Reduced risk of breast cancer mortality in women using postmenopausal hormone therapy: a Finnish nationwide comparative study

A Contemporary View of Menopausal Hormone Therapy

Enthusiasm for the use of hormones to ameliorate symptoms of perimenopause and menopause has waxed and waned over the years. Both treatment for symptoms and training of women's health care practitioners in the management of menopause have sharply declined since publication of the Women's Health Initiative initial results in 2002. Findings from that trial, which treated a population of older, asymptomatic patients, have been extrapolated over the past 21 years to all estrogen products, all menopausal women, and all delivery mechanisms. Our patients deserve a more nuanced, individualized approach. Conjugated equine estrogens and medroxyprogesterone acetate are no longer the predominant medications or medications of choice available for management of menopausal symptoms. All hormones are not equivalent any more than all antiseizure medications or all antihypertensives are equivalent; they have different pharmacodynamics, duration of action, and affinity for receptors, among other things, all of which translate to different risks and benefits. Consideration of treatment with the right formulation, at the right dose and time, and for the right patient will allow us to recommend safe, effective, and appropriate treatment for people with menopausal symptoms.

Counseling in menopausal women: How to address the benefits and risks of menopause hormone therapy. A FIGO position paper

Menopause marks the end of menstrual cyclicity and, depending on individual vulnerability, has several consequences related to gonadal steroid deprivation, especially if it is premature. Menopause may be more burdensome for some women than for others. Individual factors, such as personal history, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and current health conditions, affect symptomatology and, thereby, the menopausal experience. In addition, some menopausal symptoms, such as severe hot flashes, sleep disorders, and depression, are markers of future health risks. Counseling is a fundamental part of health care in the peri- and postmenopause periods. It must include an assessment of the patient's symptoms, needs, desires, and risk profile to address the benefits and risks of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) on an individual basis and promote a healthy lifestyle. Indeed, healthcare practitioners can and must protect the health and lives of mid-life women by increasing awareness of menopausal symptoms and ensuring healthcare options, especially MHT. The type and duration of MHT should be tailored based on the patient's history, menopausal age, physical characteristics, and current health status so that the benefits always outweigh the risks. This FIGO position paper focuses on the benefits and risks of MHT on health domains, target organs, and systems, and on systemic and vaginal MHT regimens, to provide indications that can be used in the clinical practice for menopausal counseling. Moreover, it offers insights into what FIGO considers the mainstay for the healthcare management of women in peri- and postmenopause, worldwide.

Management of postmenopausal women: Collège National des Gynécologues et Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF) and Groupe d'Etude sur la Ménopause et le Vieillissement (GEMVi) Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The aim of these recommendations is to set forth an individualized approach to the management of early postmenopausal women (i.e., within the first 10 years after natural menopause) covering all aspects of lifestyle and therapeutic management, with or without menopause hormone therapy (MHT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature review and consensus of French expert opinion. Recommendations were graded according to the HAS methodology and levels of evidence derived from the international literature, except when there was no good-quality evidence.

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS

The beginning of menopause is an ideal time for each woman to evaluate her health status by assessing her bone, cardiovascular, and cancer-related risk factors that may be amplified by postmenopausal estrogen deficiency and by reviewing her lifestyle habits. Improving lifestyle, including nutrition and physical activity, and avoiding risk factors (notably smoking), should be recommended to all women. MHT remains the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms but it could be also recommended as first-line treatment for the prevention of osteoporosis in early postmenopausal women at low to moderate risk for fracture. The risks of MHT differ depending on its type, dose, duration of use, route of administration, timing of initiation, and whether a progestogen is used. There is reasonable evidence that using transdermal estradiol in association with micronized progesterone or dydrogesterone may limit both the venous thromboembolic risk associated with oral estrogens and the risk of breast cancer associated with synthetic progestins. Treatment should be individualized to each woman, by using the best available evidence to maximize benefits and minimize risks, with periodic reevaluation of its benefit-risk balance. For bothersome genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) symptoms, vaginal treatment with lubricants and moisturizers is recommended as first-line treatment together with low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy, depending on the clinical course. No recommendation of an optimal duration of MHT can be made, but it must take into consideration the initial indication for MHT as well as each woman's benefit-risk balance. Management of gynecological side-effects of MHT is also examined. These recommendations are endorsed by the Groupe d'Etude sur la Ménopause et le Vieillissement hormonal (GEMVI) and the Collège National des Gynécologues-Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF).

