4.6 Article

Conjugated equine estrogens and breast cancer risk in the women's health initiative clinical trial and observational study

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 167, Issue 12, Pages 1407-1415

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwn090

Keywords

breast neoplasms; clinical trial; cohort studies; estrogens; hormone replacement therapy; postmenopause

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA53996, P01 CA053996] Funding Source: Medline
  2. WHI NIH HHS [N01 WH022110-024] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial found a trend (p = 0.09) toward a lower breast cancer risk among women assigned to daily 0.625-mg conjugated equine estrogens (CEEs) compared with placebo, in contrast to an observational literature that mostly reports a moderate increase in risk with estrogen-alone preparations. In 1993-2004 at 40 US clinical centers, breast cancer hazard ratio estimates for this CEE regimen were compared between the Women's Health Initiative clinical trial and observational study toward understanding this apparent discrepancy and refining hazard ratio estimates. After control for prior use of postmenopausal hormone therapy and for confounding factors, CEE hazard ratio estimates were higher from the observational study compared with the clinical trial by 43% (p = 0.12). However, after additional control for time from menopause to first use of postmenopausal hormone therapy, the hazard ratios agreed closely between the two cohorts (p = 0.82). For women who begin use soon after menopause, combined analyses of clinical trial and observational study data do not provide clear evidence of either an overall reduction or an increase in breast cancer risk with CEEs, although hazard ratios appeared to be relatively higher among women having certain breast cancer risk factors or a low body mass index.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available