The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Type and timing of menopausal hormone therapy and breast cancer risk: individual participant meta-analysis of the worldwide epidemiological evidence
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Published 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 We bring together the epidemiological evidence, published and unpublished, on these associations, and review the relevant randomised evidence. METHODS: Principal 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. FINDINGS: During 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. INTERPRETATION: If 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. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative Investigators (2002) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.288.3.321 · Cited by 15,889
Fournier, A., Berrino, F., & Clavel-Chapelon, F. (2007) · Breast Cancer Research and Treatment · doi:10.1007/s10549-007-9523-x · Cited by 693
Cited by
Key steps for effective breast cancer prevention
Britt, K. L., Cuzick, J., & Phillips, K.-A. (2020) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/s41568-020-0266-x · Cited by 992
The 2022 hormone therapy position statement of The North American Menopause Society
(2022) · Menopause · doi:10.1097/gme.0000000000002028 · Cited by 977
Premature ovarian insufficiency: an international menopause society white paper
Panay, N., Anderson, R. A., Nappi, R. E., Vincent, A. J., Vujovic, S., Webber, L., & Wolfman, W. (2020) · Climacteric · doi:10.1080/13697137.2020.1804547 · Cited by 297
Hormone therapy for postmenopausal women
Pinkerton, J. V. (2020) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmcp1714787 · Cited by 220
Current and investigational medications for the treatment of sarcopenia
Rolland, Y., Dray, C., Vellas, B., & Barreto, P. D. S. (2023) · Metabolism · doi:10.1016/j.metabol.2023.155597 · Cited by 195
Metadata
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-09
- Volume
- 394
- Issue
- 10204
- Pages
- 1159-1168
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W2971983803
- Cited by
- 761
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 19.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.