Menopausal hormone therapy: why we should no longer be afraid of the breast cancer risk

The threat that women may develop breast cancer is the major reason why both physicians and women are afraid to use menopausal hormone therapy (MHT). The fear pertains to estrogen-progestin replacement therapy (EPRT) as estrogen-alone replacement therapy has no, or even a reduced, breast cancer risk. We reviewed the way breast cancer risk with EPRT was reported in some major publications since 2002 and tried to put the use-risk association in context. We hope this will make it easier for the physician and the menopausal woman to understand the risk involved and allow more confident and more informed decision-making regarding MHT use. We conclude that there are five interrelated reasons why physicians and women should no longer be afraid of the breast cancer risk with EPRT. We submit that breast cancer related to EPRT use is rare because the risk is very low; the reported increase in breast cancer risk with EPRT is not relevant to current practice; modifiable lifestyle factors, not EPRT, are the real risks for breast cancer; breast cancer-specific mortality is reduced in women who develop breast cancer while on EPRT; and avoiding MHT use when indicated puts a woman in harm's way.

Hormone therapy in the postmenopausal years: considering benefits and risks in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Menopausal symptoms can be very distressing and considerably affect a woman's personal and social life. It is becoming more and more evident that leaving bothersome symptoms untreated in midlife may lead to altered quality of life, reduced work productivity and, possibly, overall impaired health. Hormone therapy (HT) for the relief of menopausal symptoms has been the object of much controversy over the past two decades. At the beginning of the century, a shadow was cast on the use of HT owing to the concern for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risks, and breast cancer, arising following publication of a large randomized placebo-controlled trial. Findings of a subanalysis of the trial data and extended follow-up studies, along with other more modern clinical trials and observational studies, have provided new evidence on the effects of HT.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

The goal of the following paper is to appraise the most significant clinical literature on the effects of hormones in postmenopausal women, and to report the benefits and risks of HT for the relief of menopausal symptoms.

SEARCH METHODS

A Pubmed search of clinical trials was performed using the following terms: estrogens, progestogens, bazedoxifene, tibolone, selective estrogen receptor modulators, tissue-selective estrogen complex, androgens, and menopause.

OUTCOMES

HT is an effective treatment for bothersome menopausal vasomotor symptoms, genitourinary syndrome, and prevention of osteoporotic fractures. Women should be made aware that there is a small increased risk of stroke that tends to persist over the years as well as breast cancer risk with long-term estrogen-progestin use. However, healthy women who begin HT soon after menopause will probably earn more benefit than harm from the treatment. HT can improve bothersome symptoms, all the while conferring offset benefits such as cardiovascular risk reduction, an increase in bone mineral density and a reduction in bone fracture risk. Moreover, a decrease in colorectal cancer risk is obtainable in women treated with estrogen-progestin therapy, and an overall but nonsignificant reduction in mortality has been observed in women treated with conjugated equine estrogens alone or combined with estrogen-progestin therapy. Where possible, transdermal routes of HT administration should be preferred as they have the least impact on coagulation. With combined treatment, natural progesterone should be favored as it is devoid of the antiapoptotic properties of other progestogens on breast cells. When beginning HT, low doses should be used and increased gradually until effective control of symptoms is achieved. Unless contraindications develop, patients may choose to continue HT as long as the benefits outweigh the risks. Regular reassessment of the woman's health status is mandatory. Women with premature menopause who begin HT before 50 years of age seem to have the most significant advantage in terms of longevity.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

In women with bothersome menopausal symptoms, HT should be considered one of the mainstays of treatment. Clinical practitioners should tailor HT based on patient history, physical characteristics, and current health status so that benefits outweigh the risks.

