The influence of time from menopause and mammography on hormone therapy-related breast cancer risk assessment

Risk Models for Breast Cancer and Their Validation

Strategies to prevent cancer and diagnose it early when it is most treatable are needed to reduce the public health burden from rising disease incidence. Risk assessment is playing an increasingly important role in targeting individuals in need of such interventions. For breast cancer many individual risk factors have been well understood for a long time, but the development of a fully comprehensive risk model has not been straightforward, in part because there have been limited data where joint effects of an extensive set of risk factors may be estimated with precision. In this article we first review the approach taken to develop the IBIS (Tyrer-Cuzick) model, and describe recent updates. We then review and develop methods to assess calibration of models such as this one, where the risk of disease allowing for competing mortality over a long follow-up time or lifetime is estimated. The breast cancer risk model model and calibration assessment methods are demonstrated using a cohort of 132,139 women attending mammography screening in the State of Washington, USA.

European Code against Cancer 4th Edition: Medical exposures, including hormone therapy, and cancer

The 4th edition of the European Code against Cancer recommends limiting - or avoiding when possible - the use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) because of the increased risk of cancer, nevertheless acknowledging that prescription of HRT may be indicated under certain medical conditions. Current evidence shows that HRT, generally prescribed as menopausal hormone therapy, is associated with an increased risk of cancers of the breast, endometrium, and ovary, with the risk pattern depending on factors such as the type of therapy (oestrogen-only or combined oestrogen-progestogen), duration of treatment, and initiation according to the time of menopause. Carcinogenicity has also been established for anti-neoplastic agents used in cancer therapy, immunosuppressants, oestrogen-progestogen contraceptives, and tamoxifen. Medical use of ionising radiation, an established carcinogen, can provide major health benefits; however, prudent practices need to be in place, with procedures and techniques providing the needed diagnostic information or therapeutic gain with the lowest possible radiation exposure. For pharmaceutical drugs and medical radiation exposure with convincing evidence on their carcinogenicity, health benefits have to be balanced against the risks; potential increases in long-term cancer risk should be considered in the context of the often substantial and immediate health benefits from diagnosis and/or treatment. Thus, apart from HRT, no general recommendations on reducing cancer risk were given for carcinogenic drugs and medical radiation in the 4th edition of European Code against Cancer. It is crucial that the application of these measures relies on medical expertise and thorough benefit-risk evaluation. This also pertains to cancer-preventive drugs, and self-medication with aspirin or other potential chemopreventive drugs is strongly discouraged because of the possibility of serious, potentially lethal, adverse events.

Menopausal hormone therapy and breast cancer mortality: clinical implications

The Women's Health Initiative (WHI) has conducted two randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials to evaluate the influence of menopausal hormone therapy on chronic disease risk. Estrogen plus progestin was evaluated in 16,608 postmenopausal women without prior hysterectomy during 5.6 years' intervention. In that setting, combined hormone therapy use significantly increased breast cancer incidence and interfered with breast cancer detection. The breast cancers were not limited to estrogen receptor positive, favorable prognosis cancers and were identified at more advanced stage. As a result, deaths from breast cancer were significantly increased by estrogen plus progestin use. While the absolute breast cancer risk for relatively short term (2-4 years) use of combined hormone therapy is small, on a population basis a therapy which nearly doubles deaths from breast cancer requires cautious use. Estrogen alone was evaluated in 10,739 postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy during 7.1 years' intervention. There was an overall reduction of breast cancer incidence seen with estrogen alone use and a suggestion that the effect on risk was more pronounced in women initiating hormone therapy further from menopause. Nonetheless, women with prior hysterectomy can be assured that short duration estrogen alone use for climacteric symptom management is relatively safe. Neither estrogen plus progestin nor estrogen alone should be used for chronic disease risk reduction. The safety of duration of use on chronic disease risk longer than in the WHI clinical trials is not defined.

Menopausal hormone therapy and cancer: changing clinical observations of target site specificity

Menopausal hormone therapy with estrogen plus progestin or estrogen alone (for women with prior hysterectomy) is still used by millions of women for climacteric symptom management throughout the world. Until 2002, hormone therapy influence on cancer risk and other chronic diseases was determined through observational study reports. Since then, results from the Women's Health Initiative randomized, placebo-controlled hormone therapy trials have substantially changed concepts regarding estrogen plus progestin and estrogen alone influence on the most common cancers in postmenopausal women. In these trials, estrogen plus progestin significantly increased breast cancer incidence and deaths from breast cancer, significantly increased deaths from lung cancer, significantly decreased endometrial cancer, and did not have a clinically significant influence on colorectal cancer. In contrast, estrogen alone use in women with prior hysterectomy significantly reduced breast cancer incidence and deaths from breast cancer without significant influence on colorectal cancer or lung cancer. These complex results are discussed in the context of known potential mediating mechanisms of action involved in interaction with steroid hormone receptors.

