Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31512725›Full record

ReviewEndocrine reviews2020

Progesterone and Breast Cancer.

Britton Trabert, Mark E Sherman, Nagarajan Kannan, Frank Z Stanczyk

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Endocrine reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 120 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
120citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
16.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

120 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 265 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Study of Estrogen Receptor Alpha Gene Polymorphisms (International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Dienogest use and the risk of breast and gynecologic cancers: A nationwide population-based study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Britton TrabertDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland.
Mark E ShermanHealth Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida.
Nagarajan KannanLaboratory of Stem Cell and Cancer Biology, Division of Experimental Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Frank Z StanczykDepartments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
Mayo Clinic · USMayo Clinic in Florida · USNational Cancer Institute · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

The Role of CHFR in Tumorigenesis and Paclitaxel-Sensitivity in Breast CancerP50CA116201 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Fergus Joseph Couch · 2005 to 2026
$49.9M
Therapeutic and Diagnostic Factors as Related to Cancer RiskZIACP010128 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI GIERACH, GRETCHEN · 2009 to 2025
$8.1M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA116201
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Synthetic progestogens (progestins) have been linked to increased breast cancer risk; however, the role of endogenous progesterone in breast physiology and carcinogenesis is less clearly defined. Mechanistic studies using cell culture, tissue culture, and preclinical models implicate progesterone in breast carcinogenesis. In contrast, limited epidemiologic data generally do not show an association of circulating progesterone levels with risk, and it is unclear whether this reflects methodologic limitations or a truly null relationship. Challenges related to defining the role of progesterone in breast physiology and neoplasia include: complex interactions with estrogens and other hormones (eg, androgens, prolactin, etc.), accounting for timing of blood collections for hormone measurements among cycling women, and limitations of assays to measure progesterone metabolites in blood and progesterone receptor isotypes (PRs) in tissues. Separating the individual effects of estrogens and progesterone is further complicated by the partial dependence of PR transcription on estrogen receptor (ER)α-mediated transcriptional events; indeed, interpreting the integrated interaction of the hormones may be more essential than isolating independent effects. Further, many of the actions of both estrogens and progesterone, particularly in "normal" breast tissues, are driven by paracrine mechanisms in which ligand binding to receptor-positive cells evokes secretion of factors that influence cell division of neighboring receptor-negative cells. Accordingly, blood and tissue levels may differ, and the latter are challenging to measure. Given conflicting data related to the potential role of progesterone in breast cancer etiology and interest in blocking progesterone action to prevent or treat breast cancer, we provide a review of the evidence that links progesterone to breast cancer risk and suggest future directions for filling current gaps in our knowledge.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEstrogensFemaleHumansProgesteroneReceptors, ProgesteroneEstrogensProgesteroneReceptors, Progesterone

Identifiers

PMID31512725
PMCPMC7156851
OpenAlexW2973077025

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.