Expression of p53 and markers for apoptosis in breast tissue during long-term hormone therapy in cynomolgus monkeys

Effects of Estradiol/Micronized Progesterone vs. Conjugated Equine Estrogens/Medroxyprogesterone Acetate on Breast Cancer Gene Expression in Healthy Postmenopausal Women

Recent studies suggest estradiol (E₂)/natural progesterone (P) confers less breast cancer risk compared with conjugated equine estrogens (CEE)/synthetic progestogens. We investigate if differences in the regulation of breast cancer-related gene expression could provide some explanation. This study is a subset of a monocentric, 2-way, open observer-blinded, phase 4 randomized controlled trial on healthy postmenopausal women with climacteric symptoms (ClinicalTrials.gov; EUCTR-2005/001016-51). Study medication was two 28-day cycles of sequential hormone treatment with oral 0.625 mg CEE and 5 mg of oral medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) or 1.5 mg E₂ as percutaneous gel/day with the addition of 200 mg oral micronized P. MPA and P were added days 15-28/cycle. Material from two core-needle breast biopsies in 15 women in each group was subject to quantitative PCR (Q-PCR). The primary endpoint was a change in breast carcinoma development gene expression. In the first eight consecutive women, RNA was extracted at baseline and after two months of treatment and subjected to microarray for 28856 genes and Ingenuity Pathways Analysis (IPA) to identify risk factor genes. Microarray analysis showed 3272 genes regulated with a fold-change of >±1.4. IPA showed 225 genes belonging to mammary-tumor development function: 198 for CEE/MPA vs. 34 for E₂/P. Sixteen genes involved in mammary tumor inclination were subject to Q-PCR, inclining the CEE/MPA group towards an increased risk for breast carcinoma compared to the E₂/P group at a very high significance level (p = 3.1 × 10^-8, z-score 1.94). The combination of E₂/P affected breast cancer-related genes much less than CEE/MPA.

Is expression of rat breast matrix components influenced by estrogen, progestins and tibolone?

AIM

To study the effects of estrogen therapy, alone or combined with progestogens, and of tibolone on the expression of heparanase (HSPE), extracellular matrix metalloproteinases 2 and 9 (MMP-2 and MMP-9), perlecan and proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) in normal breast tissue.

METHODS

Thirty 250-day-old Wistar rats were castrated and 3 weeks later received one of the following treatments by gavage for 5 weeks: (1) estradiol benzoate; (2) estradiol benzoate + medroxyprogesterone acetate; (3) estradiol benzoate + norethisterone acetate; (4) estradiol benzoate + dydrogesterone; (5) tibolone; (6) placebo. Following treatment, the expressions of mRNA for HSPE, MMP-2 and MMP-9 were analyzed by real-time PCR and the protein expressions of HSPE, MMP-2, MMP-9, perlecan and PCNA were quantified by immunohistochemistry.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference among the groups for the expression of HSPE mRNA due to high levels in the tibolone group. The groups differed in terms of PCNA, with lower levels found in the tibolone group followed by the estradiol benzoate + dydrogesterone group. A statistically significant positive correlation was observed for PCNA versus perlecan and MMP-9.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in the effects of combinations of estradiol and different progestogens on extracellular matrix components, and breast cell proliferation was associated with increases in perlecan and MMP-9.

Percutaneous estradiol/oral micronized progesterone has less-adverse effects and different gene regulations than oral conjugated equine estrogens/medroxyprogesterone acetate in the breasts of healthy women in vivo

Gene expression analysis of healthy postmenopausal women in a prospective clinical study indicated that genes encoding for epithelial proliferation markers Ki-67 and progesterone receptor B mRNA are differentially expressed in women using hormone therapy (HT) with natural versus synthetic estrogens. Two 28-day cycles of daily estradiol (E2) gel 1.5 mg and oral micronized progesterone (P) 200 mg/day for the last 14 days of each cycle did not significantly increase breast epithelial proliferation (Ki-67 MIB-1 positive cells) at the cell level nor at the mRNA level (MKI-67 gene). A borderline significant beneficial reduction in anti-apoptotic protein bcl-2, favouring apoptosis, was also seen followed by a slight numeric decrease of its mRNA. By contrast, two 28-day cycles of daily oral conjugated equine estrogens (CEE) 0.625 mg and oral medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) 5 mg for the last 14 days of each cycle significantly increased proliferation at both the cell level and at the mRNA level, and significantly enhanced mammographic breast density, an important risk factor for breast cancer. In addition, CEE/MPA affected around 2,500 genes compared with just 600 affected by E2/P. These results suggest that HT with natural estrogens affects a much smaller number of genes and has less-adverse effects on the normal breast in vivo than conventional, synthetic therapy.

