BACKGROUND: We previously reported that breast cancer patients who used hormone replacement therapy (HRT) had significantly lower stage tumors and higher survival than never-users. We present an update with longer follow-up, HRT use data, and in vitro research. METHODS: Our database of 292 postmenopausal breast cancer patients was updated to include HRT type, duration, and disease status. In vitro effects of estrogen (E) and/or medroxyprogesterone (MPA) on breast cancer cell growth were measured. RESULTS: Tumor prognostic factors were better and survival rates higher for both E and combination HRT users of any duration. Use greater than 10 years correlated with node-negative disease, mammographically detected tumors, and 100% survival. E supported minimal proliferation; MPA induced cell death; E+MPA results were similar to E alone. CONCLUSIONS: HRT users, regardless of type or duration of HRT use, continued to have higher survival rates. In vitro results supported the clinical finding that outcomes for users of E and E+MPA were similar.
BACKGROUND: We previously reported that breast cancerpatients who used hormone replacement therapy (HRT) had significantly lower stage tumors and higher survival than never-users. We present an update with longer follow-up, HRT use data, and in vitro research. METHODS: Our database of 292 postmenopausal breast cancerpatients was updated to include HRT type, duration, and disease status. In vitro effects of estrogen (E) and/or medroxyprogesterone (MPA) on breast cancer cell growth were measured. RESULTS: Tumor prognostic factors were better and survival rates higher for both E and combination HRT users of any duration. Use greater than 10 years correlated with node-negative disease, mammographically detected tumors, and 100% survival. E supported minimal proliferation; MPA induced cell death; E+MPA results were similar to E alone. CONCLUSIONS: HRT users, regardless of type or duration of HRT use, continued to have higher survival rates. In vitro results supported the clinical finding that outcomes for users of E and E+MPA were similar.
Authors: Kerryn W Reding; David R Doody; Anne McTiernan; Li Hsu; Scott Davis; Janet R Daling; Peggy L Porter; Kathleen E Malone Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-09-29 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Mary Panjari; Robin Bell; Marijana Lijovic; Maria La China; Max Schwarz; Pamela Fradkin; Jo Bradbury; Helen Farrugia; Susan R Davis Journal: Horm Cancer Date: 2010-03-09 Impact factor: 3.869
Authors: Rowan T Chlebowski; JoAnn E Manson; Garnet L Anderson; Jane A Cauley; Aaron K Aragaki; Marcia L Stefanick; Dorothy S Lane; Karen C Johnson; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Chu Chen; Lihong Qi; Shagufta Yasmeen; Polly A Newcomb; Ross L Prentice Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-03-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Rowan T Chlebowski; Garnet L Anderson; Margery Gass; Dorothy S Lane; Aaron K Aragaki; Lewis H Kuller; JoAnn E Manson; Marcia L Stefanick; Judith Ockene; Gloria E Sarto; Karen C Johnson; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Peter M Ravdin; Robert Schenken; Susan L Hendrix; Aleksandar Rajkovic; Thomas E Rohan; Shagufta Yasmeen; Ross L Prentice Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-10-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Rainer Fagerholm; Maria Faltinova; Kirsi Aaltonen; Kristiina Aittomäki; Päivi Heikkilä; Mervi Halttunen-Nieminen; Heli Nevanlinna; Carl Blomqvist Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Amy L Shafrir; Ana Babic; Rulla M Tamimi; Bernard A Rosner; Shelley S Tworoger; Kathryn L Terry Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2016-10-04 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Santiago Palacios; John C Stevenson; Katrin Schaudig; Monika Lukasiewicz; Alessandra Graziottin Journal: Womens Health (Lond) Date: 2019 Jan-Dec