[Menopausal hormone therapy: internal-endocrine point of view]

The history of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) started in 1942 in the US and became very popular in the 1960s worldwide because of the beneficial effects on vasomotor-vegetative and vulvovaginal symptoms. These symptoms may begin already in the premenopausal period, and can last for more than 10 years with reduced quality of life. Many women with vasomotor-vegetative symptoms do not visit a gynaecologist first but primarily a general physician or cardiologist because of instable blood pressure and palpitations, leading to the focus on the heart. To avoid unnecessary examinations and treatment with ß-blockers or antidepressants, an interdisciplinary look is necessary. In most cases, appropriate and low dose hormone replacement will relieve the symptoms and restore quality of life. In addition, it is worthwhile to know about the long-term effect of hormone deficiency as well as replacement on the different organ systems and the possible influences of hormone replacement therapy including contra indications. This is especially necessary after the uncertainties raised after the first deleterious announcements of the currently corrected results of the WHI (women's health initiative) study.

Hormonal management of menopausal symptoms in women with a history of gynecologic malignancy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to review the role of hormone therapy in menopausal patients with breast cancer and gynecologic malignancies.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) using a combination of keywords and database-specific subject headings for the following concepts: menopause, hormone therapy, and cancer. Editorials, letters, case reports, and comments were excluded, as were non-English articles. Additional references were identified by hand-searching bibliographies of included articles. The searches yielded a total of 1,484 citations. All citations were imported into EndNote X9, where they were screened by the authors.

RESULTS

In breast cancer survivors, systemic hormone therapy is not recommended, whereas local low-dose estrogen therapy may be considered after discussion with the patient's oncologist. Among endometrial cancer survivors, hormone therapy is considered safe in low-risk cancers but should be avoided in high-risk subtypes. For survivors of epithelial ovarian cancer and cervical cancer, hormone therapy can be considered, but should be avoided in women with estrogen-sensitive histologic subtypes.

CONCLUSIONS

The risks of hormone therapy should be assessed on an individual basis, with consideration of age, type of hormone therapy, dose, duration of use, regimen, route, and prior exposure. Systemic hormone therapy is not recommended in breast cancer survivors, whereas vaginal low-dose estrogen appears safe. Hormone therapy may be used by endometrial, cervical, and ovarian cancer survivors with low-risk, non-estrogen-receptor-positive subtypes. Video Summary: http://links.lww.com/MENO/A516.

Underlying Breast Cancer Risk and Menopausal Hormone Therapy

The recent Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer (CGHFBC) publication calculated the attributable risk of breast cancer from use of estrogen alone and estrogen plus a synthetic progestogen for less than 5 to 15 or more years of use. This CGHFB report calculated attributable risk based on their findings of relative risk from pooled data from 58 studies. Notably, neither the CGHFBC nor other previous studies have examined the effect of underlying risk of breast cancer on attributable risk. This omission prompted us to determine the magnitude of the effect of underlying risk on attributable risk in this perspective. Meaningful communication of the potential risk of menopausal hormonal therapy requires providing women with the estimated risk above their existing underlying risk (ie, attributable risk). Therefore, we have estimated attributable risks from the data published by the CGHFBC, taking into account varying degrees of underlying risk. Based on the Endocrine Society Guideline on Menopausal Hormone Therapy (MHT), we divided groups into 3 categories of risk: low (1.5%), intermediate (3.0%), and high (6.0%) underlying risk of breast cancer over 5 years. In women taking estrogen plus a synthetic progestogen for 5 to 9 years, the attributable risks of MHT increased from 12, to 42, to 85 additional women per 1000 in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively. The attributable risks for estrogen alone were lower but also increased based on underlying risk. Notably, the attributable risks were amplified with duration of MHT use, which increased both relative risk and breast cancer incidence.