Mechanisms for differential effects between natural progesterone and synthetic progestogens on normal breast tissue

Both epidemiological studies and experimental data on normal breast tissue suggest increased cancer risk, proliferation and mammographic breast density (MD) during hormone therapy (HT) containing synthetic progestogens in traditional doses, and the relative risk or RR is approximately 1.5–3 (for women treated vs. untreated with the above therapies), proliferation levels of normal breast epithelial cells of around 10% and increase in MD in up to around 50% of women during treatment. Dose-response relationships have been inferred by correlations between progestogens as levonorgestrel, norethisterone acetate and medroxyprogesterone acetate on the one hand and proliferation and/or MD on the other hand, and of indications of lower relative risk of breast cancer with modern low or ultra-low dose HT. In contrast, natural progesterone endogenously during the menstrual cycle has a weak effect and exogenous estrogen in combination with oral micronized progesterone in HT has shown to yield an indifferent effect on proliferation. Furthermore, in epidemiological studies such as the French E3N cohort, these combinations have not shown any risk increase for breast cancer for at least 5 years of treatment. Experimental data supporting or not supporting the view that the main proliferative mechanism for natural progesterone is through binding to its nascent progesterone receptors is discussed as well as the pros and cons that the non-physiological higher proliferation levels induced by synthetic progestogens is mainly mediated through interaction with potent growth factors and their paracrine and/or cell signaling pathways.

Breast cancer and hormonal therapy

Valid evidence from randomized-controlled trials indicates that breast cancer risk is increased with combined estrogen/progestogen use and that such treatment implies a risk greater than that of estrogen alone. Overall, risk estimates from observational studies are somewhat higher than in randomized-controlled trials but remain modest as compared with other risk factors even after long-term treatment. For combined estrogen/progestogen therapy, risk increases gradually to reach statistical significance after 4 to 5 years. Apart from its many beneficial health effects, the safety data for use of estrogen alone are quite reassuring. The only justifications for progestogen addition are for bleeding control and endometrial protection. At present, there are several new therapeutic compounds and concepts in development, which hold promise to provide both endometrial protection and breast safety.

Breast response to menopausal hormone therapy--aspects on proliferation, apoptosis and mammographic density

Breast cancer is the major malignancy among women in the Western world. The breast is clearly a target organ for sex steroid hormones and hormonal treatments have been associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. The balance between proliferation and apoptosis is important for breast cell homeostasis. Mammographic breast density has been identified as a strong and independent risk factor for breast cancer. It seems clear that there is a difference between various hormonal treatments with regard to their effects on breast density and cell proliferation. Also, not all women respond similarly to the same treatment. Combined estrogen and progestogen therapy generally will enhance density and proliferation more than treatment with estrogen alone. Certain constitutional and hormonal factors appear to be predictive of breast reactivity. Older women with a low body mass index respond more strongly to treatment. Estrogen levels have a positive and androgens a negative association to increase in density and proliferation. A combination of increased proliferation and decreased apoptosis could be one mechanism to explain the excess risk of breast cancer during combined estrogen/progestogen treatment. Tibolone seems to have less impact on breast response than conventional hormone therapy. Efforts should be made to identify those women with an adverse response to treatment as well as therapeutic principles with the least possible influence on the breast.

Tibolone and breast cancer

Tibolone is a relatively new drug for postmenopausal women, which is structurally related to 19-nortestosterone derivatives and exhibits weak oestrogenic, progestogenic and androgenic activities. The effect of tibolone on breast tissue is still obscure. In vitro studies have shown conflicting results regarding the effects of tibolone on breast cells. On the other hand, although epidemiological studies show an increase in the risk of breast cancer among women treated with tibolone, accumulation of data obtained from radiological studies presents promising results. However, the safety of tibolone with regard to breast tissue needs to be investigated further, especially through well-designed, large-scale, randomised-controlled trials.

Conversion of tibolone to 7α-methyl-ethinyl estradiol using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry

OBJECTIVE

Tibolone, a hormone therapy drug, is used to treat climacteric symptoms. This drug is rapidly metabolized into three major metabolites (3alpha-hydroxytibolone, 3beta-hydroxytibolone, and Delta4-tibolone). One clinical study provided evidence of conversion of tibolone to another estrogenic metabolite, 7alpha-methyl-ethinyl estradiol (MEE). However, no evidence of MEE formation was found in another study using the human aromatase enzyme. Because MEE was analyzed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), which requires derivatization, together with the fact that derivatization of some steroids may lead to aromatization, it is feasible that the MEE detected resulted from an artifact generated during the derivatization process. Hence, our objective was to assess whether tibolone is converted to MEE.

DESIGN

We assayed MEE formation in a nonbiological system using GC-MS after derivatization and by analyzing MEE formation using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) in nonderivatized samples.

RESULTS

MEE formation was evident in tibolone samples derivatized with either pentafluoropropionic anhydride or trimethylsilyl and analyzed by GC-MS. The amount of MEE formed increased with increasing amounts of tibolone (0.5, 1, 2.5, and 5 microg) derivatized; however, relative to tibolone, the percentage of MEE formed remained constant and ranged between 0.22% and 0.29% of tibolone. In contrast to GC-MS, no MEE formation was seen when tibolone was analyzed by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry without derivatization.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings prove that conversion of tibolone to MEE is an artifact that is generated in a GC-MS system and is largely due to the intense heating step involved in GC-MS. Caution should be exercised to extrapolate clinical implications from existing data on MEE formation using a GC-MS system.