Association between intrauterine device use and endometrial, cervical, and ovarian cancer: an expert review

• Published in: American journal of obstetrics and gynecology Vol. 229; no. 2; pp. 93 - 100
• Main Authors: Minalt, Nicole, Caldwell, Amy, Yedlicka, Grace M., Joseph, Sophia, Robertson, Sharon E., Landrum, Lisa M., Peipert, Jeffrey F.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01-08-2023
• Subjects: cervical cancer; endometrial cancer; gynecologic cancer; intrauterine device; ovarian cancer; endometrial cancer; gynecologic cancer; intrauterine device; ovarian cancer; cervical cancer
• ISSN: 0002-9378; 1097-6868
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.03.039

The intrauterine device is one of the most effective forms of contraception. Use of the intrauterine device has increased in the United States over the last 2 decades. Two formulations are commercially available in the United States: the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device and the copper intrauterine device. The levonorgestrel intrauterine device releases progestin, causing endometrial suppression and cervical mucus thickening, whereas the primary mechanism of action of the copper intrauterine device is to create a local inflammatory response to prevent fertilization. Whereas the protective effects of combined hormonal contraception against ovarian and endometrial cancer, and of tubal sterilization against ovarian cancer are generally accepted, less is known about the effects of modern intrauterine devices on the development of gynecologic malignancies. The best evidence for a protective effect of intrauterine device use against cancer incidence pertains to levonorgestrel intrauterine devices and endometrial cancer, although studies suggest that both copper intrauterine devices and levonorgestrel intrauterine devices reduce endometrial cancer risk. This is supported by the proposed dual mechanisms of action including both endometrial suppression and a local inflammatory response. Studies on the relationship between intrauterine device use and ovarian cancer risk show conflicting results, although most data suggest reduced risk of ovarian cancer in intrauterine device users. The proposed biological mechanisms of ovarian cancer reduction (foreign-body inflammatory response, increased pH, antiestrogenic effect, ovulation suppression) vary by type of intrauterine device. Whereas it has been well established that use of copper intrauterine devices confers a lower risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasms, the effect of levonorgestrel intrauterine device use on cervical cancer remains unclear. Older studies have linked its use to a higher incidence of cervical dysplasia, but more recent literature has found a decrease in cervical cancer with intrauterine device use. Various mechanisms of protection are postulated, including device-related inflammatory response in the endocervical canal and prostaglandin-mediated immunosurveillance. Overall, the available evidence suggests that both levonorgestrel intrauterine devices and copper intrauterine devices reduce gynecologic cancer risk. Whereas there is support for the reduction of endometrial cancer risk with hormonal and copper intrauterine device use, and reduction of cervical cancer risk with copper intrauterine device use, evidence in support of risk reduction with levonorgestrel intrauterine device use for cervical and ovarian cancers is less consistent.