0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

New-Onset Breast Tenderness After Initiation of Estrogen Plus Progestin Therapy and Breast Cancer Risk FREE

Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, MS; Aaron K. Aragaki, MS; Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD; Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD; Garnet Anderson, PhD; Susan L. Hendrix, DO; Barbara B. Cochrane, PhD, RN; Lewis H. Kuller, MD, DrPH; Jane A. Cauley, DrPH
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles (Dr Crandall); Women's Health Initiative Clinical Coordinating Center (Mr Arakagi) and Division of Public Health Services (Drs McTiernan and Anderson), Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Department of Hematology and Oncology, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor–UCLA Medical Center (Dr Chlebowski); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wayne State University School of Medicine/Hutzel Women's Hospital, Detroit, Michigan (Dr Hendrix); Family and Child Nursing, University of Washington School of Nursing, Seattle (Dr Cochrane); and Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Drs Kuller and Cauley).


Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(18):1684-1691. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.303.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  Estrogen plus progestin therapy increases breast cancer incidence and breast tenderness. Whether breast tenderness during estrogen plus progestin therapy is associated with breast cancer risk is uncertain.

Methods  We analyzed data from the Women's Health Initiative Estrogen + Progestin Trial, which randomized postmenopausal women with an intact uterus to receive daily conjugated equine estrogens, 0.625 mg, plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, 2.5 mg (n = 8506), or placebo (n = 8102). At baseline and annually, participants underwent mammography and clinical breast examination. Self-reported breast tenderness was assessed at baseline and at 12 months. The incidence of invasive breast cancer was confirmed by medical record review (mean follow-up of 5.6 years).

Results  Of women without baseline breast tenderness (n = 14 538), significantly more assigned to receive conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone vs placebo experienced new-onset breast tenderness after 12 months (36.1% vs 11.8%, P < .001). Of women in the conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone group, breast cancer risk was significantly higher in those with new-onset breast tenderness compared with those without (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.03; P = .02). In the placebo group, breast cancer risk was not significantly associated with new-onset breast tenderness (P = .97).

Conclusions  New-onset breast tenderness during conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone therapy was associated with increased breast cancer risk. The sensitivity and specificity of the association between breast tenderness and breast cancer were similar in magnitude to those of the Gail model.

Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000611

Figures in this Article

The use of menopausal estrogen plus progestin therapy is associated with increased breast cancer risk. In the randomized Women's Health Initiative Estrogen + Progestin Trial (WHI E + P Trial), which compared daily use of oral conjugated equine estrogens, 0.625 mg, plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, 2.5 mg, vs placebo, 8 additional cases of breast cancer per 10 000 woman-years occurred in women assigned to receive conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone compared with women assigned to receive placebo (P < .003).1,2 Identification of factors prognostic of breast cancer development in conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone users would have clinical relevance.

We hypothesized that breast cancer in this setting is associated with preceding breast tenderness. Breast tenderness is a common adverse effect of conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone therapy. Although estimates of its frequency vary owing to differences in data collection techniques, most studies report that new-onset breast tenderness (NOBT) occurs in 10% to 25% of women after initiation of combined hormone therapy.35 In addition, breast tenderness during combined hormone therapy has been linked to an increase in mammographic density,3,6,7 an independent risk factor for breast cancer.8

The association between NOBT during combined hormone therapy and breast cancer risk has not been previously examined. We examined this issue in the WHI E + P Trial, which randomized postmenopausal women to receive daily conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone or placebo.1

STUDY DESIGN

Eligibility criteria and recruitment methods have been previously described.1,9 For the WHI E + P Trial, 16 608 postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years without a previous hysterectomy were recruited at 40 clinical centers largely via mass mailings between October 29, 1993, and December 31, 1998. The WHI used the following criteria to define postmenopausal: no vaginal bleeding for 6 months (12 months for 50- to 54-year olds), hysterectomy, or past use of postmenopausal hormone therapy.1 Women were required to cease any menopausal hormone therapy for 3 months before randomization. Before enrollment, all the women underwent clinical breast examination and mammography; abnormal findings required clearance before study enrollment.2 Interested WHI E + P Trial participants were also enrolled in the WHI Dietary Modification component that randomly assigned 48 835 postmenopausal women to a low-fat or a usual diet.10 All the participants provided written informed consent. The human subjects committee at each institution approved the study.

In the WHI E + P Trial, women were randomly assigned to receive a daily tablet containing conjugated equine estrogens, 0.625 mg, and medroxyprogesterone acetate, 2.5 mg (n = 8506), or an identical-appearing placebo tablet (n = 8102). Local dispensation of study medications was masked via medication bottles with unique bar codes. The following conditions required discontinuation of study medication use: breast cancer, endometrial abnormalities (hyperplasia not responsive to therapy, atypia, or cancer), deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, malignant melanoma, meningioma, a triglyceride level greater than 1000 mg/dL (to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0113), institution of anticoagulant medication use for thrombophlebitis, or the use of nonstudy hormones (estrogen, progestin, androgen, tamoxifen, or raloxifene), although short-term (<3 months) vaginal estrogen use was allowed.

Safety monitoring and assessment of adherence to therapy occurred 6 weeks after initiation of therapy along with assessment of clinical outcomes at 6-month intervals. Annual mammography and clinical breast examination were required for continued administration of study medication. Participants were clinically monitored regardless of medication adherence. After mean follow-up of 5.6 years, the WHI Data and Safety Monitoring Board recommended stopping the WHI E + P Trial because the incidence of breast cancer exceeded a predesignated stopping boundary, and a global index supported the finding that overall risks exceeded overall benefits.1

ASSESSMENT OF INVASIVE BREAST CANCER

Breast cancer outcomes were self-reported every 6 months using standardized questionnaires; breast cancer diagnoses were confirmed by local physician adjudicators who reviewed medical records and pathology reports. Subsequently, all breast cancer diagnoses were centrally adjudicated by trained coders using standards from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results system.2,11 Community physicians evaluated and treated breast abnormalities. When the study intervention ended, 359 invasive breast cancers were confirmed by means of central adjudication.

