Breast cancer incidence and hormone replacement therapy: results from the MISSION study, prospective phase

Review of menopausal hormone therapy with estradiol and progesterone versus other estrogens and progestins

Objective: The objective of the present document was to review/summarize reported outcomes compared between menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) containing estradiol (E2) versus other estrogens and MHT with progesterone (P4) versus progestins (defined as synthetic progestogens).Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were systematically searched through February 2021 for studies comparing oral E2 versus oral conjugated equine estrogens (CEE) or P4 versus progestins for endometrial outcomes, venous thromboembolism (VTE), cardiovascular outcomes, breast outcomes, cognition, and bone outcomes in postmenopausal women.Results: A total of 74 comparative publications were identified/summarized. Randomized studies suggested that P4 and progestins are likely equally effective in preventing endometrial hyperplasia/cancer when used at adequate doses. E2- versus CEE-based MHT had a similar or possibly better risk profile for VTE and cardiovascular outcomes, and P4- versus progestin-based MHT had a similar or possibly better profile for breast cancer and cardiovascular outcomes. E2 may potentially protect better against age-related cognitive decline and bone fractures versus CEE; P4 was similar or possibly better versus progestins for these outcomes. Limitations are that many studies were observational and some were not adequately powered for the reported outcomes.Conclusions: Evidence suggests a differential effect of MHT containing E2 or P4 and those containing CEE or progestins, with some evidence trending to a potentially better safety profile with E2 and/or P4.

Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Relation to Hormone Replacement Therapy Use Among Postmenopausal Women: Results From a Prospective Cohort Study

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is associated with increased risk of breast cancer (BC), but little evidence assesses the effects of potential effect-modifiers on HRT-related BC. We sought to examine the relationship of different HRT types/method use and risk of BC in US postmenopausal women. In total, 689 BC cases and 81 BC deaths were identified during 372,210 person-years of follow-up. Cox regression and competing risk regression were used to estimate multivariable-adjusted hazards ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) by HRT status (never, former, current) for risk of BC incidence and mortality. The total current HRT use was associated with an increased risk of BC (HR current vs. never, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.33, 2.11), but did not associate with risk of death from BC (HR current vs. never, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.40, 1.78). Furthermore, underweight women (BMI <20 kg/m², HR current vs. never, 12.05, 95% CI, 1.46, 99.75) were more likely to take increased risk of BC from HRT use compared to the obese (BMI >30 kg/m², HR current vs never, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.73, 1.97). This study suggests that HRT use was associated with an altered risk of the occurrence of BC in the US postmenopausal women, especially for underweight women.

Anti-proliferative transcriptional effects of medroxyprogesterone acetate in estrogen receptor positive breast cancer cells are predominantly mediated by the progesterone receptor

Medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) is a first generation progestin that has been in clinical use for various hormonal conditions in women since the 1960s. Although developed as a progesterone receptor (PR) agonist, MPA also has strong binding affinity for other steroid receptors. This promiscuity confounds the mechanistic action of MPA in target cells that express multiple steroid receptors. This study is the first to assess the relative contribution of progesterone, androgen and glucocorticoid receptors in mediating the transcriptional activity of MPA on endogenous targets in breast cancer cells that endogenously express all three receptors at comparable levels. Gene expression profiling in estrogen receptor positive (ER+) ZR-75-1 breast cancer cells demonstrated that although the MPA-regulated transcriptome strongly overlapped with that of Progesterone (PROG), 5α-dihydrotestosterone (DHT) and Dexamethasone (DEX), it clustered most strongly with that of PROG, suggesting that MPA predominantly acts via the progesterone receptor (PR) rather than androgen receptor (AR) or glucocorticoid receptor (GR). Subsequent experiments manipulating levels of these receptors, either through specific culture conditions or with lentiviral shRNAs targeting individual receptors, also revealed a stronger contribution of PR compared to AR and GR on the expression of endogenous target genes that are either commonly regulated by all ligands or specifically regulated only by MPA. A predominant contribution of PR to MPA action in ER+ T-47D breast cancer cells was also observed, although a stronger role for AR was evident in T-47D compared to that observed in ZR-75-1 cells. Network analysis of ligand-specific and commonly regulated genes demonstrated that MPA utilises different transcription factors and signalling pathways to inhibit proliferation compared with PROG. This study reaffirms the importance of PR in mediating MPA action in an endogenous breast cancer context where multiple steroid receptors are co-expressed and has potential implications for PR-targeting therapeutic strategies in ER+ breast cancer.

