Linda N. Meuer, MD, MPH, and Sara Lena
Depadmern of Family and Community Mcdu.nic, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI. This paper was presented in part at The Society of Teachers of Family Medicine Annual Spring Meeting; April 2001: Denver. CO. The project was funded in pari by a training grant from the National Cancer Institute The am hors report no competing interests.
Linda N. Meurer, MD. VIP11, Associate Prolessor, Department of Family and Community Medicine. Medical College of Wisconsin. K701 Waieriovvn Plank Road, Milwaukee, WJ 53226; E-mail: Imeurern@mew.edu.
Abstract
We compared the risk of cancer recurrence and all-cause mortality among users and nonusers of estrogen replacement therapy CERT) after the diagnosis of breast cancer.
This was a systematic review of original research. Eligible studies were reviewed by 2 investigators who independently extracted data from each study according to a predetermined form and assessed each study for validity on standard characteristics. Meta-analyses were performed with Review Manager 4,1 to provide a sum-mitry of relative risks of cancer recurrence and mortality.
Studies included 717 subjects who used hormone replacement therapy (IIRT) at some time after their diagnosis of breast cancer, as well as 2545 subjects who did not use HRT.
Outcomes included breast cancer recurrence and all-cause mortality.
Nine independent cohort studies anti one 6-month pilot randomized controlled trial were identified, Studies were of variable quality. Breast cancer survivors using ERT experienced no increase in the risk of recurrence compared with controls (relative risk, 0.72; 95% confidence interval. 0.47—1.10) and had significantly fewer deaths (3-0%) than did Lhe nonusers (11.4%) over the combined study periods (relative risk, 0.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.31). All tests for heterogeneity were nonsignificant.
Although limited by observational design, existing research does not support the universal withholding of ERT from well-informed women with a previous diagnosis of low-stage breast cancer. Long-term randomized controlled trials are needed.
Keywords: Estrogen replacement therapy, hormone replacement therapy, breast cancer, survivors, meta-analysis.
Introduction
Estrogen-containing hormone replacement therapy (ERT) after menopause has been implicated as a causal factor in the development of primary breast cancer.Fearing cancer recurrence, most physicians do not offer ERT to postmenopausal women with a history of breast cancer. However, estrogen deficiency, which is especially common in women after chemotherapy, can be associated with severe symptoms, reduced quality of life, and increased risk of osteoporosis and possibly coronary artery disease. Although there are theoretical justifications to discourage the use of ERT by women at high risk for breast cancer, there is little objective evidence that hormone replacement increases the likelihood ol breast cancer recurrence or of mortality among survivors of primary breast cancer, lr is difficult for clinicians and patients to make rational decisions regarding ERT in these patients, given the paucity of studies and the difficulty of interpreting the few studies available.
ТЕКСТSeveral observational studies have been published on the use of estrogen and/or combined estrogen-progesterone hormone replacement therapy in women who have had breast cancer. Many of these studies have reported single-institution series of outcomes among survivors who opted to take ERT for their menopausal symptoms. These studies tend to demonstrate rather unimpressive incidences of recurrence and mortality events. However, it is possible that such studies underestimate the risks because patients who are given ERT may represent a subgroup with a better prognosis than other patients (bias by indication). A smaller number of studies has used comparison groups and attempted to control for disease severity and other factors associated with recurrence.
We conducted a meta-analysis of studies comparing women who used ERT after the diagnosis of breast cancer with a control group of non-ERT users to determine whether ERT is associated with an increased risk of cancer recurrence or all-cause mortality among breast cancer survivors.
