Endometrial cancer associated with various forms of postmenopausal hormone therapy: A case control study

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
International Journal of Cancer (Impact Factor: 5.09). 04/2011; 128(7):1644-51. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.25762
Source: PubMed


This study evaluates the effect of different modes of estradiol-progestagen therapy (EPT) regimens on the postmenopausal endometrial cancer risk in Finland. Women diagnosed with endometrial cancer in 1995-2007 at the age of 50-80 years were identified from the Finnish Cancer Registry (N = 7,261). For each case, three age-matched controls were retrieved from the Finnish Population Register. The use of EPT since 1994 was ascertained from the national Medical Reimbursement Register. Odds ratios (ORs) for different EPT regimens were calculated with conditional logistic regression analysis, adjusted for parity and ages at the deliveries. For use of <5 years, the OR for sequential EPT was 0.67 (95% confidence interval 0.52-0.86), for continuous EPT 0.45 (0.27-0.73), and for estradiol plus levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device system (LNG-IUS) 0.39 (0.17-0.88). A decreased risk persisted for the use of continuous EPT and estradiol plus LNG-IUS of up to 10 years. The use of long-cycle EPT showed a tendency toward an elevated risk both for exposure of <5 years (1.40; 0.82-2.38) and for estimated use of >5 years (1.63; 1.12-2.38). For an estimated exposure of >10 years, the risk for endometrial cancer was elevated for both users of long-cycle EPT (2.95; 2.40-3.62) and sequential EPT (1.38; 1.15-1.66). Norethisterone acetate and medroxyprogesterone acetate as parts of EPT did not differ in their endometrial cancer risk. The use of tibolone showed no endometrial risk. The use of sequential and long-cycle EPT is associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer, whereas the use of continuous EPT or estradiol plus LNG-IUS shows a decreased risk.

Download full-text


Available from: Olavi Ylikorkala, Sep 08, 2014
  • Source
    • "a. Odds raƟ os and 95% confide nce inte rvals were calcu lat ed acro ss duraƟ on ca tegorie s usin g the inverse variance method b. Varia nce for t he p oole d esƟ mate was calc ulated using the f ormula: 1/ a + 1/b + 1/c + 1 /d Overall Razavi, 2010 Beral, 2005 2 Subtotal Subtotal Jaakkola, 2011 Trabert, 2012 Newcomb, 2003 Phip ps, 2011 Strom, 2006 Allen, 2010 Hill, 2000 Karageorgi, 2010 Jain , 2000 Anderson, 2003 Weiderpass, 1999 Pike, 1997 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Endometrial cancer is clearly a hormonally-responsive tumor, with a critical role played by estrogens unopposed by progestins. Numerous epidemiologic studies have shown substantial risk increases associated with use of unopposed estrogens, especially among thin women. This risk, however, can be reduced if progestins are added to the therapy. The manner in which progestins are prescribed is a critical determinant of risk. Most studies show that women who have ever used progestins continuously (>25 days/months) are at somewhat reduced risk relative to non-users (meta-analysis relative risk, RR, based on observational studies=0.78, 95 confidence intervals, CI, 0.72-0.86). The reduced risk in greatest among heavy women. In contrast, women who have ever used progestins sequentially for <10 days each month are at increased risk, with meta-analysis results showing on overall RR of 1.76 (1.51-2.05); in contrast, progestins given for 10-24 days/month appear unrelated to risk (RR=1.07, 0.92-1.24). These risks were based on varying patterns of usage, with little information available regarding how endometrial cancer risk is affected by duration of use, type and/or dose of estrogen or progestin, or mode of administration. Effects may also vary by clinical characteristics (e.g., differences for type I vs. II tumors). Further resolution of many of these relationships may be dependent on pooling data from multiple studies to derive sufficient power for subgroups of users. With changing clinical practices, it will be important for future studies to monitor a wide range of exposures and to account for divergent effects of different usage patterns.
    The Journal of steroid biochemistry and molecular biology 05/2013; 142. DOI:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2013.05.001 · 3.63 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Die Hormontherapie (HT) mit Sexualsteroiden wird in der Peri- und Postmenopause häufig zur Linderung postmenopausaler Symptome eingesetzt. Ein mögliches Tumorwachstum gehört zu den Bedenken der Patientinnen und Ärzte, die eine HT erwägen. Viele Karzinomerkrankungen des weiblichen Genitaltraktes und der Mamma sind hormonabhängig. Bekannt ist, dass die Dauer und Höhe der Östrogenexposition bei der Frau mit dem Mammakarzinomrisiko korreliert. Andererseits ist die Therapie mit Östrogenrezeptorblockern und Aromataseinhibitoren hoch wirksam in Therapie und Prophylaxe von Mammakarzinomen. Im Folgenden sollen die relevanten bekannten Veränderungen verschiedener Malignomrisiken durch Sexualsteroide dargestellt werden. Eine detaillierte Bewertung der gesamten Evidenz zu dieser Thematik ist auch der S3-Leitlinie Hormontherapie in Peri-und Postmenopause zu entnehmen.
    Der Gynäkologe 03/2013; 46(3). DOI:10.1007/s00129-012-3067-9
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to compare the effects of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) with those of systemic progestogen in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women taking systemic estrogen therapy (ET). We searched Medline (August 8, 2009), Embase (August 8, 2009), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on the Cochrane Library Issue 3 (2009), the MetaRegister of Controlled Trials, and the reference lists of articles for relevant trials. Randomized controlled studies of LNG-IUS versus systemic progestogen in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women taking ET were included in the review. Two reviewers abstracted the trials independently. Any disagreement was resolved through discussion with the third reviewer. For dichotomous outcomes, a Peto odds ratio was calculated. For continuous outcomes, nonskewed data from valid scales were synthesized using a weighted mean difference or a standardized mean difference. Six trials with a total of 518 participants were included. The methodological limitation was an attrition bias. In perimenopausal and postmenopausal women taking ET, the incidence of a proliferative endometrium was comparable between the use of systemic progestogen and LNG-IUS, except for sequential medroxyprogesterone acetate, which had a higher incidence of proliferative endometrium. Descriptive data synthesis showed that ET combined with either LNG-IUS or systemic progestogen effectively relieved climacteric symptoms. Vaginal bleeding and spotting were common in the LNG-IUS group for the first 3 to 6 months of use. The discontinuation rate was not different. There was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions about the other outcomes. The LNG-IUS was more effective than sequential medroxyprogesterone acetate but was comparable with other systemic progestogen regimens for endometrial protection in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women taking ET.
    Menopause (New York, N.Y.) 06/2011; 18(10):1060-6. DOI:10.1097/gme.0b013e31821606c5 · 3.36 Impact Factor
Show more