Observational studyInternational journal of cancer2019
Estrogen metabolism in menopausal hormone users in the women's health initiative observational study: Does it differ between estrogen plus progestin and estrogen alone?
Observational study in International journal of cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of serum cortisol and cortisone levels and risk of recurrence after endocrine treatment in breast cancer.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2023Article
- Effect of Interaction between 17β-Estradiol, 2-Methoxyestradiol and 16α-Hydroxyestrone with Chromium (VI) on Ovary Cancer Line SKOV-3: Preliminary Study.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Circulating estrogens and postmenopausal ovarian and endometrial cancer risk among current hormone users in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The WHI found an unexpected reduced breast cancer risk in women using CEE alone. We hypothesized CEE alone induces estrogen hydroxylation along the 2-pathway rather than the competing 16-pathway, a pattern linked to reduced postmenopausal breast cancer risk. One thousand eight hundred and sixty-four women in a WHIOS case-control study of estrogen metabolism and ovarian and endometrial cancer were studied of whom 609 were current E + P users (351 used CEE + MPA), while 272 used E alone (162 used CEE). Fifteen EM were measured, and analyses were conducted for each metabolite, hydroxylation pathway (2-, 4-, or 16-pathway) and ratios of pathway concentrations using inverse probability weighted linear regression. Compared to E + P users, all EM were higher in E alone users (significant for unconjugated estrone, total/conjugated estradiol, total/unconjugated 2-methoxyestrone, 4-methoxyestrone and unconjugated estriol). The relative concentrations of 2- and 4-pathway EM did not differ between the MHT users (2-pathway EM comprised 15% and 4-pathway EM <2% of the total), but 16-pathway EM were lower in E alone users (p = 0.036). Ratios of 2- and 4-pathway EM compared to 16-pathway EM were significantly higher in E alone compared to E + P users. Similar but not significant patterns were observed in CEE-alone and CEE + MPA users. Our data suggest that compared to E + P users, women using E alone have more extensive metabolism via the 2- vs. the competing 16-pathway. This is consistent with epidemiologic evidence of reduced postmenopausal breast cancer risk associated with this metabolic profile and may provide a clue to the breast cancer risk reduction in CEE alone users during the WHI.
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.