ASSESSMENT OF BREAST TENDERNESS

Breast tenderness was self-reported at baseline and at the 12-month follow-up visit via a symptom inventory based on questionnaire items related to menopausal hormone use and aging from national surveys and clinical trials.12,13 Participants rated the degree of bother from breast tenderness during the past 4 weeks using a 4-point Likert-type scale: symptom did not occur, symptom was mild (did not interfere with usual activities), symptom was moderate (interfered somewhat with usual activities), or symptom was severe (so bothersome that usual activities could not be pursued). We considered participants to have NOBT if they reported the absence of breast tenderness at baseline and the presence of breast tenderness (mild, moderate, or severe) at the first annual follow-up visit.

OTHER QUESTIONNAIRE MEASUREMENTS AND ANTHROPOMETRIC MEASURES

At baseline, breast cancer risk factors were assessed by using standardized self-report questionnaires. Participants were asked about medical and reproductive history, family medical history, cigarette smoking, alcohol use, race/ethnicity, education status, income, and physical activity. Energy expenditure from recreational physical activity was calculated from questionnaire items regarding physical activity frequency and duration. Menopausal hormone use before trial intervention was ascertained at baseline using an interviewer-administered questionnaire. Gail breast cancer risk score was calculated based on risk factors collected at baseline.14,15 Baseline height and weight were measured for the calculation of body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) (http://whiscience.org/about/collection.php).

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

All primary analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. Baseline characteristics were compared in women with and without baseline breast tenderness using χ2 tests of association. Statistical significance tests for baseline characteristics by NOBT were adjusted for age and treatment assignment.

Relative risk (RR) of breast tenderness at the first annual follow-up visit was obtained from a generalized linear model using a log-link function. We assessed whether the occurrence of breast tenderness at annual follow-up differed according to the presence of breast tenderness at baseline. To do this, we used a generalized linear model with randomization group (conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone vs placebo) and baseline breast tenderness (yes vs no) as main effects, risk of breast tenderness at the first annual follow-up visit (yes vs no) as the outcome, and randomization group × baseline breast tenderness as the interaction term.

To examine the association between NOBT and invasive breast cancer risk in multivariate Cox models, we defined a time-dependent binary covariate X(t) equal to 0 for all women until the first annual follow-up visit and equal to 1 after the first annual follow-up visit if a woman reported breast tenderness at the first annual follow-up visit and had not reported breast tenderness at baseline. Survival time, t, was defined as the number of days after randomization to the first diagnosis of breast cancer and was censored at the time of a woman's last documented follow-up contact or death. To allow better control for age, in addition to making a linear adjustment for age, we allowed the baseline hazard functions to vary by age group. Thus, each model allowed the baseline hazard function to vary by age group (50-54, 55-59, 60-69, or 70-79 years old) and WHI Dietary Modification trial randomization assignment and was adjusted for age (linear), ethnicity (white, black, American Indian, Asian Pacific Islander, or unknown), alcohol consumption (nondrinker, ≤1 drink daily, or >1 drink daily), cigarette smoking (never, past, or current), body mass index (linear and quartiles), energy expenditure from physical activity (metabolic equivalent hours per week, including walking and mild, moderate, and strenuous physical activity, linear and quartiles), parity (never pregnant, 1, 2, or ≥3), mother's age at first birth (never pregnant or <20, 20-29, or ≥30 years), duration of breastfeeding (never, ≤1 year, or >1 year), time since menopause (<5, 5-10, 11-15, or >15 years), Gail model breast cancer risk score (linear and quartiles), menopausal hormone therapy before trial participation (yes or no), and baseline breast tenderness. Potential confounders were chosen based on biological plausibility and findings from published studies.1621 Multiple imputation was used to avoid deletion of observations with missing covariate values.22 Hazard ratio (HR) estimates are expressed as RRs. The SAS PROC MI (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina) was used to generate a set of 5 plausible values for the missing covariate data that we assumed were missing at random, and PROC MIANALYZE (SAS Institute Inc) was used to combine parameter estimates from the Cox models for valid statistical inference.

To assess the extent to which NOBT was a marker of the effect of conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone on the risk of invasive breast cancer, we compared the estimates of the conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone HR in models with and without NOBT.23 Using the method of Li et al,24 we estimated the proportion of the effect of conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone on breast cancer risk that was explained by NOBT. Using the incidence estimates of NOBT and the parameter estimates from a Cox proportional hazards model, this formula was used to calculate the proportion of the treatment effect explained by the surrogate marker, NOBT, divided by the overall effect of treatment. We calculated the sensitivity (true-positive rate) and specificity (1 minus false-positive rate) of NOBT as a predictor of breast cancer risk in women assigned to receive conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone. All statistical tests were 2-sided. P < .05 was considered statistically significant for tests of main effects. All statistical analyses were performed using a software program (SAS/STAT 9.1; SAS Institute Inc).

