takes on average of 2 - 3 years to get pregnant rather than the three months that I've seen claimed

    1) Your description is correct but what seems to be common in these women who are unable to get pregnant (within 3 months of stopping OBCP) is that they probably had irregular cycles prior to starting the OBCP (and actually were put on OBCP to regulate this by their FP as a quick fix) and hence had something 'hormonally or anatomically wrong' that hindered fertility that was never diagnosed. Also, remember that male factors now contributes to almost 50% of couples infertility problems (use to be 20% but thanks to probable environmental contribution....).

    (2) Stephanie Douma from Ottawa: unable to get your article on 'google scholar' so could you please paste the journal article so we could all read it. Ovarian cancer and soya must NOT have been a primary end point in this article as they did have 46,465 males in this study????

    cheers
  18. M D from Canada writes: Hey K.S -> As a man, you have no idea how pregnancy can affect every single system in a woman's body

    Are you kidding me? Other than the fact you're obviously ignorant, men are very aware of the changes that pregnancy has in a womans body.

    And it starts right from day 1

    Day 1 - 6 months -> Nesting begins
    6 - 8 months -> You did this to me
    9 months -> I hate you
    'Birth' day -> I will kill you for this
    Day 1 - 6 months -> Don't touch me.... ever
    6 months - 5 years -> Not tonight. 'X' kept me busy.
    5 years -> Aren't we too old for this?
  19. Gardiner Westbound from Canada writes:

    Next month new studies that say birth control pills cause cancer, just like previous studies. Don't take any medication unless it's absolutely required.
  20. MJ Patchouli from Regina, Canada writes: oh good heavens, Byron, are you for real or just trying to get people going.

    If I was 16 and pregnant, it would be an unwanted pregnancy.

    If I was 45 and pregnant, it would be an unwanted pregnancy.

    If I already had 4 kids and was pregnant, it would be an unwanted pregnancy.

    If I was drunk a few weeks ago and pregnant from someone whose name escapes me, it would be unwanted.

    If I was raped and pregnant, it would be an unwanted pregnancy.

    Yes, I have held the hands of my own very wanted children. Planned pregnancies when I was young and married to the man who fathered them. Those were wanted pregnancies.

    Don't confuse unwanted pregnancies with unwanted babies; it's not the same. So for example when my grandmother found herself pregnant with my mother at age 43, with five other children all older, it was not a wanted pregnancy. However the baby, my mother, who was born of that pregnancy was indeed loved.

    It's not your job to judge the morality of others in such cases.
  21. Eric Kirkpatrick from Vancouver, B.C., Canada writes: Interesting article. My wife was on the Pill as a young women but stopped when she became a Born Again Christian in her early '20's. She died of Ovarian Cancer near her 53rd birthday.
  22. Don Jenkins from Canada writes: This information has been around for decades, so this is hardly a 'new' discovery. The birth control pill raises your risk for developing breast cancer, which far more women are apt to get anyway, but lowers your risk, supposedly, of getting ovarian cancer which seems to kill fewer women than the cervical cancer that the Gardasil vaccine raised hysteria about (and THAT is a low number in terms of a cancer rate). How on earth they know that a woman was bound to develop ovarian cancer and then did not because of the pill, or in the make up of the control group, is indeterminable. I'd put money you could take two totally different groups of people, feed one cherry koolaid and the other orange koolaid and find at the end of a three year study that cherry koolaid had a higher risk of testicular cancer.

    Point is, don't take the pill. They don't know what they heck they're talking about.
  23. Rae Vandenberg from Canada writes: I wish a lot more women were knowledgeable about the benefits of the pill. As a woman with pcos, taking the pill earlier on would probably have prevented me from showing so many unwanted and undoable signs of pcos. Regular cycling also lowers the risk of uterine cancer.
  24. Leanne Ohlund from victoria, Canada writes: @ anne mcpherson
    re: It is irresponsible journalism for a so-called medical magazine to print articles such as this one. It is misleading the public about the other side effects just as dangerous.

    the Lancet is not a medical magazine full of tips on how to lose weight and avoid cancer. It is a medical journal that publishes peer-reviewed scientific articles based on studies conducted by scientists and research doctors. There is nothing wrong with publishing a study no matter what the results seem to indicate, it is just an observation of existing data. It is how the media takes that information and announces it as news to the public. often when you read the original article from the literature cited, you will find that the results the newspaper places emphasis on is not what the article reports as being the most significant findings.
  25. B B from Toronto, Canada writes: My ex-wife was on the pill for about 16 years but also smoked a pack a day. What's her prognosis?
  26. J on from Canada writes: I submit there is no reliable test or vaccine for ovarian cancer because it it's not important enough. The medical profession castrates women even when there is no cancer. If it was men being castrated for non-cancerous reasons at the same rate women are, we'd have had prevention, detection and treatment long ago.
  27. Scrappy Doo from Canada writes: I'm not sure what you are refering to J on.

