Nathan L DeBono1, Whitney R Robinson1,2,3, Jennifer L Lund1, Chiu Kit Tse1, Patricia G Moorman4, Andrew F Olshan1,2, Melissa A Troester1,2. 1. 1 Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 2. 2 Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 3. 3 Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 4. 4 Department of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University Medical Center , Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The use of combined estrogen-progestin menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) has been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer, however, recent observational studies have suggested that the association between MHT and breast cancer may be modified by race. The objective of this study was to investigate the association between MHT use and incidence of invasive breast cancer in Black and White women aged ≥40 years at diagnosis after accounting for racial differences in patterns of MHT use and formulation. METHODS: Data from the Carolina Breast Cancer Study, a population-based case-control study of Black and White women in North Carolina conducted between 1993 and 2001, was used to analyze 1474 invasive breast cancer cases and 1339 controls using unconditional logistic regression. RESULTS: Black women were less likely than White women to use any MHT and were more likely to use an unopposed-estrogen formulation. Combined estrogen-progestin MHT use was associated with a greater odds of breast cancer in White (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-2.13) and Black (OR 1.43, 95% CI: 0.76-2.70) women, although the estimate in Black women was imprecise. In contrast, use of unopposed-estrogen MHT among women with prior hysterectomy was not associated with breast cancer in women of either race. CONCLUSION: The association between MHT and invasive breast cancer appears to be similar in both Black and White women after accounting for differences in formulation and prior hysterectomy. These findings emphasize the importance of accounting for MHT formulation in race-stratified analyses of breast cancer risk.
PURPOSE: The use of combined estrogen-progestin menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) has been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer, however, recent observational studies have suggested that the association between MHT and breast cancer may be modified by race. The objective of this study was to investigate the association between MHT use and incidence of invasive breast cancer in Black and White women aged ≥40 years at diagnosis after accounting for racial differences in patterns of MHT use and formulation. METHODS: Data from the Carolina Breast Cancer Study, a population-based case-control study of Black and White women in North Carolina conducted between 1993 and 2001, was used to analyze 1474 invasive breast cancer cases and 1339 controls using unconditional logistic regression. RESULTS: Black women were less likely than White women to use any MHT and were more likely to use an unopposed-estrogen formulation. Combined estrogen-progestin MHT use was associated with a greater odds of breast cancer in White (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-2.13) and Black (OR 1.43, 95% CI: 0.76-2.70) women, although the estimate in Black women was imprecise. In contrast, use of unopposed-estrogen MHT among women with prior hysterectomy was not associated with breast cancer in women of either race. CONCLUSION: The association between MHT and invasive breast cancer appears to be similar in both Black and White women after accounting for differences in formulation and prior hysterectomy. These findings emphasize the importance of accounting for MHT formulation in race-stratified analyses of breast cancer risk.
Entities:
Keywords:
African American; breast cancer; hormone therapy; hysterectomy; menopause
Authors: Vanessa L Jacoby; Victor Y Fujimoto; Linda C Giudice; Miriam Kuppermann; A Eugene Washington Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-04-28 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Christopher I Li; Kathleen E Malone; Peggy L Porter; Noel S Weiss; Mei-Tzu C Tang; Kara L Cushing-Haugen; Janet R Daling Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-06-25 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Peter M Ravdin; Kathleen A Cronin; Nadia Howlader; Christine D Berg; Rowan T Chlebowski; Eric J Feuer; Brenda K Edwards; Donald A Berry Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-04-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ross L Prentice; Joann E Manson; Robert D Langer; Garnet L Anderson; Mary Pettinger; Rebecca D Jackson; Karen C Johnson; Lewis H Kuller; Dorothy S Lane; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Robert Brzyski; Matthew Allison; Judith Ockene; Gloria Sarto; Jacques E Rossouw Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2009-05-25 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Mya L Roberson; Hazel B Nichols; Andrew F Olshan; Melissa A Troester; Whitney R Robinson Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 2.506