130
|
Calle EE, Heath CW, Miracle-McMahill HL, Coates RJ, Liff JM, Franceschi S, Talamini R, Chantarakul N, Koetsawang S, Rachawat D, Morabia A, Schuman L, Stewart W, Szklo M, Bain C, Schofield F, Siskind V, Band P, Coldman AJ, Gallagher RP, Hislop TG, Yang P, Duffy SW, Kolonel LM, Nomura AMY, Oberle MW, Ory HW, Peterson HB, Wilson HG, Wingo PA, Ebeling K, Kunde D, Nishan P, Colditz G, Martin N, Pardthaisong T, Silpisornkosol S, Theetranont C, Boosiri B, Chutivongse S, Jimakorn P, Virutamasen P, Wongsrichanalai C, McMichael AJ, Rohan T, Ewertz M, Paul C, Skegg DCG, Spears GFS, Boyle P, Evstifeeva T, Daling JR, Malone K, Noonan EA, Stanford JL, Thomas DB, Weiss NS, White E, Andrieu N, Brêmond A, Clavel F, Gairard B, Lansac J, Piana L, Renaud R, Fine SRP, Cuevas HR, Ontiveros P, Palet A, Salazar SB, Aristizabel N, Cuadros A, Bachelot A, Leê MG, Deacon J, Peto J, Taylor CN, Alfandary E, Modan B, Ron E, Friedman GD, Hiatt RA, Bishop T, Kosmelj K, Primic-Zakelj M, Ravnihar B, Stare J, Beeson WL, Fraser G, Allen DS, Bulbrook RD, Cuzick J, Fentiman IS, Hayward JL, Wang DY, Hanson RL, Leske MC, Mahoney MC, Nasca PC, Varma AO, Weinstein AL, Moller TR, Olsson H, Ranstam J, Goldbohm RA, van den Brandt PA, Apelo RA, Baens J, de la Cruz JR, Javier B, Lacaya LB, Ngelangel CA, La Vecchia C, Negri E, Marbuni E, Ferraroni M, Gerber M, Richardson S, Segala C, Gatei D, Kenya P, Kungu A, Mati JG, Brinton LA, Hoover R, Schairer C, Spirtas R, Lee HP, Rookus MA, van Leeuwen FE, Schoenberg JA, Gammon MD, Clarke EA, Jones L, McPherson K, Neil A, Vessey M, Yeates D, Beral V, Bull D, Crossley B, Hermon C, Jones S, Key T, Reeves CG, Smith P, Collins R, Doll R, Peto R, Hannaford P, Kay C, Rosero-Bixby L, Yuan JM, Wei HY, Yun T, Zhiheng C, Berry G, Booth JC, Jelihovsky T, Maclennan R, Shearman R, Wang QS, Baines CJ, Miller AB, Wall C, Lund E, Stalsberg H, Dabancens A, Martinez L, Molina R, Salas O, Alexander FE, Hulka BS, Chilvers CED, Bernstein L, Haile RW, Paganini-Hill A, Pike MC, Ross RK, Ursin G, Yu MC, Adami HO, Bergstrom R, Longnecker MP, Farley TMN, Holck S, Meirik O. Breast cancer and hormonal contraceptives: further results. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Contraception 1996; 54:1S-106S. [PMID: 8899264 DOI: 10.1016/s0010-7824(15)30002-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 77] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Abstract
The Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer has brought together and reanalysed the worldwide epidemiological evidence on breast cancer risk and use of hormonal contraceptives. Original data from 54 studies, representing about 90% of the information available on the topic, were collected, checked and analysed centrally. The 54 studies were performed in 26 countries and include a total of 53,297 women with breast cancer and 100,239 women without breast cancer. The studies were varied in their design, setting and timing. Most information came from case-control studies with controls chosen from the general population; most women resided in Europe or North America and most cancers were diagnosed during the 1980s. Overall 41% of the women with breast cancer and 40% of the women without breast cancer had used oral contraceptives at some time; the median age at first use was 26 years, the median duration of use was 3 years, the median year of first use was 1968, the median time since first use was 16 years, and the median time since last use was 9 years. The main findings, summarised elsewhere, are that there is a small increase in the risk of having breast cancer diagnosed in current users of combined oral contraceptives and in women who had stopped use in the past 10 years but that there is no evidence of an increase in the risk more than 10 years after stopping use. In addition, the cancers diagnosed in women who had used oral contraceptives tended to be less advanced clinically than the cancers diagnosed in women who had not used them. Despite the large number of possibilities investigated, few factors appeared to modify the main findings either in recent or in past users. For recent users who began use before age 20 the relative risks are higher than for recent users who began at older ages. For women whose use of oral contraceptives ceased more than 10 years before there was some suggestion of a reduction in breast cancer risk in certain subgroups, with a deficit of tumors that had spread beyond the breast, especially among women who had used preparations containing the highest doses