Is Gonadal Therapy a Promoter of Breast Cancer? Incidence of Breast Cancer in a Cohort of Survivors of Oncological Diseases Treated with Gonadal Steroids

There is a great controversy about hormonal replacement therapy in women among the members of the scientific community. Cancer survivors have sometimes had their ovary function totally or partially destroyed, thus affecting their development and quality of life. In this study, we were looking for adverse effects caused, eventually, by estroprogestative therapy in a cohort of supplemented survivors. The occurrence of breast cancer was our main concern. Ours is a retrospective study based on the clinical records of 174 survivors of several cancer diseases. Their median ages within each of the following time frames were: diagnosis − 22 years old; start of endocrine treatment − 26 years old, and duration of treatment − 12 years old. Evaluation was composed of breast cancer assessment, osteopenia and osteoporosis incidence, and vascular events. We have found a very low incidence of breast cancer as well as of vascular events. After treatment, a high percentage of our sample displayed bone mass improvement.

The impact of micronized progesterone on breast cancer risk: a systematic review

Postmenopausal women with an intact uterus using estrogen therapy should receive a progestogen for endometrial protection. The debate on bioidentical hormones including micronized progesterone has increased in recent years. Based on a systematic literature review on the impact of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) containing micronized progesterone on the mammary gland, an international expert panel's recommendations are as follows: (1) estrogens combined with oral (approved) or vaginal (off-label use) micronized progesterone do not increase breast cancer risk for up to 5 years of treatment duration; (2) there is limited evidence that estrogens combined with oral micronized progesterone applied for more than 5 years are associated with an increased breast cancer risk; and (3) counseling on combined MHT should cover breast cancer risk - regardless of the progestogen chosen. Yet, women should also be counseled on other modifiable and non-modifiable breast cancer risk factors in order to balance the impact of combined MHT on the breast.

Comparison of clinical outcomes among users of oral and transdermal estrogen therapy in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

To examine associations of estrogen preparations with an index of health risks versus benefits.

METHODS

Using data from 45,112 participants of the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study (average follow-up 5.5 years), we examined associations of estrogen type and oral conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) dose with time to first global index event (GIE), defined as coronary heart disease, breast cancer, stroke, pulmonary embolism, hip fracture, colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, or death.

RESULTS

Oral CEE less than 0.625 mg/d + progestogen (P) users had a lower risk of a GIE (adjusted hazard ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.56-0.97) than oral CEE 0.625 mg/d + P users. GIE risk in oral CEE 0.625 mg/d + P users was greater with at least 5-year use (adjusted hazard ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.41) than with less than 5-year use. In women with prior hysterectomy, compared with women taking oral CEE 0.625 mg/d for less than 5 years, GIE risk was similar with oral CEE below 0.625 mg/d, oral estradiol (E2), and transdermal E2, whether used for less than 5 years or for at least 5 years. There was no difference in GIE risk between users of the following: oral CEE + P versus oral E2 + P; oral CEE + P versus transdermal E2 + P; oral E2 + P versus transdermal E2 + P. Findings were similar among women with hysterectomy taking estrogen alone.

CONCLUSIONS

The summary index of risks versus benefits was similar for oral CEE versus oral or transdermal E2-containing regimens. CEE + P containing less than 0.625 mg/d of CEE (vs 0.625 mg/d) for less than 5 years appeared safer.

