Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Studies must determine the evidence
EDITOR A recent overview by Bush et al emphasises the weakness of Dixon's
argument, based, as it is, almost entirely on level three observational
studies.2 Unlike Dixon's selection of studies with the
highest odds ratio, Bush et al's review was of 45 studies assessing
the association between use of hormone replacement therapy and risk of
breast cancer. It found that risk was reduced (relative risk<0.9) in
20% of the studies, did not change in 47% (0.9-1.1), and increased in
33% (1.1-2.0). In no study did relative risk increase above 2.0, and
in the 20 studies where the relation between risk of breast cancer and
combined oestrogen and progestin therapy was studied only four reported
a significant difference in relative risk, with two showing an
increased and two a decreased risk.
The heterogeneity of these data is in stark contrast to the homogeneity
of the data on mortality from breast cancer in users of hormone
replacement therapy that were reviewed: all 11 of the studies reported
a reduction in risk. Unlike Dixon, the authors concluded that the
likelihood of an adverse effect of hormone replacement therapy on
breast cancer must be small.
The Australasian Menopause Society is a sponsor of the women's
international study of long duration oestrogen use after the menopause
(the WISDOM trial), a large prospective 15 year randomised placebo
controlled trial. The results of this trial, together with those of the
women's health initiative in the United States, will be needed to
answer the question of whether hormone replacement therapy has any
effect (beneficial or adverse) on breast cancer.
Until then strong opinions will continue to be held about hormone
replacement therapy and its relation to risk of breast cancer, often
derived from selective quoting of the available literature. These
opinions heighten the anxiety of women who have valid reasons for
taking hormone replacement therapy and do not afford them the
opportunity of informed choice.
As active members of the Australasian Menopause Society, we are
disappointed at the conclusions that Dixon drew in his editorial on
hormone replacement therapy and the breast.1 Although it
may be true that hormone replacement therapy makes mammograms harder to
interpret, it is far from clear that it causes breast cancer.
Women's and Children's Hospital, University of Adelaide,
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Beverley Lawton
WISDOM New Zealand, Wellington School of Medicine and Health
Sciences, University of Otago, New Zealand
Rodney J Baber
University of Sydney, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney 2065, New South Wales, Australia rbaber{at}mail.usyd.edu.au
Competing interests: AHM is editor in chief of Climacteric, the journal of the International Menopause Society. He has received research grants to conduct phase 1 and phase 3 trials of various products for managing the menopause and its sequelae and is the principal investigator of WISDOM, Australia. BL is involved in three clinical trials of hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women and receives funding from the Medical Research Council in the United Kingdom for the WISDOM trial. RJB has received research grants to conduct phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials on the effects of various types of hormone replacement therapy, selective oestrogen receptor modulators, and phytoestrogens in postmenopausal women. The WISDOM trial in Australia is sponsored by the UK Medical Research Council, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Heart Foundation, South Australian Anti Cancer Foundation, Australasian Menopause Society, and Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
| 1. |
Dixon JM.
Hormone replacement therapy and the breast.
BMJ
2001;
323:
1381-1382 |
| 2. |
Bush TL, Whiteman M, Flaws JA.
Hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer: a qualitative review.
Obstet Gynecol
2001;
98:
498-508 |
Women still want to have hormone replacement therapy
EDITOR Frightening women off hormone replacement therapy could have many
unpredicted consequences. The lifetime risk for women of dying of
breast cancer is only 1 in 26, with between three and 10 times that
risk of dying from heart disease, depending on whether they are smokers
or non-smokers.2 For all we know, hormone replacement
therapy could protect more women from death due to cardiovascular
disease and osteoporotic fractures than the worst estimates for the
increased incidence of breast cancer. Furthermore, as Dixon concedes,
many of these cancers in women receiving hormone replacement therapy
are of a favourable phenotype. It is therefore altogether perverse to
criticise hormone replacement therapy for making screening mammograms uninterpretable.
Surely, given an informed choice, most women would be glad of the
excuse to opt out of the national screening programme, which is of
questionable value,3 in favour of an intervention that improves short term and long term quality of life. Of course many women
taking hormone replacement therapy have mastalgia and nodularity, but
most of my patients are happy to live with this in exchange for the
sense of wellbeing that they get from taking the therapy. Hormone
replacement therapy also improves skin elasticity, mood, sexuality, and
cognitive function.4
Are we really asking women to give all this up so as to make the life
of our screening radiologists more comfortable?