For the 16 608 women participating in this trial, demographics and breast cancer risk factors (including previous hormone exposure, family history, dietary intake, education, ethnicity, and Gail risk score) were similar in the hormone therapy and placebo groups.2 Women who reported baseline breast tenderness tended to be younger, heavier, black or Hispanic, lower alcohol consumers, less physically active, younger at first child's birth, more distant from menopause transition, at lower predicted breast cancer risk (Gail model), and more likely to have used menopausal hormone therapy before trial participation compared with women without baseline breast tenderness (Table 1). Baseline breast tenderness did not differ significantly by randomization group.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Baseline Characteristics in the WHI E + P Trial by Breast Tenderness Status at Baseline and Year 1a

As reported previously,4 assignment to the conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone group increased the risk of breast tenderness at 1-year follow-up. The risk of mild, moderate, or severe breast tenderness at 1 year in women assigned to receive conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone was higher in women without baseline breast tenderness than in women with baseline breast tenderness (interaction term P < .001) (Table 2). In the subgroup of women with no breast tenderness at baseline, the risk of breast tenderness at 1 year was 3-fold higher in women assigned to receive conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone compared with women assigned to receive placebo (36.1% vs 11.8%; RR, 3.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.85-3.30; P < .001) (Table 2). In the subgroup of women with breast tenderness at baseline, the risk of breast tenderness at year 1 was 1.26 times higher in women assigned to receive conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone compared with women assigned to receive placebo (95% CI, 1.17-1.37) (Table 2).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Prevalence and Relative Risk (RR) of Breast Tenderness at the First Annual Follow-up Visit by Randomization Assignment in the WHI E + P Triala

Women who reported NOBT tended to be older and black or Hispanic compared with women without NOBT (Table 1). Most women who reported NOBT (76.3%) were in the conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone group; of these women, severity of tenderness was rated as mild in 77%, as moderate in 19%, and as severe in 4% (data not shown).

As reported previously, assignment to receive conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone increased the risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.01-1.54; P = .003).2 New-onset breast tenderness was associated with a higher risk of invasive breast cancer, especially in women assigned to the conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone group (Table 3). In women in the conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone group who did not have baseline breast tenderness, the risk of breast cancer was higher in women with NOBT than in women without NOBT (multivariable-adjusted HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.08-2.03; P = .02). In the placebo group, the risk of breast cancer was not significantly higher in women with NOBT than in women without NOBT (Table 3). Thus, NOBT was associated with a statistically significantly elevated breast cancer risk in the conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone group but not in the placebo group. Too few women had moderate or severe tenderness to allow us to determine whether breast cancer risk increased with increasing severity of breast tenderness.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Annualized Rates and Multivariable-Adjusted Risk of Invasive Breast Cancer Owing to New-Onset Breast Tenderness at 12-Month Follow-up in the WHI E+P Trial

The Figure illustrates differences in invasive breast cancer risk according to the presence vs the absence of NOBT after adjustment for age, ethnicity, previous menopausal hormone therapy, and Gail breast cancer risk score. Data were too sparse to allow for stratification of the breast tenderness–breast cancer association according severity (mild, moderate, or severe) of breast tenderness.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.

Risk of invasive breast cancer according to the presence or absence of new-onset breast tenderness (NOBT). Survival times for Kaplan-Meier estimates of the cumulative hazard function beginning at the year 1 follow-up visit (ie, survival time t = 0 at the year 1 follow-up visit) were adjusted for age, ethnicity, previous menopausal hormone therapy, and Gail breast cancer risk score. Seventeen women in the active treatment arm (6 with and 11 without breast tenderness at year 1) and 26 women in the placebo treatment arm (10 with and 16 without breast tenderness at year 1) are excluded from the figure because they either developed breast cancer before the year 1 follow-up assessment or had no follow-up after the annual visit.

Graphic Jump Location

We used the criteria of Prentice23 to further explore the breast tenderness–breast cancer association. Before inclusion of randomization assignment, women with NOBT had a 37% higher risk of invasive breast cancer than did women without NOBT (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.05-1.77; P = .02) (data not shown). When treatment assignment and NOBT were included in the same Cox regression model, the magnitude of the increased risk of breast cancer in women with NOBT was modestly lowered (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.99-1.70) (data not shown). Likewise, the magnitude of the HR associated with assignment to receive conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone was lowered and lost statistical significance after adjustment for NOBT (HR, 1.25; P = .04 before adjustment; and HR, 1.19; P = .11 after adjustment for NOBT) (data not shown).

Of women assigned to conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone therapy, NOBT had a sensitivity of 41%, a specificity of 64%, and a positive predictive value of 2.7% in predicting invasive breast cancer risk during the intervention period (mean, 5.6 years). The proportion of breast cancer risk conferred by conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone use that was explained by NOBT was 24% (95% CI, 6%-100%), as assessed using the method of Li et al.24

In participants in a large randomized controlled trial of menopausal hormone therapy, NOBT was a marker of future breast cancer risk. Of women assigned to the conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone group who were free of breast tenderness at baseline, those who reported NOBT at the first annual follow-up visit had a 48% higher risk of invasive breast cancer than did those who did not experience NOBT at the first annual follow-up visit. NOBT explained 24% of the breast cancer risk conferred by conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone therapy.

To our knowledge, no previous published studies have addressed whether there is an association between conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone–induced NOBT and breast cancer risk. However, an association between NOBT and breast cancer has biological plausibility. Three previous studies3,6,7 found that conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone–induced breast tenderness is associated with increased mammographic density, a risk factor for breast cancer that indirectly measures breast parenchymal tissue proliferation.2527 Studies2830 have linked estrogen plus progestin therapy with increased breast cell proliferation. Thus, breast discomfort may be a clinical manifestation of increased proliferation that is manifest radiographically as increased breast density. However, in one study,31 mammographic density did not mediate the association between combination hormone therapy and breast cancer. The present study design does not permit us to directly test whether combined hormone therapy–induced breast tenderness represents increased breast cell proliferation. Because increases in the serum levels of estrone and estrone sulfate during conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone therapy are positively associated with increases in mammographic density,32,33 it is possible that conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone–induced increases in serum estrone or estrone sulfate levels could result in breast tenderness and increased breast cancer risk.

The emergence of endocrine symptoms in response to hormone-based interventions has recently been linked to breast cancer outcome in a large adjuvant breast cancer trial. In the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) trial,34 patients with breast cancer who reported an increase in hot flashes and arthralgia symptoms after 3 months of therapy with tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitor had nearly half as many breast cancer recurrences compared with women who did not report such symptoms. Thus, systematic responses, such as the breast tenderness described in the present study, may represent integrated functions of biological interaction among the intervention, breast cancer, and the postmenopausal woman's host response.

