SynthesisLancet (London, England)2019
Type and timing of menopausal hormone therapy and breast cancer risk: individual participant meta-analysis of the worldwide epidemiological evidence.
Synthesis in Lancet (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07254429 (Copenhagen Menopause Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 267 papers, 14 of them syntheses 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.
Copenhagen Menopause Study (COMPASS): A Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
267 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Relationship between menopausal hormone therapy and incidence risk of breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2026Pooled it
- [Preventive activities in women: PAPPS 2024 update].Atencion primaria · 2024Guideline
- Measuring serum oestrogen levels in breast cancer survivors using vaginal oestrogens: a systematic review.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2024Pooled it
- The association between mammographic density and breast cancer risk in Chinese women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC women's health · 2024Pooled it
- Effects of transdermal versus oral hormone replacement therapy in postmenopause: a systematic review.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2023Pooled it
- Combined and progestagen-only hormonal contraceptives and breast cancer risk: A UK nested case-control study and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Progesterone Receptor Gene Polymorphisms and Breast Cancer Risk.Endocrinology · 2023Pooled it
- Diverging Temporal Trends in Stroke Incidence in Younger vs Older People: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA neurology · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Linking Physical Activity to Breast Cancer via Sex Steroid Hormones, Part 2: The Effect of Sex Steroid Hormones on Breast Cancer Risk.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Occupational exposure to organic solvents and breast cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2022Pooled it
- Risk-Reducing Salpingo-Oophorectomy and the Use of Hormone Replacement Therapy Below the Age of Natural Menopause: Scientific Impact Paper No. 66 October 2021: Scientific Impact Paper No. 66.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2022Guideline
- Mammographic density, endocrine therapy and breast cancer risk: a prognostic and predictive biomarker review.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Menopausal hormone therapy and women's health: An umbrella review.PLoS medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- Trial
- The influence of virtual reality on anxiety and pain in breast cancer patients: A systematic review.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026Review
- Age at First Pregnancy, Adult Weight Gain and Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Risk: The PROCAS Study (United Kingdom).International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- [Interpretation of 2024 United Kingdom National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) Clinical Guidelines: Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026Article
- CenSegNet: a generalist high-throughput deep learning framework for centrosome phenotyping at spatial and single-cell resolution in heterogeneous tissues.Nature communications · 2026Article
207 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPublished findings on breast cancer risk associated with different types of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) are inconsistent, with limited information on long-term effects. We bring together the epidemiological evidence, published and unpublished, on these associations, and review the relevant randomised evidence.
methodsPrincipal analyses used individual participant data from all eligible prospective studies that had sought information on the type and timing of MHT use; the main analyses are of individuals with complete information on this. Studies were identified by searching many formal and informal sources regularly from Jan 1, 1992, to Jan 1, 2018. Current users were included up to 5 years (mean 1·4 years) after last-reported MHT use. Logistic regression yielded adjusted risk ratios (RRs) comparing particular groups of MHT users versus never users.
findingsDuring prospective follow-up, 108 647 postmenopausal women developed breast cancer at mean age 65 years (SD 7); 55 575 (51%) had used MHT. Among women with complete information, mean MHT duration was 10 years (SD 6) in current users and 7 years (SD 6) in past users, and mean age was 50 years (SD 5) at menopause and 50 years (SD 6) at starting MHT. Every MHT type, except vaginal oestrogens, was associated with excess breast cancer risks, which increased steadily with duration of use and were greater for oestrogen-progestagen than oestrogen-only preparations. Among current users, these excess risks were definite even during years 1-4 (oestrogen-progestagen RR 1·60, 95% CI 1·52-1·69; oestrogen-only RR 1·17, 1·10-1·26), and were twice as great during years 5-14 (oestrogen-progestagen RR 2·08, 2·02-2·15; oestrogen-only RR 1·33, 1·28-1·37). The oestrogen-progestagen risks during years 5-14 were greater with daily than with less frequent progestagen use (RR 2·30, 2·21-2·40 vs 1·93, 1·84-2·01; heterogeneity p<0·0001). For a given preparation, the RRs during years 5-14 of current use were much greater for oestrogen-receptor-positive tumours than for oestrogen-receptor-negative tumours, were similar for women starting MHT at ages 40-44, 45-49, 50-54, and 55-59 years, and were attenuated by starting after age 60 years or by adiposity (with little risk from oestrogen-only MHT in women who were obese). After ceasing MHT, some excess risk persisted for more than 10 years; its magnitude depended on the duration of previous use, with little excess following less than 1 year of MHT use.
interpretationIf these associations are largely causal, then for women of average weight in developed countries, 5 years of MHT, starting at age 50 years, would increase breast cancer incidence at ages 50-69 years by about one in every 50 users of oestrogen plus daily progestagen preparations; one in every 70 users of oestrogen plus intermittent progestagen preparations; and one in every 200 users of oestrogen-only preparations. The corresponding excesses from 10 years of MHT would be about twice as great.
fundingCancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council.
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.