Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33239054›Full record

Observational studyBreast cancer research : BCR2020

Use of postmenopausal hormone therapies and risk of histology- and hormone receptor-defined breast cancer: results from a 15-year prospective analysis of NIH-AARP cohort.

Shao-Ming Wang, Ruth M Pfeiffer, Gretchen L Gierach, Roni T Falk

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. A Basic Review on Estrogen Receptor Signaling Pathways in Breast Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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 1 institution in 2 countries.

Shao-Ming WangNational Central Cancer Registry, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Ruth M PfeifferBiostatistics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology & Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Gretchen L GierachIntegrative Tumor Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology & Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Roni T FalkMetabolic Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology & Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center Dr. rm 6E344, Bethesda, MD, 20892-9768, USA. falkr@mail.nih.gov.ORCID 0000-0001-5398-761X
National Institutes of Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMenopausal hormone therapy (MHT) increases breast cancer (BC) risk, but cohort studies largely consider use only at enrollment. Evidence is limited on how changes in MHT use alter the magnitude of risk, and whether risk varies between invasive and in situ cancer, by histology or by hormone receptor status.

methodsWe investigated the roles of estrogen-alone therapy (ET) and estrogen plus progestin therapy (EPT) on BC risk overall, by histology and estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status, and on incidence of in situ disease, in the NIH-AARP cohort. Participants included 118,760 postmenopausal women (50-71 years), of whom 63.5% (n = 75,398) provided MHT use information at baseline in 1996 and in a follow-up survey in 2004, subsequent to the dissemination in 2002 of the Women's Health Initiative trial safety concerns regarding EPT. ET analyses included 50,476 women with hysterectomy (31,439 with follow-up data); EPT analyses included 68,284 women with intact uteri (43,959 with follow-up data). Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models using age as the time metric with follow-up through 2011.

resultsEight thousand three hundred thirty-three incident BC cases were accrued, 2479 in women with follow-up data. BC risk was not elevated in current ET users at baseline (HR = 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] CI = 0.95-1.16) but was higher in women continuing use through 2004 (HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.04-1.75). Ever EPT use at baseline was associated with elevated BC risk overall (HR = 1.54 (1.44-1.64), with a doubling in risk for women with 10 or more years of use, for in situ disease, and across subtypes defined by histology and ER/PR status (all p < 0.004). Risk persisted in women who continued EPT through 2004 (HR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.39-2.32). In contrast, no association was seen in women who discontinued EPT before 2004 (HR = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.99-1.30).

conclusionsET use was not associated with BC risk in this cohort, although excess risk was suggested in women who continued use through 2004. EPT use was linked to elevated in situ and invasive BC risk, and elevated risk across invasive BC histologic and hormone receptor-defined subtypes, with the highest risk for women who continued use through the 2004 follow-up survey.

Indexed as

AgedBiomarkers, TumorBreastBreast NeoplasmsEstrogensFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHormone Replacement TherapyHumansHysterectomyIncidenceMiddle AgedPostmenopauseProgestinsProspective StudiesReceptors, EstrogenBiomarkers, TumorEstrogensProgestinsReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneBreast cancer riskMenopausal hormone therapyNIH-AARP cohort

Identifiers

PMID33239054
PMCPMC7687781
OpenAlexW3107034110

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.