Prognostic Impact of Menopausal Hormone Therapy in Breast Cancer Differs According to Tumor Characteristics and Treatment

This study investigated how a history of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) impacts clinical outcomes overall and in different subgroups of breast cancer patients. The study included 814 primary breast cancer patients aged ≥50 years in Sweden (2002–2012) with follow-up until 2016. Associations between patient- and tumor characteristics, recurrences, and overall survival were analyzed in relation to MHT. After a median follow-up of 7 years, 119 recurrences, and 111 deaths occurred. Ever MHT (n = 433, 53.2%) was associated with a lower BMI, frequency of alcohol abstinence, and histological grade, higher frequency of oral contraceptive use, and lobular cancer. Overall, MHT was not associated with prognosis, but there were significant effect modifications by estrogen receptor (ER) status, node status, main histological type, and aromatase inhibitor (AI) treatment on recurrence-risk (all P_interactions≤ 0.017). MHT conferred an increased recurrence-risk in patients with ER- tumors, adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR_adj) 3.99 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.40–11.33), in node-negative patients HR_adj 1.88 (95% CI 1.11–3.17), and in non-AI-treated patients HR_adj 1.81 (95% CI 1.01–3.24), but decreased recurrence-risk in AI-treated patients HR_adj 0.46 (95% CI 0.25–0.84) and in patients with lobular cancer HR_adj 0.15 (95% CI 0.04–0.64). MHT was associated with lower risk of death in node-positive patients HR_adj of 0.48 (95% CI 0.27–0.86) and in AI-treated patients HR_adj of 0.41 (95% CI 0.22–0.77), but not in other patients (both P_interactions≤ 0.027). A history of MHT may have prognostic value for certain subgroups of breast cancer patients such as AI-treated or node-negative patients.

Clinical trials in menopause

OBJECTIVE

Clinical trials in menopause have undergone much scrutiny over the years. This has led to significant shifts in the treatment of symptomatic menopause and a substantial impact on women. We aim to delineate the key studies contributing to this controversy and highlight new directions specifically related to menopausal hormone therapy (HT) and vascular disease risk.

METHODS

We performed a search of sentinel studies delineating the risks and benefits of HT in otherwise healthy postmenopausal women. Using PubMed we input the following search terms: hormone replacement therapy, cardiovascular disease, coronary artery disease, coronary atherosclerosis, myocardial infarction, angina, coronary heart calcification, carotid intimal thickness, lipids, and/or lipoproteins. We included studies of menopausal women (surgical or natural) using combined estrogen/progestogen therapy or estrogen-only therapy that looked at cardiovascular disease risk factors or outcomes. Studies were evaluated for inclusion by the authors; however, this is not intended to be a systematic or an exhaustive analysis.

RESULTS

In women close to the time of menopause, there is a decreased risk of subclinical and clinical coronary heart disease with menopausal HT. Additionally, HT confers a significant benefit to vasomotor symptoms of menopause, bone health, and colorectal cancer. There is an increased risk of venous thromboembolism with oral formulations that appears mitigated with transdermal estradiol. Mixed data regarding breast cancer risk are available, with some studies suggesting an increased risk of invasive breast cancer with estrogen/progestogen therapy and a null effect with estrogen-only therapy. Other more long-term epidemiologic studies identify a decreased risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The available literature suggests that HT is a viable option for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in postmenopausal women. Newer trials will likely verify this assessment. If this is enough to change clinical practice, however, remains to be seen given the general fear of HT by many with prescriptive authority, and also the women in our care.

Effects of drospirenone and norethisterone acetate combined with estradiol on mammographic density and proliferation of breast epithelial cells-A prospective randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

There are no previous data on the influence of drospirenone (DRSP) in combination with estradiol (E2) on the breast in postmenopausal women. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of DRSP or norethisterone acetate (NETA) in continuous combination with E2 on two surrogate markers for breast cancer - mammographic breast density and proliferation of breast epithelial cells - in healthy postmenopausal women.

