Significant Decline in US Breast Cancer Rate

[Christine MH-UK]

This isn't necessarily her2 positive breast cancer, but still quite provocative:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/15/he...rB2kL338t/ifng

[RobinP]

Thanks for the post, I heard this on Fox news last night too. Now to solve the mystery on her2 breast cancer. I bet if more young women stopped taking the pill, the rates fo her2 bc would decline within time also.


More on this topic from the ASCO-Am. Soc. clin. Onocology. Note the biggest decline in rates of bc were in the fifty and sixty year old group.

Sharp drop in breast cancer incidence attributed to HRT decline
http://www.asco.org/portal/site/ASCO...reutersid=5801

[Christine MH-UK]

Have you seen this?

Oral contraceptive use as a risk factor for premenopausal breast cancer: a meta-analysis.

The risks are particularly high for women who take the pill and then have a child more than four years later (52% increase in risk) compared with a 15% increase in risk for women who first used the pill after a full-term pregnancy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

I think that I first read about this in an online newspaper article, since it mentioned that the negative effect of the oral contraceptives was not evident ten years after oral contraceptive use stopped. I thought that this was really depressing because that would seem to mean that the pill is particularly implicated in breast cancer in the mothers of small children.

I took oral contraceptives for really painful ovarian cysts when I was younger and feel upset that the risk I was put at was completely different from what I was told.

[RobinP]

Yes, Chris, I knew of this study that was published several weeks ago. I think you mean the risk is greatest for women that took the pill for four years prior to a full term pregnancy and that risk would continue for ten years following discontinuation of the pill. If you look at that study, even 6 months use of the pill prior to a full term pregnancy increased bc risk. Yes, the 6 month use was less increased risk than the 4 year use but still it's alarming that only an extremely short exposure had an impact.

Sorry you took the pill. I did too for a very short time in early marriage, trying to save money before I had a family. Little did I know I was harming myself as the physicians who perscribed the pill told me it was safe and would not increase my risk of bc. I guess they didn't know back then how harmful the pill was but they should have before allowing thousands of young women to take it. Shame on the FDA and physicians who endorsed it.

[RhondaH]

I took birth control from 1985-1992 and THEN didn't have my son until 2001. This peaks my interest.

Rhonda

[tousled1]

Another thing to consider is HRT (hormone replacement therapy).

[RobinP]

Curious, where is the correlation w/ HER2?
According to I recent research, the pill increases bc in young women and young women are the group that most frequently has her2 bc.

PS I just have a theory that the pill does induce her2 by hyperestrogen states, causing the estrogen receptor to shut down while Her2 kicks in.

[Christine MH-UK]

That is if a woman took the pill and then had her first pregnancy more than four years after she started taking it, there was the biggest increase in the risk. Apparently it is the timing that is significant, but not the duration of use. I'm thin, too, which also ups the risk.

Oral contraceptive has been found as a particular risk factor in many of the studies of her2 (whereas other factors, like number of children, doesn't seem to matter so much).

I am the kind of person who reads the packet information and from that I remember that the general increased risk of breast cancer was believed to be offset by the reduced risk of ovarian cancer, but it seems from what I have read it seems like there are higher risk groups where the risks would outweight any benefit. I think the label should be changed.