My grandmother’s battle with breast cancer, which led to the loss of her breast, left a profound mark on her and our entire family, carrying a weight of trauma that still lingers. Now, as I face my own health challenges with my Mirena IUD having migrated into my womb, I’m at a crossroads, especially with perimenopause on the horizon. I’m determined to approach my health with clarity and wisdom, layering the latest evidence to make informed decisions that honor my well-being and protect my future.
"Because It’s Your Body: A Clear-Eyed Look at Contraceptive Choices and Cancer Risk in Your 40s"
For women in their 40s, choosing a contraceptive method involves weighing effectiveness, safety, and potential health risks, particularly concerning breast cancer, which becomes more prevalent in this age group. The Mirena intrauterine device (IUD), copper IUD (e.g., ParaGard), and tubal ligation are three popular options, each with distinct mechanisms and risk profiles. Concerns about the Mirena IUD often focus on its plastic composition and hormonal effects, including the misconception of "plastic floating around in the womb" increasing cancer risk. Additionally, women may worry about insertion risks for copper IUDs or complications like migration with Mirena. Tubal ligation, a permanent sterilisation method, is another consideration. This article explores the composition of the Mirena IUD, cancer risks associated with Mirena, copper IUD insertion risks, Mirena migration risks and removal procedures, and a cross-comparison of breast cancer risks for Mirena, copper IUD, and tubal ligation, highlighting the most low-risk and balanced choice for women in their 40s.
Composition of The Mirena IUD
The Mirena IUD is a T-shaped device measuring approximately 32 mm in both vertical and horizontal dimensions, designed for uterine insertion by a healthcare professional (Bayer, 2025). Its frame is made of polyethylene, a flexible, medical-grade plastic valued for biocompatibility and durability. The device contains a reservoir releasing levonorgestrel, a synthetic progestin, at an initial rate of 20 micrograms per day, decreasing over its eight-year lifespan (Bayer, 2025). The polyethylene frame is inert, not reacting with bodily tissues, and supports the hormone reservoir and uterine placement (Drugwatch, 2025). It also includes barium sulfate for X-ray visibility and monofilament threads for removal (Bayer, 2025). The notion of "plastic floating around in the womb" is a misconception. Once inserted, the Mirena IUD is securely positioned in the uterine cavity, anchored by its design and the uterus’s natural contours, with threads extending into the cervix for monitoring and removal (Mayo Clinic, 2024). The plastic remains stationary, minimising irritation beyond the initial insertion period.
Cancer Risks Associated with the Mirena IUD
The primary cancer concern with Mirena relates to its hormonal component, levonorgestrel, rather than its plastic frame, as many breast cancers are hormone-sensitive, particularly in women in their 40s (American Cancer Society, 2025).
Breast Cancer Risk
Studies on Mirena and breast cancer risk are mixed. A 2024 Danish study of over 78,000 women aged 15–49 found a 40% higher relative risk of breast cancer among levonorgestrel-releasing IUD users compared to non-users, translating to approximately 14 additional cases per 10,000 women (Mørch et al., 2024). The absolute risk increase was small, and risk did not escalate with duration of use. A 2014 Finnish study reported a 20% increased breast cancer risk among Mirena users treating heavy menstrual bleeding (Dinger et al., 2014). However, a 2005 study found no significant association (Backman et al., 2005). For a 42-year-old woman, these findings suggest a small potential breast cancer risk increase, particularly with risk factors like family history or hormone-sensitive cancer history. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advises against Mirena use in women with current or past breast cancer due to inconclusive evidence (FDA, 2015). Experts note that the overall risk remains low, and Mirena’s benefits, such as effective contraception and reduced menstrual bleeding, may outweigh risks for many (Doty, 2024).
Other Cancer Risks and Protective Effects
Mirena offers protective effects against other cancers. Studies show levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs reduce endometrial and ovarian cancer risks, with a 2014 study noting lower-than-expected incidences of these cancers among users (Dinger et al., 2014). A meta-analysis of 34 studies found a 30% reduction in cervical cancer risk with IUD use, including hormonal IUDs, particularly in high-risk populations (Cortessis et al., 2017). These benefits likely stem from levonorgestrel’s local action, thinning the uterine lining and reducing cellular proliferation in the endometrium and cervix.
The Role of Plastic in Cancer Risk
No evidence links Mirena’s polyethylene frame to cancer risk. Medical-grade polyethylene is non-carcinogenic and does not degrade or release harmful substances (Bayer, 2025). Unlike environmental plastics like bisphenol A, Mirena’s inert plastic poses minimal risk. The "floating plastic" concern is unfounded due to the device’s fixed placement.