Author's reply
EDITOR This review took no account of the quality of studies included,
it did not consider type of hormone replacement therapy used, its mode
of delivery, or the age at which women started taking it. Figure 2 in
their publication did, however, confirm that four of the five most
recently published studies have shown an excess risk of breast cancer
for combined regimens in postmenopausal women. Bush et al doubt whether
oestrogen is important in breast cancer development and propose that
some additional, as yet unidentified, factor is secreted from the ovary.
New data from over 9300 women with early breast cancer randomised to
receive five years of treatment with adjuvant tamoxifen alone,
anastrozole alone, or tamoxifen and anastrozole combined were presented
last year by Baum. They show that after 33 months, there were five new
invasive contralateral breast cancers in the 3112 patients taking
anastrozole compared with 30 in 3116 women receiving tamoxifen and 23 in 3125 in the combination arm It was not my intention to try to frighten women off taking
hormone replacement therapy. The US Food and Drug Administration removed the treatment of osteoporosis as an indication for oestrogen replacement therapy in 1999 because of lack of evidence from randomised trials. There are new specific and better drugs for this
condition.2 "Hormone replacement therapy should not be
prescribed for the express purpose of preventing cardiovascular
disease."3 In the heart and oestrogen/progestin
replacement study women over 65 taking hormone replacement therapy had
worsening urinary incontinence and an increased risk of fatal
stroke.4
Baum is inconsistent. He believes that women should be provided with
all available data on screening so that they can make an informed
choice yet he would deny them all available information on hormone
replacement therapy. There is no doubt that oestrogen significantly
improves the quality of many women's lives. The challenge for women
and their clinicians remains to control menopausal symptoms and to
deliver the benefits of oestrogen while minimizing the problems that
continue to be reported with these preparations.
4 5
Competing interests: None declared.
I was dismayed to read Dixon's editorial about hormone
replacement therapy and its effect on the breast1 and have been provoked to respond by the anguished cries for help by both patients and colleagues. Dixon, in the words of Bernard Levin, has
become a single issue fanatic. There's more to women's health concerns than breast cancer.
University College London, CRC/UCL Cancer Trials Centre,
London NW1 2ND m.baum{at}ctc.ucl.ac.uk
1.
Dixon JM.
Hormone replacement therapy and the breast.
BMJ
2001;
323:
1281-1282. (15 December.)
2.
Bunker JP, Houghton J, Baum M.
Putting the risk of breast cancer in perspective.
BMJ
1998;
317:
1307-1309 3.
Olsen O, Gotzsche PC.
Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography.
Lancet
2001;
358:
1340-1342[CrossRef][ISI][Medline].
4.
McEwen B, Alves S, Bulloch K, Weiland N.
Ovarian steroids and the brain: implication for cognition and ageing.
Neurology
1997;
48 (suppl 7):
S8-15[Abstract].
Truth or tact? You have to choose, most
times they are not compatible
Eddie Cantor
The recent qualitative review by Bush et al is the basis
of the objections of Baber et al to the conclusions I drew on the
effects of hormone replacement therapy on the breast of postmenopausal
women.1
a significant reduction in
contralateral breast cancers with anastrozole compared with tamoxifen
(hazard ratio 0.42 (0.22-0.79), P=0.0054). These data explode the myth
of an unknown factor proposed by Bush et al and confirm the importance
of oestrogen in the development of breast cancer.
J M Dixon
Academic Office, Edinburgh Breast Unit, Western General
Hospital, Edinburgh EH4 2XU jmd{at}wght.demon.co.uk
1.
Bush TL, Whiteman M, Flaws JA.
Hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer: a qualitative review.
Obstet Gynecol
2001;
98:
498-508.
2.
Reid IR, Brown JP, Burckhardt P, Horowitz Z, Richardson P, Trechsel U, et al.
Intravenous zolendronic acid in postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density.
N Engl J Med
2002;
346:
653-661 3.
Manson JE, Martin KA.
Hormone replacement therapy.
N Engl J Med
2002;
346:
65 4.
Grady D, Brown JS, Vittinghhoff E, Applegate W, Varner E, Snyder E.
Postmenopausal hormones and incontinence: the Heart and Estrogen/Progestin Replacement Study.
Obstet Gynecol
2001;
97:
116-120 5.
Chen C-L, Weiss NS, Newcomb P, Barlow W, White E.
Hormone replacement therapy in relation to breast cancer.
JAMA
2002;
287:
734-741
© BMJ 2002
Read all Rapid Responses