Change in risk of breast cancer after receiving hormone replacement therapy by considering effect-modifiers: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies

We synthesize the current literatures and use the power of meta-analysis to examine trends on association between hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and the risk of breast cancer (BC). We performed a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from their inception until Jan 2017. Prospective studies that provided adjusted risk estimates of HRT and BC risk were eligible. Categorical and dose-response meta-analyses followed the PRISMA were conducted using random effects model and restricted cubic spline model, respectively. Forty-seven publications from thirty-five unique studies were included, involving 3,898,376 of participants and 87,845 of BC cases. Compared with non-users, RR for current estrogen-only therapy (ET) users was 1.14 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.05–1.22), and for per year increases was 1.02 (95% CI = 1.02–1.02). Moreover, RR for current estrogen plus progestin therapy (EPT) users was 1.76, (95% CI = 1.56–1.96), and for per year increases was 1.08 (95% CI = 1.08–1.08). Dose-response analyses revealed 8–10 years’ onset peaks, and indicated residual increased BC risk remained after stopping use of ET regimen rather than for EPT. Effect-modifiers like BMI, duration of use, race/ethnicity, routes of administration were recognized. In Conclusions, current use of EP or EPT and ever use of tibolone are associated with an elevated risk of BC. Compared with slim HRT users and non-users, lower BC risks were found among overweight/obese HRT users and former EPT users, respectively. Both ET and EPT users are associated with higher risk of lobular BC than ductal BC, and more ER-positive than negative BC cases were detected among EPT users.

Estradiol therapy and breast cancer risk in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between estradiol therapy and incidence of breast cancer, taking into consideration of different types of combined progestogen, the duration of exposure and the type of regimen.

METHOD

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

RESULT

A total of 14 studies were included in our study. In estradiol-only therapy analysis, meta-analysis resulted a pooled OR =0.90, 95% CI (0.40, 2.02) from the RCTs and pooled OR = 1.11, 95% CI (0.98, 1.27) from observational studies. However, in the analysis of estradiol-progestogen therapy, the risk of breast cancer varies according to the type of progestogen and the duration with more than five years (OR = 2.43, 95% CI (1.79, 3.29)) presented a higher risk than using less than five years (OR = 1.49, 95% CI (1.03, 2.15)).

CONCLUSIONS

Estradiol-only therapy carries no risk for breast cancer, while the breast cancer risk varies according to the type of progestogen. Estradiol therapy combined with medroxyprogesterone, norethisterone and levonorgestrel related to an increased risk of breast cancer, estradiol therapy combined with dydrogesterone and progesterone carries no risk. The breast cancer risk rise progressively by prolonged use, furthermore, comparing to sequential therapy, continuous therapy carries a higher risk.

Deciphering the divergent roles of progestogens in breast cancer

Most breast cancers are driven by oestrogen receptor-α. Anti-oestrogenic drugs are the standard treatment for these breast cancers; however, treatment resistance is common, necessitating new therapeutic strategies. Recent preclinical and historical clinical studies support the use of progestogens to activate the progesterone receptor (PR) in breast cancers. However, widespread controversy exists regarding the role of progestogens in this disease, hindering the clinical implementation of PR-targeted therapies. Herein, we present and discuss data at the root of this controversy and clarify the confusion and misinterpretations that have consequently arisen. We then present our view on how progestogens may be safely and effectively used in treating breast cancer.

