Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26181174›Full record

Trial reportJAMA oncology2015

Breast Cancer After Use of Estrogen Plus Progestin and Estrogen Alone: Analyses of Data From 2 Women's Health Initiative Randomized Clinical Trials.

Rowan T Chlebowski, Thomas E Rohan, JoAnn E Manson, Aaron K Aragaki, Andrew Kaunitz, Marcia L Stefanick, Michael S Simon, Karen C Johnson, Jean Wactawski-Wende, Mary J O'Sullivan and 4 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 98 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
98citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

98 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Genetic architecture of mammographic density as a risk factor for breast cancer: a systematic review.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Hormone replacement therapy after surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Survivorship, Version 2.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2017
    Guideline
  7. Pooled it
  8. Long-term hormone therapy for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Menopausal hormone therapy in Türkiye: physician knowledge and practice gaps.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026
    Article
  15. Epidemiology, early detection, and management of breast cancer in China: A comprehensive review.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Estrogens and breast cancer.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2025
    Review

38 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Rowan T ChlebowskiLos Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California.
Thomas E RohanDepartment of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York.
JoAnn E MansonBrigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Aaron K AragakiFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Public Health Sciences, Seattle, Washington.
Andrew KaunitzDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville, Jacksonville.
Marcia L StefanickStanford Prevention Research Center, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.
Michael S SimonKarmanos Cancer Institute, Department of Oncology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan.
Karen C JohnsonDepartment of Preventive Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis.
Jean Wactawski-WendeDepartment of Social and Preventive Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo.
Mary J O'SullivanObstetrics/Gynecology, University of Miami Health System Miami, Florida.
Lucile L Adams-CampbellGeorgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC.
Rami NassirDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Medicine, University of California, Davis.
Lawrence S LessinHematology and Medical Oncology, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC.
Ross L PrenticeFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Public Health Sciences, Seattle, Washington.

Funding

Tumor Biology and Microenvironment (Program 1)P30CA022453 · NCI · WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Julie Lynn Boerner · 1985 to 2026
$68.4M
VANGUARD CENTER FOR WOMEN'S HEALTH INITIATIVEN01WH032111 · WH · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI WATTS, NELSON · 1993 to 2001
$1.6M
WOMENS HEALTH INITIATIVE-N01WH22110N01WH022110 · WH · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI ROSS, PRENTICE · 1992 to 2006
$1.2M
VANGUARD CENTER FOR WOMEN'S HEALTH INITIATIVEN01WH032105 · WH · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI OBERMAN, ALBERT · 1993 to 2000
$1.2M
VANGUARD CENTER FOR WOMENS HEALTH INITIATIVEN01WH032108 · WH · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY · PI GREENLAND, PHILIP · 1993 to 2000
$919k
CLIN CTR CLIN TRIAL/OBSERVATIONAL STUDY OF WHIN01WH042129 · WH · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI LIMACHER, MARIAN C. · 1994 to 2000
$868k
CLIN CTR CLIN TRIAL/OBSERVATIONAL STUDY OF WHIN01WH042107 · WH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE · PI HUBBELL, F ALLAN · 1994 to 2000
$348k
VANGUARD CENTER FOR WOMEN'S HEALTH INITIATIVEN01WH032115 · WH · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI BASSFORD, TAMSEN E · 1993 to 2000
$196k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA022453PHS HHS 24152PHS HHS 32100-2PHS HHS 32105-6PHS HHS 32108-9PHS HHS 32111-13PHS HHS 32115PHS HHS 32118-32119PHS HHS 32122PHS HHS 42107-26PHS HHS 42129-32PHS HHS 44221WHI NIH HHS N01 WH022110
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceThe use of menopausal hormone therapy (HT) continues in clinical practice, but reports are conflicting concerning the longer-term breast cancer effects of relatively short-term use.

objectiveTo report the longer-term influence of menopausal HT on breast cancer incidence in the 2 Women's Health Initiative (WHI) randomized clinical trials. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsA total of 27,347 postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years were enrolled at 40 US centers from 1993 to 1998 and followed up for a median of 13 years through September 2010.

interventionsA total of 16,608 women with a uterus were randomized to conjugated equine estrogens (0.625 mg/d [estrogen]) plus medroxyprogesterone acetate (2.5 mg/d [progestin]) (E + P) or placebo with a median intervention duration of 5.6 years, and 10,739 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to conjugated equine estrogens alone (0.625 mg/d) or placebo with a median intervention duration of 7.2 years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Time-specific invasive breast cancer incidence rates and exploratory analyses of breast cancer characteristics by intervention and postintervention phases in the 2 HT trials.

resultsIn the E + P trial, hazard ratios (HRs) for the influence of combined HT on breast cancer were lower than 1 for 2 years (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.47-1.08) and steadily increased throughout intervention, becoming significantly increased for the entire intervention phase (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.01-1.53). In the early postintervention phase (within 2.75 years from intervention), there was a sharp decrease in breast cancer incidence in the combined HT group, though the HR remained higher than 1 (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.90-1.70). During the late postintervention phase (requiring patient re-consent), the HR for breast cancer risk remained higher than 1 through 5.5 years (median) of additional follow-up (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.06-1.77). In the estrogen alone trial, the HR for invasive breast cancer risk was lower than 1 throughout the intervention phase (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61-1.02) and remained lower than 1 in the early postintervention phase (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.34-0.89), but risk reduction was not observed during the late postintervention follow-up (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.73-1.87). Characteristics of breast cancers diagnosed during early and late postintervention phases differed in both trials. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In the E + P trial, the higher breast cancer risk seen during intervention was followed by a substantial drop in risk in the early postintervention phase, but a higher breast cancer risk remained during the late postintervention follow-up. In the estrogen alone trial, the lower breast cancer risk seen during intervention was sustained in the early postintervention phase but was not evident during the late postintervention follow-up.

Indexed as

AgedBreast NeoplasmsDrug CombinationsEstrogen Replacement TherapyEstrogens, Conjugated (USP)FemaleHumansIncidenceLinear ModelsMedroxyprogesterone AcetateMiddle AgedPostmenopauseProportional Hazards ModelsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTime FactorsDrug CombinationsEstrogens, Conjugated (USP)Medroxyprogesterone AcetatePrempro

Identifiers

PMID26181174
PMCPMC6871651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.