STUDY DESIGN

120 healthy, naturally postmenopausal women were randomized to either 2 mg of DRSP or 0.5 mg of NETA in continuous combination with 1 mg of oral E2. The women underwent mammography and fine-needle aspiration biopsy of the breast at baseline and after six months of treatment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Digitized mammographic breast density and breast cell proliferation.

RESULTS

There was a significant increase in mammographic breast density after treatment in both groups (median increase 5.5% for E2/DRSP and 2.3% for E2/NETA, respectively, p < 0.001), but with no significant difference between groups. The proliferation of breast epithelial cells also increased in both groups (p < 0.001, respectively), with a significantly larger increase in the E2/DRSP group than in the E2/NETA group (2.5% versus 0.7%, respectively, p < 0.05). Systolic blood pressure had decreased significantly after 6 months of treatment in the E2/DRSP group (p < 0.05) but not in the E2/NETA group.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast density increased to a similar degree with E2/DRSP and E2/NETA. Proliferation of breast epithelial cells also increased significantly in both groups but was slightly more pronounced in the E2/DRSP group.

Menopausal hormone therapy and breast cancer: what is the evidence from randomized trials?

The relationship between menopausal hormone therapy (HT) and breast cancer is complex and further complicated by misinformation, perception, and overgeneralization of data. These issues are addressed in this mini-review through the lens of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) that has colored the view of HT and breast cancer. In the WHI, unopposed conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) reduced breast cancer risk and mortality. In the WHI CEE plus continuously combined medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) trial, although the hazard ratio (HR) was elevated it was statistically non-significant for an association between CEE + MPA and breast cancer. In fact, the increased HR was not due to an increased breast cancer incidence rate in women randomized to CEE + MPA therapy but rather due to a decreased and unexpectedly low breast cancer rate in the subgroup of women with prior HT use randomized to placebo. For women who were HT naïve when randomized to the WHI, the breast cancer incidence rate was not affected by CEE + MPA therapy relative to placebo for up to 11 years of follow-up. The current state of science indicates that HT may or may not cause breast cancer but the totality of data neither establish nor refute this possibility. Further, any association that may exist between HT and breast cancer appears to be rare and no greater than other medications commonly used in clinical medicine.

The choice of progestogen for HRT in menopausal women: breast cancer risk is a major issue

Doctors and patients fear the risk of breast cancer when using hormone replacement therapy (HRT). This review focuses on the choice of progestogen for HRT in menopausal. The Women's Health Initiative (WHI) has been the only large double-blind placebo-controlled study testing the risk of breast cancer (BC) using HRT. No increased risk using estrogen (E)-only was seen, there was a significant decrease in mortality due to BC after the use of HRT which persisted during the recent 18-year follow-up of the WHI. In contrast in the combined arm the risk increased. In about 20 observational studies using mostly medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) or estradiol-norethisterone acetate (NETA) an increased BC-risk was observed comparable with the WHI. Only for natural progestogen, progesterone and for dydrogesterone (retro-isomer of progesterone) was no increased risk seen for up to 5-8 years, when compared directly with other progestogens, but for longer treatment an increased risk cannot be excluded. In contrast, the mortality due to BC after use of E-only and combined HRT decreased in about a dozen observational studies, and was very recently confirmed in a Finnish study evaluating 490,000 women using estradiol (E2) plus different progestogens. There have been already more than 70 studies evaluating the risk of BC during HRT, and still there are many open questions. Therefore, this review covers our own and other experimental research which could answer important questions. Experimental research has demonstrated that certain synthetic progestogens, but not progesterone and to some extent also not dydrogesterone, can accelerate the proliferation of breast cancer cells in vitro and in animal studies via special cell membrane components which we recently also detected in patients with BC, and we found differences comparing all available synthetic progestogens. Derived from these mechanisms future research may provide screening for patients at risk and predict the prognosis of possible BC.

