Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2023 Feb:67:62-70.
doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.12.033. Epub 2022 Dec 31.

Contraception in breast cancer survivors from the FEERIC case-control study (performed on behalf of the Seintinelles research network)

Clara Sebbag  1 , Christine Rousset-Jablonski  2 , Florence Coussy  3 , Isabelle Ray-Coquard  2 , Clémentine Garin  4 , Clémence Evrevin  3 , Marion Cessot  5 , Julie Labrosse  6 , Lucie Laot  6 , Lauren Darrigues  6 , Angélique Bobrie  7 , Claire Sénéchal-Davin  8 , Marc Espié  9 , Sylvie Giacchetti  9 , Geneviève Plu-Bureau  10 , Lorraine Maitrot-Mantelet  10 , Anne Gompel  10 , Pietro Santulli  10 , Bernard Asselain  11 , Judicaël Hotton  12 , Charles Coutant  13 , Julien Guerin  14 , Christine Decanter  15 , Audrey Mailliez  16 , Etienne Brain  17 , Elise Dumas  4 , Laura Sablone  18 , Research Network Seintinelles  18 , Fabien Reyal  19 , Anne-Sophie Hamy  20
Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Contraception in breast cancer survivors from the FEERIC case-control study (performed on behalf of the Seintinelles research network)

Clara Sebbag et al. Breast. 2023 Feb.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the prevalence of contraception in breast cancer (BC) patients at risk of unintentional pregnancy (i.e. not currently pregnant or trying to get pregnant) and matched controls.

Study design: The FEERIC study (Fertility, Pregnancy, Contraception after BC in France) is a prospective, multicenter case-control study, including localized BC patients aged 18-43 years, matched for age and parity to cancer-free volunteer controls in a 1:2 ratio. Data were collected through online questionnaires completed on the Seintinelles research platform.

Results: In a population of 1278 women at risk of unintentional pregnancy, the prevalence of contraception at study inclusion did not differ significantly between cases (340/431, 78.9%) and controls (666/847, 78.6%, p = 0.97). Contrarily, the contraceptive methods used were significantly different, with a higher proportion of copper IUD use in BC survivors (59.5% versus 25.0% in controls p < 0.001). For patients at risk of unintentional pregnancy, receiving information about chemotherapy-induced ovary damage at BC diagnosis (OR = 2.47 95%CI [ 1.39-4.37] and anti-HER2 treatment (OR = 2.46, 95% CI [ 1.14-6.16]) were significantly associated with the use of a contraception in multivariate analysis.

Conclusion: In this large French study, BC survivors had a prevalence of contraception use similar to that for matched controls, though almost one in five women at risk of unintentional pregnancy did not use contraception. Dedicated consultations at cancer care centers could further improve access to information and contraception counseling.

Keywords: Breast cancer; Contraceptive counseling; Emergency contraception; Survivorship; contraception.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart for the study cohort.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Comparison of contraceptive methods between cases and controls in the population of patients at risk of unintentional pregnancy. A, Contraceptive methods in cases and controls at inclusion in the study. B, Type of contraception, by tier category, at inclusion, for the cases and controls. C, Use of hormonal contraception by cases and controls at inclusion in the study. All data are reported per contraceptive method (one patient can use several methods). Abbreviations: combined oral contraceptive (COC); intrauterine system (IUS); intrauterine device (IUD).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Use of definitive contraception in cases and controls A, Comparison of the use of definitive contraceptive methods between cases and controls. Data are reported per contraceptive method (one patient can use several methods). B, Comparison of the type of definitive contraceptive methods by cases and controls. Data are reported per contraceptive method (one patient can use several methods).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Defossez G., Le Guyader-Peyrou S., Uhry Z., Grosclaude P., Remontet L., Colonna M., et al. Saint‐Maurice: Santé publique France; 2019. Estimations nationales de l’incidence et de la mortalité par cancer en France métropolitaine entre 1990 et 2018. Étude à partir des registres des cancers du réseau Francim.
    1. Azim H.A., Santoro L., Pavlidis N., Gelber S., Kroman N., Azim H., et al. Safety of pregnancy following breast cancer diagnosis: a meta-analysis of 14 studies. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:74–83. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.09.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Azim H.A., Kroman N., Paesmans M., Gelber S., Rotmensz N., Ameye L., et al. Prognostic impact of pregnancy after breast cancer according to estrogen receptor status: a multicenter retrospective study. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:73–79. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.44.2285. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lambertini M., Kroman N., Ameye L., Cordoba O., Pinto A., Benedetti G., et al. Long-term safety of pregnancy following breast cancer according to estrogen receptor status. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110:426–429. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djx206. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lambertini M., Ameye L., Hamy A.-S., Zingarello A., Poorvu P.D., Carrasco E., et al. Pregnancy after breast cancer in patients with germline BRCA mutations. J Clin Orthod. 2020;38:3012–3023. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02399. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types