BACKGROUND: In longitudinal studies, greater mammographic density is associated with an increased risk for breast cancer. OBJECTIVE: To assess differences between placebo, estrogen, and three estrogen-progestin regimens on change in mammographic density. DESIGN: Subset analysis of a 3-year, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Seven ambulatory study centers. PARTICIPANTS: 307 of the 875 women in the Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions Trial. Participants had a baseline mammogram and at least one follow-up mammogram available, adhered to treatment, had not taken estrogen for at least 5 years before baseline, and did not have breast implants. INTERVENTION: Treatments were placebo, conjugated equine estrogens (CEE), CEE plus cyclic medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), CEEplus daily MPA, and CEE plus cyclic micronized progesterone (MP). MEASUREMENTS: Change in radiographic density (according to American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System grades) on mammography. RESULTS: Almost all increases in mammographic density occurred within the first year. At 12 months, the percentage of women with density grade increases was 0% (95% CI, 0.0% to 4.6%) in the placebo group, 3.5% (CI, 1.0% to 12.0%) in the CEE group, 23.5% (CI, 11.9% to 35.1%) in the CEE plus cyclic MPA group, 19.4% (CI, 9.9% to 28.9%) in the CEE plus daily MPA group, and 16.4% (CI, 6.6% to 26.2%) in the CEE plus cyclic MP group. At 12 months, the odds of an increase in mammographic density were 13.1 (95% CI, 2.4 to 73.3) with CEE plus cyclic MPA, 9.0 (CI, 1.6 to 50.1) with CEE plus daily MPA, and 7.2 (CI, 1.3 to 40.0) with CEE plus cyclic micronized progesterone compared with CEE alone. CONCLUSIONS: Further study of the magnitude and meaning of increased mammographic density due to use of estrogen and estrogen-progestins is warranted because mammographic density may be a marker for risk for breast cancer.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In longitudinal studies, greater mammographic density is associated with an increased risk for breast cancer. OBJECTIVE: To assess differences between placebo, estrogen, and three estrogen-progestin regimens on change in mammographic density. DESIGN: Subset analysis of a 3-year, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Seven ambulatory study centers. PARTICIPANTS: 307 of the 875 women in the Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions Trial. Participants had a baseline mammogram and at least one follow-up mammogram available, adhered to treatment, had not taken estrogen for at least 5 years before baseline, and did not have breast implants. INTERVENTION: Treatments were placebo, conjugated equine estrogens (CEE), CEE plus cyclic medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), CEE plus daily MPA, and CEE plus cyclic micronized progesterone (MP). MEASUREMENTS: Change in radiographic density (according to American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System grades) on mammography. RESULTS: Almost all increases in mammographic density occurred within the first year. At 12 months, the percentage of women with density grade increases was 0% (95% CI, 0.0% to 4.6%) in the placebo group, 3.5% (CI, 1.0% to 12.0%) in the CEE group, 23.5% (CI, 11.9% to 35.1%) in the CEE plus cyclic MPA group, 19.4% (CI, 9.9% to 28.9%) in the CEE plus daily MPA group, and 16.4% (CI, 6.6% to 26.2%) in the CEE plus cyclic MP group. At 12 months, the odds of an increase in mammographic density were 13.1 (95% CI, 2.4 to 73.3) with CEE plus cyclic MPA, 9.0 (CI, 1.6 to 50.1) with CEE plus daily MPA, and 7.2 (CI, 1.3 to 40.0) with CEE plus cyclic micronized progesterone compared with CEE alone. CONCLUSIONS: Further study of the magnitude and meaning of increased mammographic density due to use of estrogen and estrogen-progestins is warranted because mammographic density may be a marker for risk for breast cancer.
Authors: Norman F Boyd; Lisa J Martin; Michael Bronskill; Martin J Yaffe; Neb Duric; Salomon Minkin Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-07-08 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Andrea J Cook; Diana S M Buist; Steve R Cummings; Celine Vachon; Pamela Vacek; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-07-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jennifer A Harvey; Richard J Santen; Gina R Petroni; Viktor E Bovbjerg; Mark E Smolkin; Fathima S Sheriff; Jose Russo Journal: Menopause Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Mary Beth Terry; Diana S M Buist; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Tamarra M James-Todd; Yuyan Liao Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Wulf H Utian; David F Archer; Gloria A Bachmann; Christopher Gallagher; Francine n Grodstein; Julia R Heiman; Victor W Henderson; Howard N Hodis; Richard H Karas; Rogerio A Lobo; JoAnn E Manson; Robert L Reid; Peter J Schmidt; Cynthia A Stuenkel Journal: Menopause Date: 2008 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Emily Banks; Gillian Reeves; Valerie Beral; Diana Bull; Barbara Crossley; Moya Simmonds; Elizabeth Hilton; Stephen Bailey; Nigel Barrett; Peter Briers; Ruth English; Alan Jackson; Elizabeth Kutt; Janet Lavelle; Linda Rockall; Matthew G Wallis; Mary Wilson; Julietta Patnick Journal: BMJ Date: 2004-08-28
Authors: Valerie A McCormack; Mitch Dowsett; Elizabeth Folkerd; Nichola Johnson; Claire Palles; Ben Coupland; Jeff M Holly; Sarah J Vinnicombe; Nicholas M Perry; Isabel dos Santos Silva Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2009-06-22 Impact factor: 6.466