Risks of Inserting a Copper IUD
The copper IUD (e.g., ParaGard) is a non-hormonal contraceptive with a polyethylene frame wrapped with copper wire, acting as a spermicide (Paragard, 2025). Insertion, performed by a healthcare provider, involves passing the IUD through the cervix into the uterus, which can cause discomfort, especially in nulliparous women (Mayo Clinic, 2024). Risks include:
Screening for STIs and skilled insertion reduce risks. For women in their 40s, often in stable relationships, STI risk may be lower, making copper IUDs a viable non-hormonal option (Mayo Clinic, 2024).
Risks of Mirena Migration and Removal Procedure
Mirena may rarely migrate from the uterine cavity, either embedding in the uterine wall or perforating into the abdominal cavity.
How Mirena Ends Up in the Womb or Beyond
Migration occurs in 1–2 per 1,000 insertions, often during or shortly after insertion due to improper placement, uterine contractions, or anatomical factors like a smaller or retroverted uterus (Heinemann et al., 2015). Risk factors include insertion during breastfeeding, recent childbirth, or inexperienced providers (Rowlands et al., 2016). Perforation may lead to migration into the abdominal cavity, potentially affecting organs like the bladder or intestines (Bayer, 2025). Migration can also occur over time if the IUD embeds in the uterine muscle due to uterine movements or tissue changes.
Risks of Leaving a Migrated Mirena
Leaving a migrated Mirena poses risks:
Regular string checks can detect migration early. Symptoms like severe pain, abnormal bleeding, or missing strings require immediate medical attention (Mayo Clinic, 2024). Procedure for Removal Removal depends on the IUD’s location:
Post-removal, patients are monitored for complications, and alternative contraception is discussed (Mayo Clinic, 2024).
Cross-Comparison of Breast Cancer Risks: Mirena, Copper IUD, and Tubal Ligation
For women in their 40s, breast cancer risk is a critical consideration when choosing contraception, as incidence rises with age (American Cancer Society, 2025). Below is a comparison of breast cancer risks associated with Mirena, copper IUD, and tubal ligation.
Mirena IUD
As noted, Mirena’s levonorgestrel may increase breast cancer risk slightly. The 2024 Danish study reported a 40% relative risk increase, equating to 14 additional cases per 10,000 users, with a 2014 study noting a 20% increase in specific cohorts (Mørch et al., 2024; Dinger et al., 2014). The absolute risk is low, but women with risk factors (e.g., family history, BRCA mutations) face higher relative risks. Mirena’s hormonal action makes it less suitable for those with hormone-sensitive cancer history (FDA, 2015).
Copper IUD The copper IUD, being non-hormonal, is not associated with increased breast cancer risk. Studies, including a 2019 review, found no link between copper IUDs and breast cancer, making it a safer option for women concerned about hormonal effects (Medical News Today, 2019). Its primary drawbacks are insertion risks and potential for heavier menstrual bleeding, which may be significant for women in their 40s approaching perimenopause (Paragard, 2025).
Tubal Ligation
Tubal ligation, a surgical sterilisation procedure involving cutting, tying, or sealing the fallopian tubes, is permanent and non-hormonal. Research indicates no consistent association with increased breast cancer risk. A 2018 meta-analysis found no significant link between tubal ligation and breast cancer (Gaudet et al., 2018). Some studies suggest a slight protective effect against ovarian cancer due to reduced ovarian exposure to external factors, though this is not directly related to breast cancer (Rice et al., 2016). Tubal ligation carries surgical risks (e.g., infection, bleeding) and is irreversible, which may deter women seeking reversible options (ACOG, 2023).
Low-Risk and Balanced Choice
For women in their 40s prioritising minimal breast cancer risk, the copper IUD is the lowest-risk option, as it avoids hormonal exposure linked to a small breast cancer risk increase with Mirena (Medical News Today, 2019). It offers long-term (up to 10 years), reversible contraception without systemic hormonal effects, making it suitable for those with breast cancer risk factors. However, its potential to increase menstrual bleeding may be a drawback for perimenopausal women with heavy periods (Paragard, 2025). Mirena, while effective and beneficial for reducing heavy bleeding, carries a small breast cancer risk, making it less ideal for high-risk women but valuable for those prioritising menstrual management (Mayo Clinic, 2024). Tubal ligation is a low-risk option for breast cancer but is permanent, requiring careful consideration for women not ready to forgo future fertility (ACOG, 2023). The copper IUD strikes the best balance for women seeking reversible, non-hormonal contraception with no breast cancer risk, provided they can tolerate potential menstrual side effects.
