Original research article| Volume 83, ISSUE 3, P211-217, March 2011

Levonorgestrel-releasing and copper intrauterine devices and the risk of breast cancer



      This study compares the risk of breast cancer for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices (LNGIUD) versus copper IUDs (CUIUD) in women younger than 50 years of age.

      Study Design

      Retrospective, population-based, case-control study using cancer registers in Finland and Germany, powered to exclude a 1.5-fold risk of breast cancer.


      Analysis of 5113 breast cancer cases diagnosed 2000���2007 and 20,452 controls ��� matched by year of birth and area of residence ��� yielded relative risk estimates approaching unity with 95% CI crossing 1.0 for all comparisons, including ever-use of LNGIUD versus CUIUD (adjusted OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.88���1.12) and current use at time of diagnosis (adjusted OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.52���1.39), as well as for sub-analyses by country, age, tumor characteristics and period, recency and duration of use prior to diagnosis.


      This study does not indicate an increased risk of breast cancer for users of LNGIUD. No indications for tumor promotion or tumor induction were found.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Contraception
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Luukkainen T.
        • L��hteenm��ki P.
        • Toivonen J.
        Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device.
        Ann Med. 1990; 22: 85-90
        • Shapiro S.
        • Rosenberg L.
        • Hoffman M.
        • et al.
        Risk of breast cancer in relation to the use of injectable progestogen contraceptives and combined estrogen/progestogen contraceptives.
        Am J Epidemiol. 2000; 151: 396-403
        • Strom B.L.
        • Berlin J.A.
        • Weber A.L.
        • et al.
        Absence of an effect of injectable and implantable progestin-only contraceptives on subsequent risk for breast cancer.
        Contraception. 2004; 69: 353-360
        • Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer
        Breast cancer and hormonal contraceptives: Collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 53,297 women with breast cancer and 100,239 women without breast cancer from 54 epidemiologic studies.
        Lancet. 1996; 347: 1713-1727
        • Sivin I.
        Risks and benefits, advantages and disadvantages of levonorgestrel-releasing contraceptive implants.
        Drug Saf. 2003; 26: 303-335
        • Backman T.
        • Rauramo I.
        • Jaakkola K.
        • et al.
        Use of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and breast cancer.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 106: 813-817
        • Wacholder S.
        • McLaughlin J.K.
        • Silverman D.T.
        • Mandel J.S.
        Selection of controls in case-control studies.
        Am J Epidemiol. 1992; 135: 1019-1050
        • Bloom M.S.
        • Schisterman E.F.
        • Hediger M.L.
        The use and misuse of matching in case-control studies: the example of PCOS.
        Fertil Steril. 2007; 88: 707-710
        • Grimes D.A.
        • Schulz K.F.
        Compared to what? Finding controls for case-control studies.
        Lancet. 2005; 365: 1429-1433
        • International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology
        Guidelines for Good Pharmacoepidemiology Practices (GPP), 1996.
        (accessed September 24, 2010)
        • International Epidemiological Association (IEA)
        Good epidemiologic practice (GEP). IEA guidelines for proper conduct of epidemiological research, 2007.
        (accessed October 13, 2010)
        • Institute for Statistical and Epidemiological Cancer Research
        Finnish cancer registry.
        (accessed October 13, 2010)
        • Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik J.H.P.
        New sampling designs and the quality of data.
        in: Ferligoj A. Mrvar A. Developments in applied statistics. FDV, Ljubljana2003: 205-217
        • Boynton P.M.
        Hands-on guide to questionnaire research: administering, analyzing, and reporting your questionnaire.
        BMJ. 2004; 328: 1372-1375
        • Strom B.L.
        Appendix A ��� Sample size tables.
        in: Strom B.L. Pharmacoepidemiology. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK1994: 659-692
        • Armitage P.
        • Berry G.
        Statistical methods in medical research. 2nd ed. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, UK1987: 132-134
        • Weedon-Fekj��r H.
        • Lindqvist B.H.
        • Vatten L.J.
        • Aalen O.O.
        • Tretli S.
        Breast cancer tumor growth estimated through mammography screening data.
        Breast Cancer Res. 2008; 10: R41
        • Friberg S.
        • Mattson S.
        On the growth rates of human malignant tumors: implications for medical decision making.
        J Surg Oncol. 1997; 65: 284-297
        • Cuzick J.
        Epidemiology of breast cancer ��� selected highlights.
        Breast. 2003; 12: 405-411
        • Teppo L.
        • Pukkala E.
        • Lehtonen M.
        Data quality and quality control of a population-based cancer registry. Experience in Finland.
        Acta Oncol. 1994; 33: 365-369
        • Lyytinen H.
        • Dyba T.
        • Ylikorkala O.
        • Pukkala E.
        A case-control study on hormone therapy as a risk factor for breast cancer in Finland: intrauterine system carries a risk as well.
        Int J Cancer. 2010; 126: 483-489
        • Susser M.
        What is a cause and how do we know one? A grammar for pragmatic epidemiology.
        Am J Epidemiol. 1991; 133: 635-648
        • Shapiro S.
        Causation, bias and confounding: a hitchhiker's guide to the epidemiological galaxy; Part 2.
        J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2008; 34: 185-190
        • Shapiro S.
        Explaining risk. A guide for health professionals.
        Maturitas. 2009; 64: 143-144