In the present study, the prevalence of NOBT in women assigned to the conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone group was 36%. Most randomized trials3540 of conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone did not report the prevalence of NOBT at 1 year. The exception is the Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions (PEPI) trial, which asked participants at the first annual follow-up visit, “During the past week, including today, did any of these symptoms bother you or interfere with your life: breast sensitivity/tenderness (yes or no) and/or painful breasts (yes or no)?” In the PEPI trial, in women assigned to the conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone treatment arm who reported the absence of baseline breast symptoms, the prevalence of breast symptoms was 23% at the first annual follow-up visit.3 When we exclude WHI participants with mild breast tenderness, more closely matching the PEPI trial assessment method, the prevalence of hormone therapy–associated NOBT is almost identical in the 2 trials (23% vs 25%). Thus, it is likely that heterogeneity regarding how questionnaires assess breast symptoms results in different prevalence estimates for hormone therapy–associated breast symptoms across studies.

Few characteristics explained who would develop NOBT. Although several characteristics were statistically significantly associated with NOBT (eg, ethnicity, cigarette smoking, and body mass index), the magnitude of their associations with breast tenderness was small. Risk factors for NOBT require further elucidation.

The sensitivity and specificity of NOBT for predicting invasive breast cancer risk in conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone users were similar to those of the Gail model. In the present study, based on mean follow-up of 5.6 years, NOBT had a sensitivity of 41%, a specificity of 64%, and a positive predictive value of 2.7% for predicting invasive breast cancer risk in women assigned to receive conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone. Using a 5-year risk of invasive breast cancer threshold of 1.67%, the Gail model had a sensitivity of 44% and a specificity of 66%.41 In another study,42 positive mammography findings had a positive predictive value of 6.6% for women aged 50 to 59 years and of 7.8% for women aged 60 to 69 years.

The present findings have potential clinical implications. The WHI E + P Trial has previously demonstrated that combined hormone therapy increases invasive breast cancer risk,2,43 mammographic breast density,44 and the frequency of mammograms with abnormalities that less reliably detect cancer.45 We report that an increase in breast tenderness, easily detected by physicians or patients, identifies a population at particular risk for breast cancer. These findings should be considered by women who experience NOBT while receiving combined hormone therapy and by their prescribing physicians to inform decisions regarding continued combined hormone therapy.

This study has limitations. The study questionnaire assessed breast tenderness annually. Thus, we may have underestimated breast tenderness, although this method of ascertainment probably resembles reporting of breast tenderness in a clinical setting. Also, although the rates of treatment discontinuation in the conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone treatment arm (42%) and of crossover from placebo to active therapy (11%) were relatively high,1 we believe that they would tend to decrease the observed association between breast tenderness and breast cancer. Although women who developed NOBT had higher baseline Gail model breast cancer risk scores, the association between NOBT and future breast cancer risk persisted after adjustment for Gail risk score. Finally, the present results do not apply to other types or schedules of estrogen or progestogen therapy.

The strengths of this study include the large number of participants, the use of placebo controls, the comprehensive assessment of breast cancer risk factors, the rigorous assessment of breast cancer outcomes during several years of follow-up, the blinding of participants and investigators to treatment assignment, the requirement for annual mammography and clinical breast examination, and the serial prospective blinded assessment of breast tenderness in the placebo and treatment groups. To our knowledge, this study was based on the largest and longest randomized controlled trial of combination menopausal hormone therapy ever performed.

In conclusion, NOBT during conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone therapy may be a marker of increased breast cancer risk. The sensitivity and specificity of the association between breast tenderness and breast cancer were similar in magnitude to those observed using the Gail model and raise the possibility that reports of breast tenderness during conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone therapy may identify high-risk women.

Correspondence: Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, MS, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, UCLA Medicine/GIM, 911 Broxton Ave, First Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90024 (ccrandall@mednet.ucla.edu).

Accepted for Publication: June 12, 2009.

Author Contributions: Mr Aragaki had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Crandall, Hendrix, Cochrane, and Kuller. Acquisition of data: Hendrix, Cochrane, and Kuller. Analysis and interpretation of data: Crandall, Aragaki, Chlebowski, McTiernan, Anderson, Hendrix, and Cauley. Drafting of the manuscript: Crandall and Aragaki. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Crandall, Aragaki, Chlebowski, McTiernan, Anderson, Hendrix, Cochrane, and Cauley. Statistical analysis: Aragaki and Anderson. Obtained funding: Chlebowski, Hendrix, and Kuller. Administrative, technical, and material support: Crandall, Hendrix, Cochrane, Kuller, and Cauley. Study supervision: Crandall, Chlebowski, McTiernan, Hendrix, and Cochrane.

Financial Disclosure: Dr Chlebowski receives consulting fees from or is on the paid advisory board of AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis International AG, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer Inc and has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca and Novartis International AG.

Funding/Support: The WHI is funded by contracts N01WH22110, 24152, 32100-2, 32105-6, 32108-9, 32111-13, 32115, 32118-32119, 32122, 42107-26, 42129-32, and 44221 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services. Dr Crandall's work was supported by research grant 5K12 AG01004-08 from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, and by the Tarlow-Eisner-Moss Research Endowment of the Iris Cantor–UCLA Women's Health Center. The active study drug and placebo were supplied by Wyeth-Ayerst Research Laboratories.

