Article

Unopposed estrogen therapy and the risk of invasive breast cancer.

Channing Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 181 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Archives of Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 13.25). 06/2006; 166(9):1027-32. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.166.9.1027
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Although short-term unopposed estrogen use does not seem to increase breast cancer risk, the effect of longer-term estrogen use remains unclear. We sought to assess the relationship between longer-term use of unopposed estrogen and the risk of invasive breast cancer over an extended follow-up period.
Within the Nurses' Health Study, a prospective cohort study, we observed 11 508 postmenopausal women who had a hysterectomy and reported information on estrogen use at baseline (1980). The study population was expanded every 2 years to include women who subsequently became postmenopausal and had a hysterectomy, so that 28 835 women were included in the final follow-up period (2000-2002). Estrogen use was assessed from self-reported data on biennial questionnaires. The main outcome was invasive breast cancer.
A total of 934 invasive breast cancers were included in the analysis. Breast cancer risk increased with duration of unopposed estrogen use among longer-term users with the highest risk seen in cancers positive for estrogen receptor (ER+) and progesterone receptor (PR+). The multivariate relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for breast cancer with current use of unopposed estrogen for less than 5 years, 5 to 9.9 years, 10 to 14.9 years, 15 to 19.9 years, and 20 years or longer were, respectively, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.75-1.22), 0.90 (95% CI, 0.73-1.12), 1.06 (95% CI, 0.87-1.30), 1.18 (95% CI, 0.95-1.48), and 1.42 (95% CI, 1.13-1.77) (P for trend <.001). The risk of ER+/PR+ breast cancers was noted to be statistically significant after 15 years of current use (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.05-2.07).
Users of unopposed estrogen were at increased risk of breast cancer but only after longer-term use.

0 Followers
 · 
82 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The role of observational studies in informing clinical practice is debated, and high profile examples of discrepancies between the results of observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have intensified that debate. We systematically reviewed findings from the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), one of the longest and largest observational studies, to assess the number and strength of the associations reported and to determine if they have been confirmed in RCTs. Methods We reviewed NHS publication abstracts from 1978–2012, extracted information on associations tested, and graded the strength of the reported effect sizes. We searched PubMed for RCTs or systematic reviews for 3 health outcomes commonly reported in NHS publications: breast cancer, ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and osteoporosis. NHS results were compared with RCT results and deemed concordant when the difference in effect sizes between studies was ≤0.15. Findings 2007 associations between health outcomes and independent variables were reported in 1053 abstracts. 58.0% (1165/2007) were statistically significant, and 22.2% (445/2007) were neutral (no association). Among the statistically significant results that reported a numeric odds ratio (OR) or relative risk (RR), 70.5% (706/1002) reported a weak association (OR/RR 0.5–2.0), 24.5% (246/1002) a moderate association (OR/RR 0.25–0.5 or 2.0–4.0) and 5.0% (50/1002) a strong association (OR/RR ≤0.25 or ≥4.0). 19 associations reported in NHS publications for breast cancer, IHD and osteoporosis have been tested in RCTs, and the concordance between NHS and RCT results was low (≤25%). Conclusions NHS publications contain a large number of analyses, the majority of which reported statistically significant but weak associations. Few of these associations have been tested in RCTs, and where they have, the agreement between NHS results and RCTs is poor.
    PLoS ONE 10/2014; 9(10):e110403. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0110403 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Menopausal hormone therapy with estrogen plus progestin or estrogen alone (for women with prior hysterectomy) is still used by millions of women for climacteric symptom management throughout the world. Until 2002, hormone therapy influence on cancer risk and other chronic diseases was determined through observational study reports. Since then, results from the Women's Health Initiative randomized, placebo-controlled hormone therapy trials have substantially changed concepts regarding estrogen plus progestin and estrogen alone influence on the most common cancers in postmenopausal women. In these trials, estrogen plus progestin significantly increased breast cancer incidence and deaths from breast cancer, significantly increased deaths from lung cancer, significantly decreased endometrial cancer, and did not have a clinically significant influence on colorectal cancer. In contrast, estrogen alone use in women with prior hysterectomy significantly reduced breast cancer incidence and deaths from breast cancer without significant influence on colorectal cancer or lung cancer. These complex results are discussed in the context of known potential mediating mechanisms of action involved in interactionwith steroid hormone receptors.
    Steroids 06/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.steroids.2014.06.001 · 2.72 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A number of available treatments provide relief of menopausal symptoms and prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis. However, as breast safety is a major concern, new options are needed, particularly agents with an improved mammary safety profile. Results from several large randomized and observational studies have shown an association between hormone therapy, particularly combined estrogen-progestin therapy, and a small increased risk of breast cancer and breast pain or tenderness. In addition, progestin-containing hormone therapy has been shown to increase mammographic breast density, which is an important risk factor for breast cancer. Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) provide bone protection, are generally well tolerated, and have demonstrated reductions in breast cancer risk, but do not relieve menopausal symptoms (that is, vasomotor symptoms). Tissue-selective estrogen complexes (TSECs) pair a SERM with one or more estrogens and aim to blend the positive effects of the components to provide relief of menopausal symptoms and prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis without stimulating the breast or endometrium. One TSEC combination pairing conjugated estrogens (CEs) with the SERM bazedoxifene (BZA) has completed clinical development and is now available as an alternative option for menopausal therapy. Preclinical evidence suggests that CE/BZA induces inhibitory effects on breast tissue, and phase 3 clinical studies suggest breast neutrality, with no increases seen in breast tenderness, breast density, or cancer. In non-hysterectomized postmenopausal women, CE/BZA was associated with increased bone mineral density and relief of menopausal symptoms, along with endometrial safety. Taken together, these results support the potential of CE/BZA for the relief of menopausal symptoms and prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis combined with breast and endometrial safety.
    Breast Cancer Research 06/2014; 16(3):212. DOI:10.1186/bcr3677 · 5.33 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
1 Download