Considerations for Women Aged 42 For a 42-year-old woman, contraceptive choice depends on health history, fertility goals, and lifestyle. Perimenopause may exacerbate menstrual irregularities, making Mirena’s bleeding reduction appealing (Mayo Clinic, 2024). However, breast cancer risk factors (e.g., family history, BRCA mutations) warrant caution with hormonal methods (WebMD, 2024). The copper IUD avoids hormonal risks but may worsen heavy bleeding (Paragard, 2025). Tubal ligation suits women certain about permanent sterilisation but involves surgical risks (ACOG, 2023). Mirena migration, though rare, requires vigilance via string checks (Bayer, 2025). Women should consult their healthcare provider to align their choice with medical history and preferences.
Conclusion
The Mirena IUD, made of polyethylene and levonorgestrel, poses no cancer risk from its plastic but may slightly increase breast cancer risk (Mørch et al., 2024; Dinger et al., 2014), while reducing endometrial, ovarian, and cervical cancer risks (Cortessis et al., 2017). The copper IUD, non-hormonal, carries no breast cancer risk but has insertion risks like PID or perforation (Heinemann et al., 2015). Tubal ligation, also non-hormonal, shows no consistent breast cancer risk but is permanent (Gaudet et al., 2018). The copper IUD is the lowest-risk and most balanced choice for women in their 40s prioritising breast cancer risk minimisation and reversibility, though Mirena and tubal ligation may suit specific needs. Regular monitoring and personalised medical advice are essential for informed decision Risks, and Contraceptive Options for Women in Their 40s
References
American Cancer Society. (2025). Breast cancer risk factors. Retrieved from https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/risk-and-prevention.html
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). (2023). Tubal ligation. Retrieved from https://www.acog.org/womens-health/faqs/tubal-ligation
Backman, T., Rauramo, I., Jaakkola, K., et al. (2005). Use of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and breast cancer. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 106(4), 813–817. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000178754.88912.b9
Bayer. (2025). Mirena® (levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system) 52 mg IUD. Retrieved from https://www.mirenahcp.com
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2023). U.S. medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/mmwr/mec/summary.html
Cortessis, V. K., Barrett, M., Wade, N., et al. (2017). Intrauterine device use and cervical cancer risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 130(6), 1226–1236. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002307
Dinger, J., Bardenheuer, K., & Minh, T. D. (2014). Cancer risk in women using the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in Finland. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 124(2), 292–299. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000352
Doty, N. J. (2024). Commentary on hormonal IUD and breast cancer risk. Medical News Today. Retrieved from https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/breast-cancer-risk-iuds
Drugwatch. (2025). Mirena IUD: Uses, pros and cons, interactions & cost. Retrieved from https://www.drugwatch.com/mirena/
FDA. (2015). Mirena® (levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system) prescribing information. Retrieved from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2008/021225s019lbl.pdf
Gaudet, M. M., Olshan, A. F., & Bensen, J. T. (2018). Tubal ligation and breast cancer risk: A meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 27(3), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-17-0892
Heinemann, K., Reed, S., Moehner, S., & Minh, T. D. (2015). Risk of uterine perforation with levonorgestrel-releasing and copper intrauterine devices in the European Active Surveillance Study on Intrauterine Devices. Contraception, 91(4), 274–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2015.01.007
Madden, T., McNicholas, C., & Zhao, Q. (2014). Intrauterine contraception in nulliparous women: A prospective cohort study. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 123(5), 1055–1063. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000214
Mayo Clinic. (2024). Hormonal IUD (Mirena). Retrieved from https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/mirena/about/pac-20391354
Medical News Today. (2019). Breast cancer and Mirena IUD: What’s the link?. Retrieved from https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325799
Mørch, L. S., et al. (2024). Breast cancer in users of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems. JAMA, 332(16), 1391–1392. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.18575
Paragard. (2025). Paragard® (copper intrauterine device). Retrieved from https://www.paragard.com
Rice, M. S., Murphy, M. A., & Tworoger, S. S. (2016). Tubal ligation and ovarian cancer risk in a large cohort: Substantial variation by histological type. International Journal of Cancer, 138(5), 1076–1084. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.29856
Rowlands, S., Oloto, E., & Horwell, D. H. (2016). Intrauterine devices and risk of uterine perforation: Current perspectives. Open Access Journal of Contraception, 7, 19–32. https://doi.org/10.2147/OAJC.S85585
WebMD. (2024). What to know about Mirena and breast cancer. Retrieved from https://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/mirena-breast-cancer