WHI Investigators:Program Office: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Maryland: Elizabeth Nabel, Jacques Rossouw, Shari Ludlam, Linda Pottern, Joan McGowan, Leslie Ford, and Nancy Geller. Clinical Coordinating Centers: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center: Ross Prentice, Garnet Anderson, Andrea LaCroix, Charles L. Kooperberg, Ruth E. Patterson, and Anne McTiernan; Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina: Sally Shumaker; Medical Research Labs, Highland Heights, Kentucky: Evan Stein; University of California at San Francisco: Steven Cummings. Clinical Centers: Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York: Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas: Aleksandar Rajkovic; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts: JoAnn Manson; Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island: Annlouise R. Assaf; Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia: Lawrence Phillips; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center: Shirley Beresford; George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC: Judith Hsia; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor–UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California: Rowan T. Chlebowski; Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon: Evelyn Whitlock; Kaiser Permanente Division of Research, Oakland, California: Bette Caan; Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee: Jane Morley Kotchen; MedStar Research Institute/Howard University, Washington, DC: Barbara V. Howard; Northwestern University, Chicago/Evanston, Illinois: Linda Van Horn; Rush Medical Center, Chicago: Henry Black; Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford, California: Marcia L. Stefanick; State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook: Dorothy Lane; The Ohio State University, Columbus: Rebecca Jackson; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham: Cora E. Lewis; University of Arizona, Tucson/Phoenix: Tamsen Bassford; University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York: Jean Wactawski-Wende; University of California at Davis, Sacramento: John Robbins; University of California at Irvine: F. Allan Hubbell; University of California at Los Angeles: Howard Judd; University of California at San Diego, La Jolla/Chula Vista: Robert D. Langer; University of Cincinnati, Ohio: Margery Gass; University of Florida, Gainesville/Jacksonville: Marian Limacher; University of Hawaii, Honolulu: David Curb; The University of Iowa, Iowa City/Davenport: Robert Wallace; University of Massachusetts/Fallon Clinic, Worcester: Judith Ockene; University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark: Norman Lasser; University of Miami, Florida: Mary Jo O’Sullivan; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis: Karen Margolis; University of Nevada, Reno: Robert Brunner; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill: Gerardo Heiss; University of Pittsburgh: Lewis Kuller; University of Tennessee, Memphis: Karen C. Johnson; The University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio: Robert Brzyski; University of Wisconsin, Madison: Gloria E. Sarto; Wake Forest University School of Medicine: Denise Bonds; and Wayne State University School of Medicine/Hutzel Women's Hospital: Susan L. Hendrix.

Additional Contributions: We thank the women who generously participated in the WHI E + P Trial and the WHI investigators and staff for their dedicated efforts.

