Article

Mortality following development of breast cancer while using oestrogen or oestrogen plus progestin: a computer record-linkage study

Research and Evaluation Department, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, 91101, USA.
British Journal of Cancer (Impact Factor: 4.82). 09/2005; 93(4):392-8. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602701
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The literature on the relationship between breast cancer mortality and postmenopausal oestrogen and combined oestrogen/progestin therapy is seemingly contradictory. This study explored survival after exposure to oestrogen or oestrogen plus progestin at or in the year prior to breast cancer diagnosis. Information on patients first diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 1993 and 1998 was linked with outpatient pharmacy data from 1992 to 2000. Patients were classified according to use of oestrogen alone or oestrogen plus progestin at or in the year prior to diagnosis. Compared to nonusers, and adjusting for age at diagnosis, race/ethnicity, tumour size and grade, oestrogen receptor status, surgery status, and chemotherapy and hormone therapy for breast cancer treatment, oestrogen plus progestin users had lower all-cause mortality (stage I hazard ratio (HR) = 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI)= 0.48-0.99; stage II HR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.39-0.72) and breast cancer mortality (stage I HR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.26-1.04; stage II HR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.48-0.98). Oestrogen users experienced little or no survival benefit for all-cause mortality (stage I HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.77-1.42; stage II HR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.65-1.14) or breast cancer mortality (stage I HR = 1.23, 95% CI 0.72-2.10; stage II HR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.72-1.41). Our findings suggest, relative to nonusers, a lower risk of death from all causes and from breast cancer in patients who were diagnosed with breast cancer while exposed to oestrogen plus progestin, but not in patients exposed to oestrogen only.

0 Followers
 · 
49 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Estrogens and artificial progestins used in hormone replacement therapy increase breast cancer risk. This seems to be due to a promoting and not initiating effect. A synergic effect of estradiol and hyperinsulinism has been shown. Insulin plays a role in the increase of breast cancer risk when associated with android obesity, sedentariness, type II diabetes, and high glycemic index food, alcohol and trans fatty acids intake. Natural menopause induces insulin resistance and does not induce a risk decrease. The role of insulin gives a new outlook on the influence of HRT in breast cancer pro-motion: estradiol alone, which improves insulin-sensitivity, does not increase breast cancer risk. Artificial progestins associated with estrogens increase the risk, whereas estrogens associated with progesterone do not. This could be due to the fact that artificial progestins increase insulin resistance, whereas natural progesterone does not. Adipose tissue, which is an endocrine gland, is insulin dependant. Breast cancer and its seriousness are correlated to adipocytokin circulating levels such as resistin, leptin, interleukin 1, adipocyte fatty acid-binding protein, and are inversely corre-lated to the level of adiponectin. Insulin could play a synergic role with sexual steroids by a direct effect and by in-creasing adipose tissue secretions.
    Journal of Cancer Therapy 01/2010; 1(1). DOI:10.4236/jct.2010.11007
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There are good reasons why the use of postmenopausal hormone therapy is at a contemporary low level. But an analysis of these factors provides explanations that offer a basis for appropriate and renewed use. A more optimistic position is supported by an up-to-date appraisal of clinical studies.
    Maturitas 06/2007; 57(1):103-6. DOI:10.1016/j.maturitas.2007.02.024 · 2.86 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Women's Health Initiative Estrogen-Aone trial comparing conjugated equine estrogens (CEE) with placebo was stopped early because of an increased stroke incidence and no reduction in risk of coronary heart disease. Preliminary results suggesting possible reduction in breast cancers warranted more detailed analysis. To determine the effects of CEE on breast cancers and mammographic findings. Following breast cancer risk assessment, 10,739 postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years with prior hysterectomy were randomized to CEE or placebo at 40 US clinical centers from 1993 through 1998. Mammography screenings and clinical breast examinations were performed at baseline and annually. All breast cancers diagnosed through February 29, 2004, are included. A dose of 0.625 mg/d of CEE or an identical-appearing placebo. Breast cancer incidence, tumor characteristics, and mammogram findings. After a mean (SD) follow-up of 7.1 (1.6) years, the invasive breast cancer hazard ratio (HR) for women assigned to CEE vs placebo was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-1.04; P = .09) with annualized rates of 0.28% (104 cases in the CEE group) and 0.34% (133 cases in the placebo group). In exploratory analyses, ductal carcinomas (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.99) were reduced in the CEE group vs placebo group; however, the test for interaction by tumor type was not significant (P = .054). At 1 year, 9.2% of women in the CEE group had mammograms with abnormalities requiring follow-up vs 5.5% in the placebo group (P<.001), a pattern that continued through the trial to reach a cumulative percentage of 36.2% vs 28.1%, respectively (P<.001); however, this difference was primarily in assessments requiring short interval follow-up. Treatment with CEE alone for 7.1 years does not increase breast cancer incidence in postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy. However, treatment with CEE increases the frequency of mammography screening requiring short interval follow-up. Initiation of CEE should be based on consideration of the individual woman's potential risks and benefits. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000611.
    JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 04/2006; 295(14):1647-57. DOI:10.1001/jama.295.14.1647 · 30.39 Impact Factor