Breast cancer and menopausal hormone therapy: does the progestogen matter?

John C Stevenson
{"title":"Breast cancer and menopausal hormone therapy: does the progestogen matter?","authors":"John C Stevenson","doi":"10.1258/mi.2008.008034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is established that the adjunction of a progestogen to the estrogenic component of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is not neutral regarding breast cancer risk, and even constitutes a central factor. Estrogen–progestogen MHT has now been classified as carcinogenic to the human breast. Should we thus conclude that there exists a class effect related to all progestogens? Or is there a possibility that different molecules or doses, for example, bear different risks? It is only quite recently that progestogens have become a key topic of investigation concerning the relation between breast cancer and MHT. Therefore, many aspects of this relation remain unresolved, some of them having been barely investigated. However, data exist suggesting that the choice of the progestogen molecule is able to impact the risk of breast cancer. In particular, in the French E3 N cohort, MHT-containing progesterone or its isomer, dydrogesterone, were associated with a lower risk than those containing other progestogens. The question of whether the number of days the progestogen is used per month modulates the risk produced so far divergent results. The observation that risk differences between sequential and continuous-combined regimens are generally more marked in studies conducted in Northern Europe than in the USA or in the UK is puzzling. This apparent discrepancy is resolved if the hypothesis that the cumulative monthly dose of progestogen is implicated in breast cancer risk holds true. Indeed, in Northern Europe, the daily dose of progestogen is often the same in both continuous-combined and sequential regimens, so that the total monthly dose in the former ismore elevated than in the latter, which is generally not the case in the USA or in the UK. Finally, the route of administration of the progestogen (oral, transdermal, vaginal, . . .) mayalso intervene regarding breast cancer risk, but there is so far no epidemiological data on this subject. By considering the available epidemiological evidence, it therefore seems likely that breast cancer risk varies according to the characteristics of the progestogen component of MHT. As it is the most effective treatment to alleviate climacteric symptoms, MHT remains widely used, and the administration of a progestogen is mandatory in hysterectomized women to protect the endometrium against the development of estrogen-induced hyperplasia. Therefore, for these women who need estrogen–progestogen MHT, the issue of progestogens must remain a very active area of research, aiming at identifying treatment modalities that have the least potential for exerting adverse effects. In particular, future studies should be designed to disentangle the effects of various progestogen-related parameters: the molecule, the dosage, the regimen and the route of administration.","PeriodicalId":85745,"journal":{"name":"The journal of the British Menopause Society","volume":"14 1","pages":"182 - 182"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1258/mi.2008.008034","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of the British Menopause Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1258/mi.2008.008034","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is established that the adjunction of a progestogen to the estrogenic component of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is not neutral regarding breast cancer risk, and even constitutes a central factor. Estrogen–progestogen MHT has now been classified as carcinogenic to the human breast. Should we thus conclude that there exists a class effect related to all progestogens? Or is there a possibility that different molecules or doses, for example, bear different risks? It is only quite recently that progestogens have become a key topic of investigation concerning the relation between breast cancer and MHT. Therefore, many aspects of this relation remain unresolved, some of them having been barely investigated. However, data exist suggesting that the choice of the progestogen molecule is able to impact the risk of breast cancer. In particular, in the French E3 N cohort, MHT-containing progesterone or its isomer, dydrogesterone, were associated with a lower risk than those containing other progestogens. The question of whether the number of days the progestogen is used per month modulates the risk produced so far divergent results. The observation that risk differences between sequential and continuous-combined regimens are generally more marked in studies conducted in Northern Europe than in the USA or in the UK is puzzling. This apparent discrepancy is resolved if the hypothesis that the cumulative monthly dose of progestogen is implicated in breast cancer risk holds true. Indeed, in Northern Europe, the daily dose of progestogen is often the same in both continuous-combined and sequential regimens, so that the total monthly dose in the former ismore elevated than in the latter, which is generally not the case in the USA or in the UK. Finally, the route of administration of the progestogen (oral, transdermal, vaginal, . . .) mayalso intervene regarding breast cancer risk, but there is so far no epidemiological data on this subject. By considering the available epidemiological evidence, it therefore seems likely that breast cancer risk varies according to the characteristics of the progestogen component of MHT. As it is the most effective treatment to alleviate climacteric symptoms, MHT remains widely used, and the administration of a progestogen is mandatory in hysterectomized women to protect the endometrium against the development of estrogen-induced hyperplasia. Therefore, for these women who need estrogen–progestogen MHT, the issue of progestogens must remain a very active area of research, aiming at identifying treatment modalities that have the least potential for exerting adverse effects. In particular, future studies should be designed to disentangle the effects of various progestogen-related parameters: the molecule, the dosage, the regimen and the route of administration.
乳腺癌和绝经期激素治疗:孕激素重要吗?
已经确定,在绝经期激素治疗(MHT)中,孕激素与雌激素成分的结合对乳腺癌风险并不是中性的,甚至是一个中心因素。雌激素-孕激素MHT现已被列为人类乳房致癌物质。因此,我们是否应该得出结论,存在与所有孕激素相关的类效应?或者是否有可能不同的分子或剂量,例如,承担不同的风险?直到最近,孕激素才成为研究乳腺癌与MHT关系的关键课题。因此,这种关系的许多方面仍然没有解决,其中一些几乎没有研究过。然而,现有数据表明,孕激素分子的选择能够影响患乳腺癌的风险。特别是,在法国E3 N队列中,含有mht的孕酮或其异构体地孕酮的风险比含有其他孕激素的风险低。关于每月使用孕激素的天数是否会调节风险的问题,迄今为止产生了不同的结果。在北欧进行的研究中,顺序和连续联合治疗方案之间的风险差异通常比在美国或英国更明显,这一观察结果令人困惑。如果孕激素的月累积剂量与乳腺癌风险有关的假设成立,那么这种明显的差异就解决了。事实上,在北欧,连续联合用药和顺序用药的孕激素日剂量通常是相同的,因此,连续联合用药的月总剂量比连续联合用药的月总剂量高,这在美国和英国通常不是这种情况。最后,孕激素的给药途径(口服、透皮、阴道等)也可能干预乳腺癌的风险,但迄今为止还没有关于这一主题的流行病学数据。考虑到现有的流行病学证据,因此,乳腺癌风险似乎根据MHT中孕激素成分的特征而变化。由于MHT是缓解更年期症状最有效的治疗方法,因此它仍然被广泛使用,并且子宫切除术妇女必须给予孕激素以保护子宫内膜免受雌激素诱导的增生的影响。因此,对于这些需要雌激素-孕激素MHT的妇女,孕激素的问题必须保持一个非常活跃的研究领域,旨在确定产生不良反应的可能性最小的治疗方式。特别是,未来的研究应旨在解开各种孕激素相关参数的影响:分子,剂量,方案和给药途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信