Rossouw  JEAnderson  GLPrentice  RL  et al. Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative Investigators, Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002;288 (3) 321- 333
PubMed Link to Article
Chlebowski  RTHendrix  SLLanger  RD  et al. WHI Investigators, Influence of estrogen plus progestin on breast cancer and mammography in healthy postmenopausal women: the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Trial. JAMA 2003;289 (24) 3243- 3253
PubMed Link to Article
Crandall  CJKarlamangla  AHuang  MHUrsin  GGuan  MGreendale  GA Association of new-onset breast discomfort with an increase in mammographic density during hormone therapy [published correction appears in Arch Intern Med. 2006 Nov 13;166(20):2176]. Arch Intern Med 2006;166 (15) 1578- 1584
PubMed Link to Article
Barnabei  VMCochrane  BBAragaki  AK  et al. Women's Health Initiative Investigators, Menopausal symptoms and treatment-related effects of estrogen and progestin in the Women's Health Initiative. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105 (5, pt 1) 1063- 1073
PubMed Link to Article
Utian  WHShoupe  DBachmann  GPinkerton  JVPickar  JH Relief of vasomotor symptoms and vaginal atrophy with lower doses of conjugated equine estrogens and medroxyprogesterone acetate. Fertil Steril 2001;75 (6) 1065- 1079
PubMed Link to Article
Bülbül  NHÖzden  SDayicioglu  V Effects of hormone replacement therapy on mammographic findings. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2003;268 (1) 5- 8
PubMed
McNicholas  MMHeneghan  JPMilner  MHTunney  THourihane  JBMacErlaine  DP Pain and increased mammographic density in women receiving hormone replacement therapy: a prospective study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;163 (2) 311- 315
PubMed Link to Article
Boyd  NFByng  JWJong  RA  et al.  Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87 (9) 670- 675
PubMed Link to Article
Women's Health Initiative Study Group, Design of the Women's Health Initiative clinical trial and observational study. Control Clin Trials 1998;19 (1) 61- 109
PubMed Link to Article
Ritenbaugh  CPatterson  REChlebowski  RT  et al.  The Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification trial: overview and baseline characteristics of participants. Ann Epidemiol 2003;13 (9) ((suppl)) S87- S97
PubMed Link to Article
Curb  JDMcTiernan  AHeckbert  SR  et al. WHI Morbidity and Mortality Committee, Outcomes ascertainment and adjudication methods in the Women's Health Initiative. Ann Epidemiol 2003;13 (9) ((suppl)) S122- S128
PubMed Link to Article
Ganz  PADay  RWare  JE  JrRedmond  CFisher  B Base-line quality-of-life assessment in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Breast Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87 (18) 1372- 1382
PubMed Link to Article
Greendale  GAReboussin  BAHogan  P  et al.  Symptom relief and side effects of postmenopausal hormones: results from the Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions Trial. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92 (6) 982- 988
PubMed Link to Article
Chlebowski  RTAnderson  GLLane  DS  et al. Women's Health Initiative Investigators, Predicting risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women by hormone receptor status. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99 (22) 1695- 1705
PubMed Link to Article
Costantino  JPGail  MHPee  D  et al.  Validation studies for models projecting the risk of invasive and total breast cancer incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91 (18) 1541- 1548
PubMed Link to Article
Gapstur  SMLópez  PColangelo  LAWolfman  JVan Horn  LHendrick  RE Associations of breast cancer risk factors with breast density in Hispanic women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12 (10) 1074- 1080
PubMed
Riza  Edos Santos Silva  IDe Stavola  B  et al.  Correlates of high-density mammographic parenchymal patterns by menopausal status in a rural population in Northern Greece. Eur J Cancer 2005;41 (4) 590- 600
PubMed Link to Article
Greendale  GAReboussin  BASlone  SWasilauskas  CPike  MCUrsin  G Postmenopausal hormone therapy and change in mammographic density. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95 (1) 30- 37
PubMed Link to Article
Masala  GAmbrogetti  DAssedi  MGiorgi  DDel Turco  MRPalli  D Dietary and lifestyle determinants of mammographic breast density: a longitudinal study in a Mediterranean population. Int J Cancer 2006;118 (7) 1782- 1789
PubMed Link to Article
López  PVan Horn  LColangelo  LAWolfman  JAHendrick  REGapstur  SM Physical inactivity and percent breast density among Hispanic women. Int J Cancer 2003;107 (6) 1012- 1016
PubMed Link to Article
Maskarinec  GPagano  IChen  ZNagata  CGram  IT Ethnic and geographic differences in mammographic density and their association with breast cancer incidence. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007;104 (1) 47- 56
PubMed Link to Article
Rubin  DB Multiple imputation after 18+ years. J Am Stat Assoc 1996;91 (434) 473- 489
Link to Article
Prentice  RL Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med 1989;8 (4) 431- 440
PubMed Link to Article
Li  ZMeredith  MPHoseyni  MS A method to assess the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate endpoint. Stat Med 2001;20 (21) 3175- 3188
PubMed Link to Article
American Cancer Society, Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2007-2008.  Atlanta, GA American Cancer Society2007;
Bright  RAMorrison  ASBrisson  J  et al.  Relationship between mammographic and histologic features of breast tissue in women with benign biopsies. Cancer 1988;61 (2) 266- 271
PubMed Link to Article
Wellings  SRWolfe  JN Correlative studies of the histological and radiographic appearance of the breast parenchyma. Radiology 1978;129 (2) 299- 306
PubMed Link to Article
Conner  PSöderqvist  GSkoog  L  et al.  Breast cell proliferation in postmenopausal women during HRT evaluated through fine needle aspiration cytology. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2003;78 (2) 159- 165
PubMed Link to Article
Conner  PChristow  AKersemaekers  W  et al.  A comparative study of breast cell proliferation during hormone replacement therapy: effects of tibolon and continuous combined estrogen-progestogen treatment. Climacteric 2004;7 (1) 50- 58
PubMed Link to Article
Hofseth  LJRaafat  AMOsuch  JRPathak  DRSlomski  CAHaslam  SZ Hormone replacement therapy with estrogen or estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate is associated with increased epithelial proliferation in the normal postmenopausal breast. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1999;84 (12) 4559- 4565
PubMed
Boyd  NFMartin  LJLi  Q  et al.  Mammographic density as a surrogate marker for the effects of hormone therapy on risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15 (5) 961- 966
PubMed Link to Article
Ursin  GPalla  SLReboussin  BA  et al.  Post-treatment change in serum estrone predicts mammographic percent density changes in women who received combination estrogen and progestin in the Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions (PEPI) Trial. J Clin Oncol 2004;22 (14) 2842- 2848
PubMed Link to Article
Crandall  CJGuan  MLaughlin  GA  et al.  Increases in serum estrone sulfate level are associated with increased mammographic density during menopausal hormone therapy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17 (7) 1674- 1681
PubMed Link to Article
Cuzick  JSestak  ICella  DFallowfield  LATAC Trialists' Group, Treatment-emergent endocrine symptoms and the risk of breast cancer recurrence: a retrospective analysis of the ATAC trial. Lancet Oncol 2008;9 (12) 1143- 1148
PubMed Link to Article
Akhila  VPratapkumar A comparison of transdermal and oral HRT for menopausal symptom control. Int J Fertil Womens Med 2006;51 (2) 64- 69
PubMed
Archer  DFHendrix  SGallagher  JC  et al.  Endometrial effects of tibolone. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2007;92 (3) 911- 918
PubMed Link to Article
Carranza-Lira  SGarduño-Hernández  MPCaisapanta  DAAparicio  H Evaluation of mastodynia in postmenopausal women taking hormone therapy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005;89 (2) 158- 159
PubMed Link to Article
Chen  LCTsao  YTYen  KYChen  YFChou  MHLin  MF A pilot study comparing the clinical effects of Jia-Wey Shiau-Yau San, a traditional Chinese herbal prescription, and a continuous combined hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women with climacteric symptoms. Maturitas 2003;44 (1) 55- 62
PubMed Link to Article
Jackson  VPSan Martin  JASecrest  RJ  et al.  Comparison of the effect of raloxifene and continuous-combined hormone therapy on mammographic breast density and breast tenderness in postmenopausal women [published correction appears in Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jun;188(6):1628]. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003 Feb;188 (2) 389- 394
PubMed Link to Article
Simon  JALiu  JHSperoff  LShumel  BSSymons  JP Reduced vaginal bleeding in postmenopausal women who receive combined norethindrone acetate and low-dose ethinyl estradiol therapy versus combined conjugated equine estrogens and medroxyprogesterone acetate therapy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188 (1) 92- 99
PubMed Link to Article
Rockhill  BSpiegelman  DByrne  CHunter  DJColditz  GA Validation of the Gail et al model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93 (5) 358- 366
PubMed Link to Article
Elmore  JGBarton  MBMoceri  VMPolk  SArena  PJFletcher  SW Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 1998;338 (16) 1089- 1096
PubMed Link to Article
Anderson  GLChlebowski  RTRossouw  JE  et al.  Prior hormone therapy and breast cancer risk in the Women's Health Initiative randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin. Maturitas 2006;55 (2) 103- 115
PubMed Link to Article
McTiernan  AMartin  CFPeck  JD  et al. Women's Health Initiative Mammogram Density Study Investigators, Estrogen-plus-progestin use and mammographic density in postmenopausal women: Women's Health Initiative randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97 (18) 1366- 1376
PubMed Link to Article
Chlebowski  RTAnderson  GPettinger  M  et al. Women's Health Initiative Investigators, Estrogen plus progestin and breast cancer detection by means of mammography and breast biopsy [published correction appears in Arch Intern Med. 2008;12;168(9):935]. Arch Intern Med 2008;168 (4) 370- 377, quiz 345
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.