The 2017 hormone therapy position statement of The North American Menopause Society

The 2017 Hormone Therapy Position Statement of The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) updates the 2012 Hormone Therapy Position Statement of The North American Menopause Society and identifies future research needs. An Advisory Panel of clinicians and researchers expert in the field of women's health and menopause was recruited by NAMS to review the 2012 Position Statement, evaluate new literature, assess the evidence, and reach consensus on recommendations, using the level of evidence to identify the strength of recommendations and the quality of the evidence. The Panel's recommendations were reviewed and approved by the NAMS Board of Trustees.Hormone therapy (HT) remains the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms (VMS) and the genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) and has been shown to prevent bone loss and fracture. The risks of HT differ depending on type, dose, duration of use, route of administration, timing of initiation, and whether a progestogen is used. Treatment should be individualized to identify the most appropriate HT type, dose, formulation, route of administration, and duration of use, using the best available evidence to maximize benefits and minimize risks, with periodic reevaluation of the benefits and risks of continuing or discontinuing HT.For women aged younger than 60 years or who are within 10 years of menopause onset and have no contraindications, the benefit-risk ratio is most favorable for treatment of bothersome VMS and for those at elevated risk for bone loss or fracture. For women who initiate HT more than 10 or 20 years from menopause onset or are aged 60 years or older, the benefit-risk ratio appears less favorable because of the greater absolute risks of coronary heart disease, stroke, venous thromboembolism, and dementia. Longer durations of therapy should be for documented indications such as persistent VMS or bone loss, with shared decision making and periodic reevaluation. For bothersome GSM symptoms not relieved with over-the-counter therapies and without indications for use of systemic HT, low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy or other therapies are recommended.This NAMS position statement has been endorsed by Academy of Women's Health, American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, American Association of Nurse Practitioners, American Medical Women's Association, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Asociación Mexicana para el Estudio del Climaterio, Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, Australasian Menopause Society, Chinese Menopause Society, Colegio Mexicano de Especialistas en Ginecologia y Obstetricia, Czech Menopause and Andropause Society, Dominican Menopause Society, European Menopause and Andropause Society, German Menopause Society, Groupe d'études de la ménopause et du vieillissement Hormonal, HealthyWomen, Indian Menopause Society, International Menopause Society, International Osteoporosis Foundation, International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health, Israeli Menopause Society, Japan Society of Menopause and Women's Health, Korean Society of Menopause, Menopause Research Society of Singapore, National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health, SOBRAC and FEBRASGO, SIGMA Canadian Menopause Society, Società Italiana della Menopausa, Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, South African Menopause Society, Taiwanese Menopause Society, and the Thai Menopause Society. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supports the value of this clinical document as an educational tool, June 2017. The British Menopause Society supports this Position Statement.

Bioidentical menopausal hormone therapy: registered hormones (non-oral estradiol ± progesterone) are optimal

The many advantages of registered bioidentical sex hormones over registered, conventional, non-bioidentical menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) are considered. The transdermal route of estrogen administration avoids excess venous thromboembolic and ischemic stroke events. There is some indication that conjugated equine estrogens are more thrombogenic and most likely induce some hypertensive responses; estradiol might also be superior to conjugated equine estrogens (CEE) in terms of global cardiovascular health. The most valid evidence presently suggests that CEE-only treatment does not increase the risk of breast cancer and even may reduce it. But its combination with a synthetic progestogen (mainly medroxyprogesterone acetate) is a critical issue since it seems to be primarily associated with an increased incidence of breast cancer, however similar to or lower than that associated with some common lifestyle factors. Though not yet proven in a randomized, controlled trial, MHT continuously combining oral micronized progesterone with transdermal estradiol can presently be considered as the optimal MHT. It is not only safer than custom-compounded bioidentical hormones but also than oral conventional MHT and has the best breast profile; registered products for such optimal MHT are available around the world and must be preferred.