Effects of screening and systemic adjuvant therapy on ER-specific US breast cancer mortality

BACKGROUND

Molecular characterization of breast cancer allows subtype-directed interventions. Estrogen receptor (ER) is the longest-established molecular marker.

METHODS

We used six established population models with ER-specific input parameters on age-specific incidence, disease natural history, mammography characteristics, and treatment effects to quantify the impact of screening and adjuvant therapy on age-adjusted US breast cancer mortality by ER status from 1975 to 2000. Outcomes included stage-shifts and absolute and relative reductions in mortality; sensitivity analyses evaluated the impact of varying screening frequency or accuracy.

RESULTS

In the year 2000, actual screening and adjuvant treatment reduced breast cancer mortality by a median of 17 per 100000 women (model range = 13-21) and 5 per 100000 women (model range = 3-6) for ER-positive and ER-negative cases, respectively, relative to no screening and no adjuvant treatment. For ER-positive cases, adjuvant treatment made a higher relative contribution to breast cancer mortality reduction than screening, whereas for ER-negative cases the relative contributions were similar for screening and adjuvant treatment. ER-negative cases were less likely to be screen-detected than ER-positive cases (35.1% vs 51.2%), but when screen-detected yielded a greater survival gain (five-year breast cancer survival = 35.6% vs 30.7%). Screening biennially would have captured a lower proportion of mortality reduction than annual screening for ER-negative vs ER-positive cases (model range = 80.2%-87.8% vs 85.7%-96.5%).

CONCLUSION

As advances in risk assessment facilitate identification of women with increased risk of ER-negative breast cancer, additional mortality reductions could be realized through more frequent targeted screening, provided these benefits are balanced against screening harms.

Estrogen plus progestin and breast cancer incidence and mortality in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study

BACKGROUND

In the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) randomized trial, estrogen plus progestin increased both breast cancer incidence and mortality. In contrast, most observational studies associate estrogen plus progestin with favorable prognosis breast cancers. To address differences, a cohort of WHI observational study participants with characteristics similar to the WHI clinical trial was studied.

METHODS

We identified 41 449 postmenopausal women with no prior hysterectomy and mammogram negative within 2 years who were either not hormone users (n = 25 328) or estrogen and progestin users (n = 16 121). Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazard regression was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

After a mean of 11.3 (SD = 3.1) years, with 2236 breast cancers, incidence was higher in estrogen plus progestin users than in nonusers (0.60% vs 0.42%, annualized rate, respectively; HR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.41 to 1.70, P < .001). Women initiating hormone therapy closer to menopause had higher breast cancer risk with linear diminishing influence as time from menopause increased (P < .001). Survival after breast cancer, measured from diagnosis, was similar in combined hormone therapy users and nonusers (HR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.79 to 1.35). On a population basis, there were somewhat more deaths from breast cancer, measured from cohort entry (HR = 1.32, 95% CI = 0.90 to 1.93, P = .15), and more all-cause deaths after breast cancer (HR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.29 to 2.12, P < .001) in estrogen plus progestin users than in nonusers.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with WHI randomized trial findings, estrogen plus progestin use is associated with increased breast cancer incidence. Because prognosis after diagnosis on combined hormone therapy is similar to that of nonusers, increased breast cancer mortality can be expected.

Changing concepts: Menopausal hormone therapy and breast cancer

Hormone therapy is still used by millions of women for menopausal symptoms. Concerns regarding hormone therapy and breast cancer were initially based on case reports and retrospective case-control studies. However, recent results from large prospective cohort studies and the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) randomized placebo-controlled hormone therapy trials have substantially changed concepts regarding how estrogen alone and estrogen plus progestin influence breast cancer. The preponderance of observational studies suggested that estrogen alone and estrogen plus progestin both increased the risk of breast cancer, with cancers commonly diagnosed at an early stage. However, substantially different results emerged from the WHI randomized hormone therapy trials. In the WHI trial evaluating estrogen plus progestin in postmenopausal women with an intact uterus, combined hormone therapy statistically significantly increased the risk of breast cancer and hindered breast cancer detection, leading to delayed diagnosis and a statistically significant increase in breast cancer mortality. By contrast, estrogen alone use by postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy in the WHI trial did not substantially interfere with breast cancer detection and statistically significantly decreased the risk of breast cancer. Differential mammography usage patterns may explain differences between observational study and randomized trial results. In clinical practice, hormone therapy users have mammograms more frequently than nonusers, leading to more and earlier stage cancer detection. By contrast, in the WHI randomized trials, mammogram frequency was protocol mandated and balanced between comparison groups. Currently, the different effects of estrogen plus progestin vs estrogen alone on breast cancer are not completely understood.