Pushing estrogen receptor around in breast cancer

The estrogen receptor-α (herein called ER) is a nuclear sex steroid receptor (SSR) that is expressed in approximately 75% of breast cancers. Therapies that modulate ER action have substantially improved the survival of patients with ER-positive breast cancer, but resistance to treatment still remains a major clinical problem. Treating resistant breast cancer requires co-targeting of ER and alternate signalling pathways that contribute to resistance to improve the efficacy and benefit of currently available treatments. Emerging data have shown that other SSRs may regulate the sites at which ER binds to DNA in ways that can powerfully suppress the oncogenic activity of ER in breast cancer. This includes the progesterone receptor (PR) that was recently shown to reprogram the ER DNA binding landscape towards genes associated with a favourable outcome. Another attractive candidate is the androgen receptor (AR), which is expressed in the majority of breast cancers and inhibits growth of the normal breast and ER-positive tumours when activated by ligand. These findings have led to the initiation of breast cancer clinical trials evaluating therapies that selectively harness the ability of SSRs to 'push' ER towards anti-tumorigenic activity. Our review will focus on the established and emerging clinical evidence for activating PR or AR in ER-positive breast cancer to inhibit the tumour growth-promoting functions of ER.

Progesterone vs. synthetic progestins and the risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Use of menopausal hormonal therapy (MHT)-containing estrogen and a synthetic progestin is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. It is unclear if progesterone in combination with estrogen carries a lower risk of breast cancer. Limited data suggest differences between progesterone and progestins on cardiovascular risk factors, including cholesterol and glucose metabolism. Whether this translates to differences in cardiovascular outcomes is uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize the existing evidence about the effect of progesterone in comparison to synthetic progestins, each in combination with estrogens, on the risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular events.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus through 17 May 2016 for studies that enrolled postmenopausal women using progesterone vs. synthetic progestins and reported the outcomes of interest. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random effects model.

RESULTS

We included two cohort studies and one population-based case-control study out of 3410 citations identified by the search. The included studies enrolled 86,881 postmenopausal women with mean age of 59 years and follow-up range from 3 to 20 years. The overall risk of bias of the included cohort studies in the meta-analysis was moderate. There was no data on cardiovascular events. Progesterone was associated with lower breast cancer risk compared to synthetic progestins when each is given in combination with estrogen, relative risk 0.67; 95 % confidence interval 0.55-0.81.

CONCLUSIONS

Observational studies suggest that in menopausal women, estrogen and progesterone use may be associated with lower breast cancer risk compared to synthetic progestin.

Risk factors of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The etiology of breast cancer might be explained by 2 mechanisms, namely, differentiation and proliferation of breast epithelial cells mediated by hormonal factors. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to update effects of risk factors for both mechanisms. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to January 2011. Studies that assessed association between oral contraceptives (OC), hormonal replacement therapy (HRT), diabetes mellitus (DM), or breastfeeding and breast cancer were eligible. Relative risks with their confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted. A random-effects method was applied for pooling the effect size. The pooled odds ratios of OC, HRT, and DM were 1.10 (95% CI = 1.03-1.18), 1.23 (95% CI = 1.21-1.25), and 1.14 (95% CI = 1.09-1.19), respectively, whereas the pooled odds ratio of ever-breastfeeding was 0.72 (95% CI = 0.58-0.89). Our study suggests that OC, HRT, and DM might increase risks, whereas breastfeeding might lower risks of breast cancer.

Coronary heart disease and HRT in France: MISSION study prospective phase results

OBJECTIVE

To determine the morbidity incidence associated with Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRTs) in postmenopausal women. This paper presents the results concerning the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD).

DESIGN

MISSION study started on 5 January 2004, the cutoff for data collection was June 2006 (follow-up no. 1). 'Exposed group': postmenopausal women currently on HRT, commonly prescribed in France or stopped < or =5 years previously. 'Unexposed group': never received HRT or stopped >5 years previously.

RESULTS

Data were available for 4949 patients (without CHD at the beginning of the follow-up): 2693 Exposed group and 2256 Unexposed group. The incidence during follow-up no. 1 of postmenopausal CHD was not significantly different in the Exposed group (0.11%) compared with the Unexposed group (0.13%). In the Exposed group the time between start of HRT and menopause was 2.93 +/- 4.46 years in those who experienced CHD and 1.53 +/- 3.20 years in those who had no incidence of CHD (p = 0.3).

