ArticleCancer medicine2015
Breast cancer incidence and menopausal hormone therapy in Norway from 2004 to 2009: a register-based cohort study.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is There a Special Role for Ovarian Hormones in the Pathogenesis of Lobular Carcinoma?Endocrinology · 2024Review
- Use of postmenopausal hormone therapies and risk of histology- and hormone receptor-defined breast cancer: results from a 15-year prospective analysis of NIH-AARP cohort.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2020Observational
- Article
- Clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes of invasive lobular carcinoma in different races.Oncotarget · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Norway, the breast cancer incidence increased by 50% in the 1990 s, during a period with initiation of mammography screening as well as a fourfold increase in use of menopausal hormone therapy (HT). After 2002, the HT use has dropped substantially; however, the breast cancer incidence has declined only marginally. How much mammography screening contributed to the breast cancer incidence increase in the 1990 s compared with HT use and specifically different types of HT use, has thus been discussed. Whether HT affects the incidence of subtypes of breast cancer differently has also been questioned. We have linked individual data from several national registries from 2004 to 2009 on 449,717 women aged 50-65 years. 4597 cases of invasive cancer and 681 cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were included in the analysis. We used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratio (HR) as a measure of the relative risk of breast cancer associated with use of HT. The HRs associated with prescriptions of HT for more than 1 year were 2.06 (1.90-2.24) for estrogen and progesterone combinations, 1.03 (0.85-1.25) for systemic estrogens, and 1.23 (1.01-1.51) for tibolone. Invasive lobular carcinoma was more strongly associated with use of estrogen and progesterone combinations, HR = 3.10 (2.51-3.81), than nonlobular carcinoma, HR = 1.94 (1.78-2.12). The corresponding value for DCIS was 1.61 (1.28-2.02). We estimated the population attributable fraction to 8.2%, corresponding to 90 breast cancer cases in 2006 indicating that HT use still caused a major number of breast cancer cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.