Literature DB >> 20232395

Menopausal hormone therapy and breast cancer risk: impact of different treatments. The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition.

Kjersti Bakken1, Agnès Fournier, Eiliv Lund, Marit Waaseth, Vanessa Dumeaux, Françoise Clavel-Chapelon, Alban Fabre, Bertrand Hémon, Sabina Rinaldi, Véronique Chajes, Nadia Slimani, Naomi E Allen, Gillian K Reeves, Sheila Bingham, Kay-Tee Khaw, Anja Olsen, Anne Tjønneland, Laudina Rodriguez, Maria-José Sánchez, Pilar Amiano Etxezarreta, Eva Ardanaz, Maria-José Tormo, Petra H Peeters, Carla H van Gils, Annika Steffen, Mandy Schulz, Jenny Chang-Claude, Rudolf Kaaks, Rosario Tumino, Valentina Gallo, Teresa Norat, Elio Riboli, Salvatore Panico, Giovanna Masala, Carlos A González, Franco Berrino.   

Abstract

Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is characterized by use of different constituents, regimens and routes of administration. We investigated the association between the use of different types of MHT and breast cancer risk in the EPIC cohort study. The analysis is based on data from 133,744 postmenopausal women. Approximately 133,744 postmenopausal women contributed to this analysis. Information on MHT was derived from country-specific self-administered questionnaires with a single baseline assessment. Incident breast cancers were identified through population cancer registries or by active follow-up (mean: 8.6 yr). Overall relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were derived from country-specific Cox proportional hazard models estimates. A total of 4312 primary breast cancers were diagnosed during 1,153,747 person-years of follow-up. Compared with MHT never users, breast cancer risk was higher among current users of estrogen only (RR: 1.42, 95% CI 1.23-1.64) and higher still among current users of combined MHT (RR: 1.77, 95% CI 1.40-2.24; p = 0.02 for combined vs. estrogen-only). Continuous combined regimens conferred a 43% (95% CI: 19-72%) greater risk compared with sequential regimens. There was no significant difference between progesterone and testosterone derivatives in sequential regimens. There was no significant variation in risk linked to the estrogenic component of MHT, neither for oral vs. cutaneous administration nor for estradiol compounds vs. conjugated equine estrogens. Estrogen-only and combined MHT uses were associated with increased breast cancer risk. Continuous combined preparations were associated with the highest risk. Further studies are needed to disentangle the effects of the regimen and the progestin component.
Copyright © 2010 UICC.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 20232395     DOI: 10.1002/ijc.25314

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  32 in total

1.  AGO Recommendations for Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Primary and Metastatic Breast Cancer. Update 2011.

Authors:  Christoph Thomssen; Anton Scharl; Nadia Harbeck
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2011-08-30       Impact factor: 2.860

Review 2.  Body mass index and breast cancer risk according to postmenopausal estrogen-progestin use and hormone receptor status.

Authors:  Mark F Munsell; Brian L Sprague; Donald A Berry; Gary Chisholm; Amy Trentham-Dietz
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 6.222

Review 3.  Changing concepts: Menopausal hormone therapy and breast cancer.

Authors:  Rowan T Chlebowski; Garnet L Anderson
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2012-03-16       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Cancer incidence attributable to alcohol consumption in Alberta in 2012.

Authors:  Anne Grundy; Abbey E Poirier; Farah Khandwala; Alison McFadden; Christine M Friedenreich; Darren R Brenner
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2016-09-21

5.  Estrogen alone and health outcomes in black women by African ancestry: a secondary analyses of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Rowan T Chlebowski; Wendy Barrington; Aaron K Aragaki; JoAnn E Manson; Gloria Sarto; Mary J OʼSullivan; Daniel Wu; Jane A Cauley; Lihong Qi; Robert L Wallace; Ross L Prentice
Journal:  Menopause       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 2.953

6.  Comparison of clinical outcomes among users of oral and transdermal estrogen therapy in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study.

Authors:  Carolyn J Crandall; Kathleen M Hovey; Christopher Andrews; Jane A Cauley; Marcia Stefanick; Chrisandra Shufelt; Ross L Prentice; Andrew M Kaunitz; Charles Eaton; Jean Wactawski-Wende; JoAnn E Manson
Journal:  Menopause       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 2.953

7.  Altered AIB1 or AIB1Δ3 expression impacts ERα effects on mammary gland stromal and epithelial content.

Authors:  Rebecca E Nakles; Maddalena Tilli Shiffert; Edgar S Díaz-Cruz; M Carla Cabrera; Maram Alotaiby; Anne M Miermont; Anna T Riegel; Priscilla A Furth
Journal:  Mol Endocrinol       Date:  2011-02-03

Review 8.  Breast cancer epidemic in the early twenty-first century: evaluation of risk factors, cumulative questionnaires and recommendations for preventive measures.

Authors:  Olga Golubnitschaja; Manuel Debald; Kristina Yeghiazaryan; Walther Kuhn; Martin Pešta; Vincenzo Costigliola; Godfrey Grech
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2016-07-22

9.  Effects of the conjugated equine estrogen/bazedoxifene tissue-selective estrogen complex (TSEC) on mammary gland and breast cancer in mice.

Authors:  Yan Song; Richard J Santen; Ji-ping Wang; Wei Yue
Journal:  Endocrinology       Date:  2012-10-15       Impact factor: 4.736

10.  From empirical to mechanism-based discovery of clinically useful Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERMs).

Authors:  Suzanne E Wardell; Erik R Nelson; Donald P McDonnell
Journal:  Steroids       Date:  2014-07-30       Impact factor: 2.668

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.