Risk of invasive breast cancer according to the presence or absence of new-onset breast tenderness (NOBT). Survival times for Kaplan-Meier estimates of the cumulative hazard function beginning at the year 1 follow-up visit (ie, survival time t = 0 at the year 1 follow-up visit) were adjusted for age, ethnicity, previous menopausal hormone therapy, and Gail breast cancer risk score. Seventeen women in the active treatment arm (6 with and 11 without breast tenderness at year 1) and 26 women in the placebo treatment arm (10 with and 16 without breast tenderness at year 1) are excluded from the figure because they either developed breast cancer before the year 1 follow-up assessment or had no follow-up after the annual visit.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Baseline Characteristics in the WHI E + P Trial by Breast Tenderness Status at Baseline and Year 1a
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Prevalence and Relative Risk (RR) of Breast Tenderness at the First Annual Follow-up Visit by Randomization Assignment in the WHI E + P Triala
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Annualized Rates and Multivariable-Adjusted Risk of Invasive Breast Cancer Owing to New-Onset Breast Tenderness at 12-Month Follow-up in the WHI E+P Trial

References

Rossouw  JEAnderson  GLPrentice  RL  et al. Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative Investigators, Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002;288 (3) 321- 333
PubMed Link to Article
Chlebowski  RTHendrix  SLLanger  RD  et al. WHI Investigators, Influence of estrogen plus progestin on breast cancer and mammography in healthy postmenopausal women: the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Trial. JAMA 2003;289 (24) 3243- 3253
PubMed Link to Article
Crandall  CJKarlamangla  AHuang  MHUrsin  GGuan  MGreendale  GA Association of new-onset breast discomfort with an increase in mammographic density during hormone therapy [published correction appears in Arch Intern Med. 2006 Nov 13;166(20):2176]. Arch Intern Med 2006;166 (15) 1578- 1584
PubMed Link to Article
Barnabei  VMCochrane  BBAragaki  AK  et al. Women's Health Initiative Investigators, Menopausal symptoms and treatment-related effects of estrogen and progestin in the Women's Health Initiative. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105 (5, pt 1) 1063- 1073
PubMed Link to Article
Utian  WHShoupe  DBachmann  GPinkerton  JVPickar  JH Relief of vasomotor symptoms and vaginal atrophy with lower doses of conjugated equine estrogens and medroxyprogesterone acetate. Fertil Steril 2001;75 (6) 1065- 1079
PubMed Link to Article
Bülbül  NHÖzden  SDayicioglu  V Effects of hormone replacement therapy on mammographic findings. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2003;268 (1) 5- 8
PubMed
McNicholas  MMHeneghan  JPMilner  MHTunney  THourihane  JBMacErlaine  DP Pain and increased mammographic density in women receiving hormone replacement therapy: a prospective study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;163 (2) 311- 315
PubMed Link to Article
Boyd  NFByng  JWJong  RA  et al.  Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87 (9) 670- 675
PubMed Link to Article
Women's Health Initiative Study Group, Design of the Women's Health Initiative clinical trial and observational study. Control Clin Trials 1998;19 (1) 61- 109
PubMed Link to Article
Ritenbaugh  CPatterson  REChlebowski  RT  et al.  The Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification trial: overview and baseline characteristics of participants. Ann Epidemiol 2003;13 (9) ((suppl)) S87- S97
PubMed Link to Article
Curb  JDMcTiernan  AHeckbert  SR  et al. WHI Morbidity and Mortality Committee, Outcomes ascertainment and adjudication methods in the Women's Health Initiative. Ann Epidemiol 2003;13 (9) ((suppl)) S122- S128
PubMed Link to Article
Ganz  PADay  RWare  JE  JrRedmond  CFisher  B Base-line quality-of-life assessment in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Breast Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87 (18) 1372- 1382
PubMed Link to Article
Greendale  GAReboussin  BAHogan  P  et al.  Symptom relief and side effects of postmenopausal hormones: results from the Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions Trial. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92 (6) 982- 988
PubMed Link to Article
Chlebowski  RTAnderson  GLLane  DS  et al. Women's Health Initiative Investigators, Predicting risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women by hormone receptor status. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99 (22) 1695- 1705
PubMed Link to Article
Costantino  JPGail  MHPee  D  et al.  Validation studies for models projecting the risk of invasive and total breast cancer incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91 (18) 1541- 1548
PubMed Link to Article
Gapstur  SMLópez  PColangelo  LAWolfman  JVan Horn  LHendrick  RE Associations of breast cancer risk factors with breast density in Hispanic women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12 (10) 1074- 1080
PubMed
Riza  Edos Santos Silva  IDe Stavola  B  et al.  Correlates of high-density mammographic parenchymal patterns by menopausal status in a rural population in Northern Greece. Eur J Cancer 2005;41 (4) 590- 600
PubMed Link to Article
Greendale  GAReboussin  BASlone  SWasilauskas  CPike  MCUrsin  G Postmenopausal hormone therapy and change in mammographic density. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95 (1) 30- 37
PubMed Link to Article
Masala  GAmbrogetti  DAssedi  MGiorgi  DDel Turco  MRPalli  D Dietary and lifestyle determinants of mammographic breast density: a longitudinal study in a Mediterranean population. Int J Cancer 2006;118 (7) 1782- 1789
PubMed Link to Article
López  PVan Horn  LColangelo  LAWolfman  JAHendrick  REGapstur  SM Physical inactivity and percent breast density among Hispanic women. Int J Cancer 2003;107 (6) 1012- 1016
PubMed Link to Article