    Women do have their ovaries removed for reasons other than cancer - and at a greater incidence than men have their testicles removed. But, what does that have to do with this article?

    Unfortunately the ovary is more prone to "non-cancerous" things like cysts and endometriosis which can cause discomfort and pain for the woman. In many cases the only way to treat it is to remove the offending organ. That is just the unfortunate fact of reproductive anatomy. It has nothing to with sexual discrimination of sexism as your post implies.

    There is no link between ovarian cancer and a virus so there is no plausible reason to believe a vaccine would be a viable strategy for treatment/prevention. This is in contrast to cervical cancer which has a stong association with the HPV viruses. Also, you should look into the Ca-125 blood test which is used in detection of ovarian cancer. I'm not a gynecologist so I don't know the latest data on the predictive value of this test but I do know it has utility in detecting ovarian cancer.
  28. J on from Canada writes: "
    Unfortunately the ovary is more prone to "non-cancerous" things like cysts and endometriosis which can cause discomfort and pain for the woman. In many cases the only way to treat it is to remove the offending organ."

    Would you so ponderously back removal of testes that get bumps and cysts?

    The offending organ here? Not between anyone's legs.
  29. J on from Canada writes: The pill won't lower cancer risk. See a post above which clearly shows why. And the CA 125 test is not an effective screening test for ovarian cancer. Please be more careful what you post. Women could be harmed by your misinformed statements.

    The facts about CA 125:

    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/doctors-take-on-a-notorious-e-mail/

    HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT THE CA-125 TEST FOR OVARIAN CANCER?

    Did you know it is NOT an effective screening test for ovarian cancer?
  30. Scrappy Doo from Canada writes: Your right, on futher research the Ca-125 test is not recommended for routine screening of asymptomatic women. It's utility is more in the surveilence/prognostication in women undergoing treatment, who have presumably already been diagnosed by another means. For the record, I never said it was useful as a screening test but I may have implied this in my post. It is used in the managment of ovarian cancer, however.

    Yes I would back the removal of testes that get cysts or bumps if they were causing the man troublesome symptoms. Just like I back the removal of ovaries with cysts that are giving the woman symptoms. What is so offensive about that to you?

    Is it your contention that women with symptomatic ovarian disease should be denied surgical removal of the ovary and should be given no choice but to suffer with thier symptoms?

    It would be nice if there were a magical way to make the painful cysts go away but sometimes it just needs to come out.
  31. J on from Canada writes: "It would be nice if there were a magical way to make the painful cysts go away but sometimes it just needs to come out."

    You go first.
  32. Scrappy Doo from Canada writes: Can you explain your perspective any better than that?

    If I had severe endometriosis and intactable pain every month as a result, I wouldn't hesitate to have the ovary out if there were a chance it would cure me. Who wouldn't?

    Kind of like if I had a stone in my gallbladder giving me pain - take it out! Kind of like if I had an inflamed/infected appendix - take it out!
  33. d. duck from burlington, Canada writes: J on from Canada writes: I submit there is no reliable test or vaccine for ovarian cancer because it it's not important enough. The medical profession castrates women even when there is no cancer. The pill won't lower cancer risk. Simplied though not a simple issue: 1) The birthcontrol pill DOES decrease ovarian cancer in women with proven BRCA 1/2 DNA. Once reproduction completed current recommendation is for the ovaries to be removed (BRCA 1) and if young with BRCA 2 AND breast cancer then both breast AND ovaries removed. Again the choice is always with the individual!! 2) The birthcontrol pill DOES NOT cause Breast Cancer or cervical cancer. 3) Majority of women with ovarian cancer present in Stage 3 (stage 4 is the worse). 4) A combination of family history for Breast/Ovarian/Colon Cancers PLUS bloating/pelvic pain/decrease appetitate/wt loss PLUS specific U/S and CA-125/Albumin (used for 'RUM' and 'ORCRA' scores) gives high sensitivity and specificity for Ovarian Cancer. 5) New ovarian cancer marker that has high sensitivity and specificity is the KLK14/YKL-40. Currently undergoing further research. ALL cancers are important. All people with cancers are important. It is not a gender thing. More money has gone into Breast research than prostate cancer research!!?? This type of fighting won't further the cause to help early diagnosis and treatment. It won't help those with cancers currently cheers
  34. J on from Canada writes: lol

    And this would be how many women? Get a grip. It's people like you who just want to appear to know something who are so dangerous on health comment sections. Choice implies informed consent; that is, someone not talking the industry line from 20 years ago but researching what the outcome of that dated and misogynistic thinking has been.
  35. Scrappy Doo from Canada writes: What are you talking about!? Do you honestly believe that there is no medical indication for surgical removal of the ovary? Is that your belief?? Yes or no?

    You reply with vague, accusatory comments without providing substance to back up your argument. What exactly is your contention J on? Spell it out for me so I might better understand it, put it in black and white. Is there or isn't there - in your mind - a reason to remove the ovary in some cases?

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top