Methods
Search strategy
We identified relevant studies through independent literature searches of Medline (from 1966 to August 2001) and Cancerlit (from 1986 to August 2001) with the use of OVID software and the following search terms: estrogen replacement therapy, hormone replacement therapy, breast neoplasms, neoplasm recurrence, survivors. No language restriction was imposed. A careful review- of titles and abstracts was done to identify relevant articles, and for these, the full articles were retrieved for review. Bibliographies of identified studies and review- articles were examined for additional citations. Medline and Cancerlit databases were also searched by the names of authors of relevant studies to identify any missed articles. The authors of large studies and experts from our institution were asked to review the reference list for completeness and to suggest sources of unpublished data,
Inclusion criteria
Studies were considered for inclusion into the meta-analysis if they met the following criteria: (1) the population studied was women with a previous diagnosis of breast cancer, (2) the risk factor considered was the use of systemic estrogen or any combination hormone replacement therapy that included estrogen, (3) the outcome measured included the recurrence of breast cancer (whether a new or recurring primary cancer) and/or mortality, and (4) the study design was a randomized controlled trial or cohort study comparing women who used ERT after their breast cancer diagnosis with a concurrent, historical, or population-based control group of women who did not. Single-arm cohort studies were retrieved and summarized qualitatively but not included in the statistical analysis, Tf more than 1 publication was identified which reported tite same data, the study with the most recent or complete data was .selected for the analysis. We independently reviewed all studies for inclusion, and any differences were resolved through consensus.
Validity assessment
All included studies were: assessed for validity by 2 independent reviewers, blinded to study results, for the following characteristics: (T) prospective data collection, (2) clear subject inclusion criteria, (3) reliability of exposure. (4) similarity between exposed and unexposed groups, (5) loss to followup, and (6) reliability of outcome assessment. When threats to study validity were identified, attempts were made to determine whether these threats were likely to significantly influence the results of the study and to estimate the direction of the influence of these threats on the resulting data. Because baseline differences between the study groups are such an important threat to the validity of these studies, the studies were graded as higher quality and lower quality based on whether significant differences in known prognostic factors existed.
Data management and analysis
A data extraction form was created to aid consistent recording of data from all studies, and both investigators extracted data independently. Any discrepancies in data interpretation or abstraction were resolved through consensus. Study characteristics and results for single-arm cohort studies were presented descriptively. For controlled studies, data were entered as dichotomous variables into Review Manager 4.1 software, as distributed by the Cochrane Collaboration. Summary relative risk (RR) estimates were calculated by using a fixed effects model (Mantel-Haenszel method) unless the results were found to be statistically heterogeneous (P < .1) through the use of a Q statistic, in which case the more conservative random effects model (DerSimonian-Laird method) was used. A subanalysis was performed based on the quality ratings, with a lower rating given to studies in which the exposed and unexposed groups differed significantly on important prognostic factors such as age, tumor stage, and time since diagnosis. Funnel plots were constructed to identify possible publication bias.
Results
Description of studies
The original search yielded 24 relevant reports, including 1 unpublished report (Blunting AZ, personal communication, 2000) with 2 separate studies, One of these and 12 published single-arm cohort studies[1-]4 were excluded because they lacked a control group, but a summary of these studies can be found online (Table l, available on the JFP Web site: www.jfponline.com. Twelve reports[14-2] met the inclusion criteria and provided data comparing the rates of recurrence or mortality among patients who used ERT after the diagnosis of breast cancer and users vs controls. Among these studies were 8 independent cohort studies from the published literature, l- one set of unpublished data from Blunting et al, and one 6- month pilot randomized controlled trial." One matched cohort study[1] presented recurrence data for 90 patients and 180 controls who were later included in a larger, non-matcbed study reporting recurrence and mortality.[1] Another small study-[1,1] reported only deaths from breast cancer from a data set included at least in part in another report"’ and was therefore excluded. Overall, the included studies accounted for 717 subjects who used hormone replacement therapy at some time after their diagnosis of breast cancer compared with 2545 non risers. Characteristics of included studies are summarized in the Table.
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.
Methodologic quality
The quality of the studies was variable. The only- randomized controlled trial" was a 6-month pilot study, after which the allocation code was broken and patients were free to choose whether to be on treatment. Of the cohort studies, only 1 trial11 began with an inception cohort that combined data from 62 patients who elected to be part of a randomized controlled trial with that from another 257 who declined to be randomized but chose on their own whether to take ERT.21 One study was dearly retrospective[2] patients with ductal carcinoma in situ were identified through a cancer registry, and their exposures and recurrences were determined through a mailed questionnaire. The remaining studies used clinic records to identify patients who had been prescribed ERT and compared those recurrence and mortality rates with those of a control group comprising the remaining clinic patients11,1111 15 or matched subjects selected from a regional cancer surveillance database.11Although the matching process controlled for some important prognostic factors (age, stage, and time since diagnosis), post-diagnosis ERT use was not recorded in tire .surveillance database, so these control groups may have contained patients who took ERT at some time, thereby diluting any differences that might be observed. Conversely, none of the cohort studies reported means confirming that those for whom HRT had been prescribed actually took it regularly.