Maskarinec  GPagano  IChen  ZNagata  CGram  IT Ethnic and geographic differences in mammographic density and their association with breast cancer incidence. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007;104 (1) 47- 56
PubMed Link to Article
Rubin  DB Multiple imputation after 18+ years. J Am Stat Assoc 1996;91 (434) 473- 489
Link to Article
Prentice  RL Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med 1989;8 (4) 431- 440
PubMed Link to Article
Li  ZMeredith  MPHoseyni  MS A method to assess the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate endpoint. Stat Med 2001;20 (21) 3175- 3188
PubMed Link to Article
American Cancer Society, Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2007-2008.  Atlanta, GA American Cancer Society2007;
Bright  RAMorrison  ASBrisson  J  et al.  Relationship between mammographic and histologic features of breast tissue in women with benign biopsies. Cancer 1988;61 (2) 266- 271
PubMed Link to Article
Wellings  SRWolfe  JN Correlative studies of the histological and radiographic appearance of the breast parenchyma. Radiology 1978;129 (2) 299- 306
PubMed Link to Article
Conner  PSöderqvist  GSkoog  L  et al.  Breast cell proliferation in postmenopausal women during HRT evaluated through fine needle aspiration cytology. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2003;78 (2) 159- 165
PubMed Link to Article
Conner  PChristow  AKersemaekers  W  et al.  A comparative study of breast cell proliferation during hormone replacement therapy: effects of tibolon and continuous combined estrogen-progestogen treatment. Climacteric 2004;7 (1) 50- 58
PubMed Link to Article
Hofseth  LJRaafat  AMOsuch  JRPathak  DRSlomski  CAHaslam  SZ Hormone replacement therapy with estrogen or estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate is associated with increased epithelial proliferation in the normal postmenopausal breast. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1999;84 (12) 4559- 4565
PubMed
Boyd  NFMartin  LJLi  Q  et al.  Mammographic density as a surrogate marker for the effects of hormone therapy on risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15 (5) 961- 966
PubMed Link to Article
Ursin  GPalla  SLReboussin  BA  et al.  Post-treatment change in serum estrone predicts mammographic percent density changes in women who received combination estrogen and progestin in the Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions (PEPI) Trial. J Clin Oncol 2004;22 (14) 2842- 2848
PubMed Link to Article
Crandall  CJGuan  MLaughlin  GA  et al.  Increases in serum estrone sulfate level are associated with increased mammographic density during menopausal hormone therapy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17 (7) 1674- 1681
PubMed Link to Article
Cuzick  JSestak  ICella  DFallowfield  LATAC Trialists' Group, Treatment-emergent endocrine symptoms and the risk of breast cancer recurrence: a retrospective analysis of the ATAC trial. Lancet Oncol 2008;9 (12) 1143- 1148
PubMed Link to Article
Akhila  VPratapkumar A comparison of transdermal and oral HRT for menopausal symptom control. Int J Fertil Womens Med 2006;51 (2) 64- 69
PubMed
Archer  DFHendrix  SGallagher  JC  et al.  Endometrial effects of tibolone. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2007;92 (3) 911- 918
PubMed Link to Article
Carranza-Lira  SGarduño-Hernández  MPCaisapanta  DAAparicio  H Evaluation of mastodynia in postmenopausal women taking hormone therapy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005;89 (2) 158- 159
PubMed Link to Article
Chen  LCTsao  YTYen  KYChen  YFChou  MHLin  MF A pilot study comparing the clinical effects of Jia-Wey Shiau-Yau San, a traditional Chinese herbal prescription, and a continuous combined hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women with climacteric symptoms. Maturitas 2003;44 (1) 55- 62
PubMed Link to Article
Jackson  VPSan Martin  JASecrest  RJ  et al.  Comparison of the effect of raloxifene and continuous-combined hormone therapy on mammographic breast density and breast tenderness in postmenopausal women [published correction appears in Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jun;188(6):1628]. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003 Feb;188 (2) 389- 394
PubMed Link to Article
Simon  JALiu  JHSperoff  LShumel  BSSymons  JP Reduced vaginal bleeding in postmenopausal women who receive combined norethindrone acetate and low-dose ethinyl estradiol therapy versus combined conjugated equine estrogens and medroxyprogesterone acetate therapy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188 (1) 92- 99
PubMed Link to Article
Rockhill  BSpiegelman  DByrne  CHunter  DJColditz  GA Validation of the Gail et al model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93 (5) 358- 366
PubMed Link to Article
Elmore  JGBarton  MBMoceri  VMPolk  SArena  PJFletcher  SW Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 1998;338 (16) 1089- 1096
PubMed Link to Article
Anderson  GLChlebowski  RTRossouw  JE  et al.  Prior hormone therapy and breast cancer risk in the Women's Health Initiative randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin. Maturitas 2006;55 (2) 103- 115
PubMed Link to Article
McTiernan  AMartin  CFPeck  JD  et al. Women's Health Initiative Mammogram Density Study Investigators, Estrogen-plus-progestin use and mammographic density in postmenopausal women: Women's Health Initiative randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97 (18) 1366- 1376
PubMed Link to Article
Chlebowski  RTAnderson  GPettinger  M  et al. Women's Health Initiative Investigators, Estrogen plus progestin and breast cancer detection by means of mammography and breast biopsy [published correction appears in Arch Intern Med. 2008;12;168(9):935]. Arch Intern Med 2008;168 (4) 370- 377, quiz 345
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 10

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Hormones and risk of breast cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 1983;4(1):13-7.
[Actions of a 19-norprogesterone derivative on mammary gland: nomegestrol acetate]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2005;34(1 Pt 1):69-84.