Update: Estrogen and Estrogen plus Progestin Therapy in the Care of Women at and after the Menopause

Much new information on menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) has become available since the publication of the first report of the Women's Health Initiative in 2002 and a consensus is now emerging. The risk of breast cancer depends on type of MHT, duration of use, body mass, breast density and interval between menopause and starting MHT. The risk of breast cancer is generally increased by MHT, particularly in lean women with no previous MHT who start estrogen–progestin therapy near the menopause and continue for several years, but there is no increased risk 5 years after stopping MHT. The risks of venous thrombo-embolic disease (VTE), stroke and coronary heart disease (CHD) depend on age on starting MHT, dose, nature and route of administration of MHT. The risk of VTE is increased in women over 60 years of age and in women who are obese or have had a VTE but may not be increased by transdermal estrogens. The risk of stroke is very small in women under 60 years of age and may not be increased by low dose oral and low dose transdermal estrogen, MHT is of benefit in preventing atherosclerosis and CHD in healthy younger postmenopausal women (under the age of 60) but is not of benefit, and may be harmful, in older women with clinical or subclinical atherosclerosis. MHT prevents bone loss and osteoporosis but is not generally recommended in women over 60 because of the risks of VTE, stroke and CHD, and if stopped at 60 years does not prevent fractures in later life. MHT reduces the overall mortality in women under 60. MHT is by far the most effective treatment, and greatly improves the quality of life in women with menopausal symptoms. A simplified approach to MHT is suggested as a framework for the care of women at and after the menopause.

Bigger, better, sooner--scaling up for success

Over the last twenty years, the field of epidemiology has seen a rapidly increasing interest in, and need for, addressing low-level risks, interactions as well as main effects, and simultaneous assessment of vast numbers of biomarkers. Multiple examples over this time have shown the necessity for very large, high-quality individual studies (e.g., biobanks) or consortia of studies for these efforts to be successful. The need for this will continue to increase in the foreseeable future. It will also be important to analyze and publish aggregated data much earlier in the discovery process than typical for past efforts.

Health outcomes after stopping conjugated equine estrogens among postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT

The Women's Health Initiative Estrogen-Alone Trial was stopped early after a mean of 7.1 years of follow-up because of an increased risk of stroke and little likelihood of altering the balance of risk to benefit by the planned trial termination date. Postintervention health outcomes have not been reported.

OBJECTIVE

To examine health outcomes associated with randomization to treatment with conjugated equine estrogens (CEE) among women with prior hysterectomy after a mean of 10.7 years of follow-up through August 2009.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The intervention phase was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial of 0.625 mg/d of CEE compared with placebo in 10,739 US postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years with prior hysterectomy. Follow-up continued after the planned trial completion date among 7645 surviving participants (78%) who provided written consent.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were coronary heart disease (CHD) and invasive breast cancer. A global index of risks and benefits included these primary outcomes plus stroke, pulmonary embolism, colorectal cancer, hip fracture, and death.

RESULTS

The postintervention risk (annualized rate) for CHD among women assigned to CEE was 0.64% compared with 0.67% in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.25), 0.26% vs 0.34%, respectively, for breast cancer (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.51-1.09), and 1.47% vs 1.48%, respectively, for total mortality (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84-1.18). The risk of stroke was no longer elevated during the postintervention follow-up period and was 0.36% among women receiving CEE compared with 0.41% in the placebo group (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.64-1.24), the risk of deep vein thrombosis was lower at 0.17% vs 0.27%, respectively (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.98), and the risk of hip fracture did not differ significantly and was 0.36% vs 0.28%, respectively (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.88-1.82). Over the entire follow-up, lower breast cancer incidence in the CEE group persisted and was 0.27% compared with 0.35% in the placebo group (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.95). Health outcomes were more favorable for younger compared with older women for CHD (P = .05 for interaction), total myocardial infarction (P = .007 for interaction), colorectal cancer (P = .04 for interaction), total mortality (P = .04 for interaction), and global index of chronic diseases (P = .009 for interaction).

CONCLUSIONS

Among postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy followed up for 10.7 years, CEE use for a median of 5.9 years was not associated with an increased or decreased risk of CHD, deep vein thrombosis, stroke, hip fracture, colorectal cancer, or total mortality. A decreased risk of breast cancer persisted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000611.