Across all studies, the studied interventions included a systemic estrogen, usually in combination with progesterone unless the subject had had a hysterectomy. The mean age at diagnosis of cancer varied among studies, from 42 to 65 years. There was also wide variability among subjects between and within the studies with regard to disease-free interval (the time between diagnosis of cancer and initiating ERT), duration of ERT use, and length of follow-up (Table). A few studies matched controls to ERT users based on these variables[11-21] or demonstrated that the groups were comparable.[12-11] In no study were subjects matched on type of treatment, race, estrogen receptor status, smoking, or other potentially important prognostic factors. Estrogen receptor status was unavailable for a large number of patients in these studies and could not be used for comparison.
Several studies contained methodologic flaws that resulted in important differences between comparison groups. Rluming and colleagues provided an unpublished analysis of recurrences in a sample of ERT users with previous T1N0 (stage I) cancers compared with a separate data set of similar patients who did not use ERT. In that study, tumor size was not known for 62% of the control group and 36% of the ERT group. Median followup was shorter in the ERT group, the tumors were smaller, the diagnoses were later, and patients were more likely to have received chemotherapy. Natrajan et ab" compared 50 ERT users with 18 nonusers who left their clinic and were followed elsewhere. ERT users wrere younger than the nonusers and had longer follow-up. Little information was given regarding the cancer stages of the nonusers, and this was the only study primarily using hormone pellets and combining estrogen with testosterone in most patients. Habel et al included only patients with ductal carcinoma in situ in a retrospective cohort study in which exposure was ascertained by mailed survey. Only 67% responded to the survey, and no baseline data comparing the ERT users with nonusers on important prognostic factors were provided. In a study by Beckman et al.2 users were younger and less likely than nonusers to have grade 3 cancer (16% vs 30%), although this difference was reported to be nonsignificant. Median duration of follow-up was also longer in nonusers than in users (42 vs 37 months ). In an unmatched study1 of ERT users and nonusers from the same practices in Australia, sig-nificant differences were found between groups in age, stage, and type of treatment rendered.
Because of the strong potential for bias due to baseline differences in risk of breast cancer recurrence, subanalyses included only those studies for which differences in important prognostic factors were not apparent.11-212,1 In the case of the Australian study, a subset of the data, matched 2:1 on age, node status, tumor diameter, disease-free interval, and year of diagnosis, was found in an earlier report1" and used in the subanalysis.
Meta-anafysis results
Overall, 8 studies reported the recurrence of breast cancer as an outcome. A meta-analysis of these studies .showed that breast cancer survivors using ERT experienced no increase in the risk of recurrence compared with nonusers (8.2% vs 10.2%; RR, 0.72, 95% confidence interval [Cl], 0.47-1.10). Because no statistical heterogeneity was demonstrated, a fixed effects model was used, Studies were analyzed .separately depending on whether patients were matched or reportedly similar on factors such as age at diagnosis, tumor stage, and disease-free interval. Results were similar (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Graphic summary of studies on recurrence of breast cancer in ERT users vs nonusers.
Six studies were included in a combined analysis of overall mortality (Figure 2). The ERT users in these studies experienced significantly fewer deaths (.5.0%) than the nonusers (11.4%) over the combined study periods (RR, 0.18; 95% Cl, 0.10-0.31; numbers needed to treat = 12). Subanalyses of those studies in which groups were comparable showed similar results < RR~ 0.21; 95% Cl, 0.10-0.46).
Figure 2. Graphic summary of studies of total mortality among users vs nonusers of estrogen replacement therapy.