CONCLUSION

In the MISSION cohort, no increased risk of CHD was found in the Exposed group compared with the Unexposed group.

Release of prostaglandin E(1) from N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide copolymer conjugates by bone cells

Bone-targeting N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide (HPMA) copolymer-PGE(1) conjugates, containing cathepsin K sensitive spacers, were incubated with induced osteoclasts and osteoblasts, their precursors, and control non-skeletal cells. The release of PGE(1) was monitored by an HPLC assay. In both murine and human cell lines, osteoclasts appeared to be the most active cells in the cleavage (PGE(1) release). Incubation with osteoblasts also resulted in fast PGE(1) release, whereas precursor and control cells released PGE(1) with a substantially slower rate than bone cells (apparently through ester bond cleavage). Experiments in the presence of inhibitors revealed that other enzymes, in addition to cathepsin K, were participating in the cleavage of the conjugate. Confocal fluorescence studies exposed internalization of the conjugate by endocytosis with ultimate localization in the lysosomal/endosomal compartment.

Rationale for low-dose systemic hormone replacement therapy and review of estradiol 0.5 mg/NETA 0.1 mg

The menopausal transition is associated with several symptoms, for which both non-pharmacological and pharmacological measures are available to provide relief. However, present knowledge indicates that the former is not highly effective, and that the latter, in terms of systemic oestrogen and progestogen-based hormone replacement therapy (HRT), although being effective (e.g. on vasomotor symptoms, bleeding control, bone mineral density, vaginal atrophy and quality of life), can be associated with some caveats. Amongst these are an increased risk for coronary heart disease, breast cancer, venous thromboembolism and stroke. In recent years, literature has indicated a dose dependency for HRT on some of the caveats, hence authorities (Food and Drug Administration, and the European Medicines Agency) and menopause societies (International Menopause Society and North American Menopause Society) now recommend that women deemed in need of HRT should receive the lowest possible dose without compromising the effect of symptom relief. Estradiol 0.5 mg/norethisterone acetate (NETA) 0.1 mg, despite being a lower dose than conventional hormones, is a compound, among a few other low-dose options, that can be used in such therapy. As a first-line oral option, it has demonstrated its effectiveness (which seems comparable to other compounds), with high tolerability and, apparently, no safety concerns, in a 6-month study. Further long-term clinical trials and observational studies are mandatory in order to capture any potential harm as well as to elucidate this compound's full potential. Following a thorough literature search using PubMed and MEDLINE from the earliest publication dates through to January 2008, including results from various types of clinical trials and statements on HRT, we review the rationale for these recommendations. We also review the effects and safety of a novel 'ultra-low-dose' oral continuous combined HRT tablet, estradiol 0.5 mg/NETA 0.1 mg.

Biodistribution and pharmacokinetic studies of bone-targeting N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide copolymer-alendronate conjugates

The biodistribution and pharmacokinetics of bone-targeting N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide (HPMA) copolymer-alendronate conjugates were evaluated following intravenous administration of radioiodinated conjugates to young healthy BALB/c mice. The synthesis of a polymerizable and cathepsin K cleavable alendronate derivative, N-methacryloylglycylglycylprolylnorleucylalendronate, enabled the preparation of HPMA copolymer-alendronate conjugates with varying composition. Using the RAFT (reversible addition-fragmentation chain transfer) polymerization technique, four conjugates with different molecular weight and alendronate content and two control HPMA copolymers (without alendronate) with different molecular weight were prepared. The results of biodistribution studies in mice demonstrated a strong binding capacity of alendronate-targeted HPMA copolymer conjugates to bone. Conjugates with low (1.5 mol%) alendronate content exhibited a similar bone deposition capacity as conjugates containing 8.5 mol % of alendronate. The molecular weight was an important factor in the biodistribution of the HPMA copolymer conjugates. More conjugate structures need to be evaluated, but the data suggest that medium molecular weights (50-100 kDa) might be effective drug carriers for bone delivery.