ArticleJournal of women's health (2002)2018
Race, Menopausal Hormone Therapy, and Invasive Breast Cancer in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study.
Article in Journal of women's health (2002), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relationship between menopausal hormone therapy and incidence risk of breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Exploring the effects of estrogen deficiency and aging on organismal homeostasis during menopause.Nature aging · 2024Review
- National and Subnational Incidence, Mortality, and Years of Life Lost Due to Breast Cancer in Iran: Trends and Age-Period-Cohort Analysis Since 1990.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Premenopausal gynecologic surgery and survival among black and white women with breast cancer.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the benefit of post-mastectomy radiotherapy in patients with early-stage breast cancer: A propensity score matching study.Oncology letters · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe use of combined estrogen-progestin menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) has been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer, however, recent observational studies have suggested that the association between MHT and breast cancer may be modified by race. The objective of this study was to investigate the association between MHT use and incidence of invasive breast cancer in Black and White women aged ≥40 years at diagnosis after accounting for racial differences in patterns of MHT use and formulation.
methodsData from the Carolina Breast Cancer Study, a population-based case-control study of Black and White women in North Carolina conducted between 1993 and 2001, was used to analyze 1474 invasive breast cancer cases and 1339 controls using unconditional logistic regression.
resultsBlack women were less likely than White women to use any MHT and were more likely to use an unopposed-estrogen formulation. Combined estrogen-progestin MHT use was associated with a greater odds of breast cancer in White (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-2.13) and Black (OR 1.43, 95% CI: 0.76-2.70) women, although the estimate in Black women was imprecise. In contrast, use of unopposed-estrogen MHT among women with prior hysterectomy was not associated with breast cancer in women of either race.
conclusionThe association between MHT and invasive breast cancer appears to be similar in both Black and White women after accounting for differences in formulation and prior hysterectomy. These findings emphasize the importance of accounting for MHT formulation in race-stratified analyses of breast cancer risk.
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.