of oestrogen and progestogen. These findings are unexpected and need to be confirmed. Although these data represent most of the epidemiological evidence on the topic to date, there is still insufficient information to comment reliably about the effects of specific types of oestrogen or of progestogen. What evidence there is suggests, however, no major differences in the effects for specific types of oestrogen or of progestogen and that the pattern of risk associated with use of hormonal contraceptives containing progestogens alone may be similar to that observed for preparations containing both oestrogens and progestogens. On the basis of these results, there is little difference between women who have and have not used combined oral contraceptives in terms of the estimated cumulative number of breast cancers diagnosed during the period from starting use up to 20 years after stopping. The cancers diagnosed in women who have used oral contraceptives are, however, less advanced clinically than the cancers diagnosed in never users. Further research is needed to establish whether the associations described here are due to earlier diagnosis of breast cancer in women who have used oral contraceptives, to the biological effects of the hormonal contraceptives or to a combination of both. Little information is as yet available about the effects on breast cancer risk of oral contraceptive use that ceased more than 20 years before and as such data accumulate it will be necessary to re-examine the worldwide evidence.
Collapse
|
138
|
Horton Taylor D, McPherson K, Parbhoo S, Perry N. Response of women aged 65-74 to invitation for screening for breast cancer by mammography: a pilot study in London, UK. J Epidemiol Community Health 1996; 50:77-80. [PMID: 8762359 PMCID: PMC1060209 DOI: 10.1136/jech.50.1.77] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To investigate the response and benefits to be gained from mammographic screening for breast cancer in women aged 65-74, who are not normally invited for screening. DESIGN This was a pilot study comprising women aged 65-74 who are not currently invited for routine screening under the NHS breast screening programme. The results from this study were compared with the results of routinely screened women (aged 50-64) from the same health district. SETTING A mobile breast screening unit in the grounds of the Royal Free Hospital. SUBJECTS These comprised 5004 women aged 65-74 registered with GPs in the district of Hampstead and on the family health services authority (FHSA) lists. A total of 168 (3.4%) were initially excluded by the general practitioner or FHSA, and 286 (5.9%) of the invitation letters were returned by the Post Office or by other people as not deliverable for some reason. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Response rates to the invitation were assessed using three indices: crude population coverage rate, crude invited population coverage rate, and corrected invited population coverage rate. RESULTS With regard to response rates, 1684 women aged 65-74 (37% of all those invited, excluding those who were not available) were screened, compared with 2894 (42%) women aged 50-64. The three response rates were higher for younger women than older: the crude population coverage rate was 37.1%, the crude invited population coverage rate was 38.9%, and the corrected invited population coverage rate was 42.1% for women aged 50-64, compared with 32.9%, 34.4%, and 36.8% respectively for women aged 65-69 and 34.3%, 35.2%, and 37.2% for women aged 70-74. The rate of assessment increased significantly with increasing age, with 3.18% of the 50-64 population screened being assessed, as compared with 4.14% and 4.83% of the women aged 65-69 and 70-74, respectively. Most biopsies done in the older women gave positive results, as did the biopsies from the 50-64 age group. However, the biopsy rate increased significantly with increasing age. The cancer detection rates in the women aged 65-69 and 70-74 were 14.2/1000 and 13.2/1000 compared with an incident screening round rate of 4.5/1000 in women aged 50-64. CONCLUSIONS These results show that there is potential for similar attendance at routine screening by older women if they are invited in the same way as younger women. As the assessment, biopsy, and cancer detection rates in the older women are significantly higher than in the 50-64 year olds, the costs and benefits of including them in the NHS screening programme should be reassessed.
Collapse
|