A new study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found women who breastfed after breast cancer did not face an increased risk of recurrence or contralateral disease. Many women were also able to breastfeed successfully after breast-conserving surgery, including from the affected breast. 

The POSITIVE trial evaluated the safety of temporarily interrupting endocrine therapy (ET) in young women with early HR+ breast cancer who desire pregnancy. Previous findings confirmed that pausing treatment did not elevate short-term recurrence risk. The latest report delves deeper into what happens after live births, specifically exploring breastfeeding frequency, duration, and whether outcomes differ between those who breastfed and those who did not.

Among 317 women in the trial who had at least one live birth, 313 were eligible for the breastfeeding analysis. Of these, 196 (62.6%) breastfed their infants. Notably, women who had breast-conserving surgery were most likely to breastfeed, with 77.8% doing so. However, most of these women (about 69%) breastfed only from the unaffected breast. In contrast, only 45.2% of women who had undergone unilateral mastectomy reported breastfeeding.

Age and prior parenthood also influenced breastfeeding patterns. Women over 35 years of age were more likely to breastfeed when compared with younger counterparts (67.6% vs. 55.7%). Likewise, first-time mothers showed higher breastfeeding rates than women who already had children (66.4% vs. 48.5%).

Duration of breastfeeding was also substantial. More than half of breastfeeding women (52.6%) continued for over 4 months. The median duration was 4.4 months, with confidence intervals suggesting consistency around this timeframe.

A key focus of the study was whether breastfeeding might influence breast cancer outcomes. At a median follow-up of 41 months, the cumulative incidence of breast cancer events within 24 months of the first on-study live birth was nearly identical between groups. Specifically, rates were 3.6% among women who breastfed and 3.1% among those who did not. The 0.5% difference fell well within statistical margins of uncertainty, indicating no meaningful risk increase.

Overall, the findings provide important reassurance for young survivors weighing the decision to pursue both pregnancy and breastfeeding. With two-thirds of participants successfully breastfeeding after treatment, the results challenge longstanding concerns about safety and feasibility.

Source:

Peccatori, F. A., Niman, S. M., Partridge, A. H., Ruggeri, M., Colleoni, M., Saura, C., Shimizu, C., Satersdal, A. B., Kroep, J. R., Gelmon, K., Amant, F., Mailliez, A., Moore, H. C. F., Ruiz-Borrego, M., Walshe, J. M., Borges, V. F., Gombos, A., Kataoka, A., Rousset-Jablonski, C., … International Breast Cancer Study Group and the POSITIVE Trial Collaborators. (2025). Breastfeeding after hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: Results from the POSITIVE trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology: Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 43(24), 2712–2719. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO-24-02697

Chennai: Observing that the bond service posting orders should be issued within the bond period, the Madras High Court recently granted relief to a doctor by quashing her posting order, which was issued beyond the bond period.

“It is well settled principle of law that the posting order should have been issued within the bond period, as it is coextensive with bond period,” observed the HC bench comprising Justice C. Kumarappan.

These directions were issued by the High Court bench while considering a plea filed by a doctor, who challenged her bond service posting order issued after the bond period had expired.

The petitioner joined a Post Graduate Degree in Madras Medical College for the academic year 2020-2023. Consequently, the petitioner completed her course in October, 2023.

It was submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that even though the bond period was originally fixed as two years, it was later reduced to one year, for those who completed their PG course in the year October 2023. 

He further submitted that since the petitioner completed her course during October 2023, her bond service is only for one year, therefore, the posting order should have been issued within one year from October 2023. However, the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine issued a posting order on 26.05.2025, which was in contravention of the orders of the High Court. Therefore, the petitioner’s counsel prayed to issue directions to the authorities to return the original certificates to the doctor.

On the other hand, the Government counsel submitted that according to the prospectus, the doctor has to render two years of bond service and further submitted that the one year bond service which the doctor relied on, did not apply to the petitioner.

Meanwhile, the doctor’s counsel referred to G.O.(Ms).No. 351, dated 27.10.2023, through which, the Government had reduced the bond period to one year for those who completed their PG course in October 2023.

Taking note of this, the HC bench observed, “Admittedly, the petitioner had completed her PG Course in the year October-2023, therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner the bond period for the petitioner is only for one year, whereas admittedly the posting order was issued after one year.”

Opining that it was a well settled legal principal that the posting order should have been issued within the bond period, the bench noted that in this case, “it was issued subsequent to the bond period”.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the bond service order and directed the authorities to return the original certificates to the petitioner. It ordered, “Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the posting order issued by the 3 rd respondent in R.No.10305312/E5/A4/2025, dated 26.05.2025 signed on 26.06.2025. As a concomitant the respondents are directed to return all the original certificates to the petitioner, within the period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/madras-hc-bond-documents-298736.pdf

Also Read: No Bond Service Posting in 4 Years- Madras HC orders medical college to Return MCh Doctor’s Documents