Estrogen Replacement Therapy After Breast Cancer: A 12-Year Follow-Up
- 71 Downloads
Background: In the United States, estrogen replacement therapy ERT is discouraged in breast cancer survivors because of concerns that hormones may reactivate the disease. Because ERT can improve quality of life and decrease morbidity from osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease, however, this policy is increasingly being challenged.
Methods: From February to August 1995, 607 breast cancer survivors were interviewed concerning ERT usage. Sixty-four patients indicated they received some form of ERT after their breast cancer diagnosis. Medical records for these patients were analyzed for disease stage, surgical treatment, adjuvant treatment, estrogen and progesterone receptor status, date of initiation of ERT, type of ERT, recurrence, and final outcome. Patients receiving ERT were followed prospectively.
Results: Eight patients were excluded because they had used only vaginal cream ERT. The remaining 56 received ERT as conjugated estrogens, an estradiol patch, estropipate, or birth control pills. The median follow-up from diagnosis was 12.8 years range, 4.7–38.9 years. The median time on ERT since diagnosis was 6.4 years range, 1.0–20.9 years; 38% of the patients initiated ERT within 2 years of diagnosis. Estrogen receptors were positive in 28 74% of the 38 cases with available information. Pathological disease stage at time of diagnosis and treatment was 0 in 15 cases 27%, I in 27 48%, and II in 14 25%. Twenty-six patients 47% received adjuvant chemotherapy or hormonal therapy. One local recurrence and one contralateral breast cancer occurred during the follow-up period 13.5 and 9.6 years, respectively, with no regional or distant recurrences, for a 15-year actuarial disease-free survival rate of 92.5%. There were no breast cancer deaths.
Conclusions: Use of ERT in a cohort of breast cancer survivors with tumors of generally good prognosis was not associated with increased breast cancer events compared with non-ERT users, even over a long follow-up period.
Key WordsBreast cancer Recurrence Estrogen replacement therapy Prognosis
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 10.The Hormone Foundation, Canadian Breast Cancer Research Initiative, National Cancer Institute of Canada, Endocrine Society, and the University of Virginia Cancer Center and Woman’s Place. Treatment of estrogen deficiency symptoms in women surviving breast cancer. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1998; 83: 1993–2000.Google Scholar
- 14.Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and hormonal contraceptives: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 53,297 women with breast cancer and 100,239 women without breast cancer from 54 epidemiological studies. Lancet 1996; 347: 1713–27.Google Scholar
- 15.Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and hormone replacement therapy: collaborative reanalysis of data from 51 epidemiological studies of 52,705 women with breast cancer and 108,411 women without breast cancer. Lancet 1997; 350: 1047–59.Google Scholar
- 25.Eden JA, Bush T, Nand S, et al. A case-control study of combined continuous estrogen-progestin replacement therapy among women with a personal history of breast cancer. Menopause 1995; 2: 67–72.Google Scholar
- 26.Decker DA, Pettinga JE, Cox TC, et al. Hormone replacement therapy in breast cancer survivors. Breast J 1997; 3: 63–68.Google Scholar
- 27.Peters GN, Jones SE. Estrogen replacement therapy in breast cancer patients: a time for change?[abst] Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996; 15: 121a.Google Scholar
- 29.Bluming AZ, Waisman JR, Dosik GM, et al. Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in women with previously treated primary breast cancer. Update III [abst]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997; 16: 131a.Google Scholar
- 32.Fisher B, Anderson S, Redmond CK, Wolmark N, Wickerham DL, Cronin WM. Reanalysis and results after 12 years of follow-up in a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy with lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 1456–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar