Estrogen-Plus-Progestin Use and Mammographic Density in Postmenopausal Women: Women's Health Initiative Randomized Trial
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 21 September 2005
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Vol. 97 (18) , 1366-1376
- https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji279
Abstract
Background: Increased mammographic density reduces the sensitivity of screening mammography, is associated with increased breast cancer risk, and may be hormone related. We assessed the effect of estrogen-plus-progestin therapy on mammographic density. Methods: In a racially and ethnically diverse ancillary study of the Women's Health Initiative, we examined data from 413 postmenopausal women who had been randomly assigned to receive daily combined conjugated equine estrogens (0.625 mg) plus medroxyprogesterone acetate (i.e., progestin; 2.5 mg) (n = 202) or daily placebo (n = 211). We assessed the effect of estrogen plus progestin on measured mammographic percent density and abnormal findings over a 1-year and 2-year period. All tests of statistical significance were two-sided and were based on F tests or t tests from mixed-effects models. Results: Mean mammographic percent density increased by 6.0% at year 1, compared with baseline, in the estrogen-plus-progestin group but decreased by 0.9% in the placebo group (difference = 6.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.3% to 8.5%; P <.001). The mean changes in mammographic density persisted but were attenuated slightly after 2 years, with an absolute increase of 4.9% in the estrogen-plus-progestin group and a decrease of 0.8% in the placebo group (difference = 5.7%, 95% CI = 4.3% to 7.3%; P <.001). These effects were consistent across racial/ethnic groups but were higher among women aged 70–79 years in the estrogen-plus-progestin group (mean increase at year 1 = 11.6%) than in the placebo group (mean decrease at year 1 = 0.1%) (difference of the means = 11.7%, 95% CI = 8.2% to 15.4%; P <.001, comparing across age groups). At year 1, women who were adherent to treatment in the estrogen-plus-progestin group had a mean increase in density of 7.7% (95% CI = 5.9% to 9.5%), and women in the placebo group had a mean decrease in density of 1.1% (95% CI = 0.3% to 1.9%). Use of estrogen plus progestin was associated with an increased risk of having an abnormal mammogram at year 1 (relative risk = 3.9, 95% CI = 1.5 to 10.2; P = .003), compared with placebo, that was not explained by an increase in density. Conclusions: Use of up to 2 years of estrogen plus progestin was associated with increases in mammographic density.Keywords
This publication has 24 references indexed in Scilit:
- Post-Treatment Change in Serum Estrone Predicts Mammographic Percent Density Changes in Women Who Received Combination Estrogen and Progestin in the Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions (PEPI) TrialJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2004
- Impact of use of hormone replacement therapy on false positive recall in the NHS breast screening programme: results from the million women studyBMJ, 2004
- Recreational Physical Activity and the Risk of Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal WomenJAMA, 2003
- Influence of Estrogen Plus Progestin on Breast Cancer and Mammography in Healthy Postmenopausal WomenJAMA, 2003
- Racial differences in mammographic breast densityCancer, 2003
- Risks and Benefits of Estrogen Plus Progestin in Healthy Postmenopausal Women: Principal Results From the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled TrialJAMA, 2002
- Changes in Breast Density Associated With Initiation, Discontinuation, and Continuing Use of Hormone Replacement TherapyJAMA, 2001
- Design of the Women’s Health Initiative Clinical Trial and Observational StudyControlled Clinical Trials, 1998
- Mammographic Features and Breast Cancer Risk: Effects With Time, Age, and Menopause StatusJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1995
- Quantitative Classification of Mammographic Densities and Breast Cancer Risk: Results From the Canadian National Breast Screening StudyJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1995