Despite the variability in study designs and subjects, all tests for heterogeneity were nonsignificant. In addition, funnel plots showed no evidence of publication bias (Figure l, available on the JFP Web site; www.jfponline.com).
All studies, controlled or not, that reported data on control of menopausal symptoms reported significant benefit with ERT.
Discussion
This meta-analysis of observational studies in In general, the subjects of the included studies breast cancer survivors refutes the hypothesis that over-represented patients with lower severity of ERT increases the risk of breast cancer recurrence and suggests that it may in fact reduce all-cause mortality. However, conclusions drawn from observational studies can be seriously limited by potential sources of bias. For example, the studies likely had a bias by indication. That is, patients with more aggressive prognostic factors may not have been prescribed ERT, thereby making the treatment group likely to have represented a subgroup with a lower risk of recurrence than the general population used for comparison. However, several studies matched controls on important prognostic factors, and elimination of the unmatched study did not significantly affect study results. Similarly, in the absence of randomization, unmeasured confounders may have played a role. The treatment and control groups might have differed on other predictors of mortality that were not considered, such as in a healthy user effect in which subjects on ERT may have been more informed of its benefits and followed other, more healthy lifestyle behaviors than the comparison groups. They also may have been followed more closely by their physicians than the average breast cancer survivor.
In general, the subjects of the included studies disease than the general population of breast cancer survivors. Few studies included any subjects with a history of stage IV cancer (1 case with distant metastases), and several included patients with stage II or lower. Therefore, the results of this systematic review may be best generalized only to patients with lower stage disease. In addition, although subjects used ERT for as long as 32 years, the average duration of ERT use was shorter than 4 years in all but 1 study; longer follow-up is needed to truly assess the long-term effects of ERT in these high-risk patients. Available published studies also do not provide the detail needed to explore the potential contributions of estrogen receptor status or concomitant tamoxifen use.
Our finding of no significant difference in cancer recurrence associated with ERT use among patients with breast cancer is consistent with that of another recent meta-analysis.26 Those researchers constructed expected control groups by using the average disease free interval before starting ERT, and known nodal status distribution from several single-arm cohort studies to calculate relative risks of recurrence for these studies. This method introduces additional bias and several assumptions that may not be warranted. For instance, risk of recurrence is much higher in the first few years after treatment for primary breast cancer, Therefore, the remarkable variability in the disease-free intervals and duration of follow-up among subjects within each of these studies make it very difficult to estimate expected recurrence rates without the detailed individual data from the original studies. Despite the “within-study” and “between-study” variabilities, the results of the individual studies are quite similar.
Observational studies, although limited, do not hold the ethical problems inherent to randomized controlled trials and are especially appropriate with a treatment as controversial as estrogen in breast cancer survivors. Available studies have produced findings contrary to conventional belief and to the theory that likens ERT to fuel on the fire” in breast cancer. Such a theory has, until recently, made it seem unethical to justify a randomized controlled trial of ERT in these patients, However, data from some of these individual studies have provided enough support that enrollment for such trials have begun.2 Previous studies of breast cancer risk with estrogen use have suggested that more than 10 years of treatment are required to see an increase in primary. breast cancer,26 so we may not have definitive evidence for some time. Meanwhile, there is no compelling evidence to support universal withholding of estrogen from well-informed women with symptomatic menopause, particularly among .survivors of low- stage breast cancer.
References
Kchairer C. Luhin J. Trnjsi R Sturgeon S. Brinton Menopausal estrogen and estrogen-progestin replacement therapy and breast cancer risk. JAMA 200(7 283:483—91.
Writing Group tor the Health Initiative Im estimators. Risks and benefits of esrrogen plus prngeoin in healthy postmenopausal women JAMA 2002;2B8.321-33
Biuming AZ. Wjisman JR, Dosik G.M. et al. Hormone replacement therapy ER in women with previously treated primary breast cancer. Update VP! Froc ASCO 2001; 20:12b
ITSai.i F. Brewster WR. Hormone replacement therapy in breast cancer survivors. ArtiJ OhsieE Gvnecol 2000. 183:З17.
Brew Met Wit. Di.Saia N. G rose n FA. McGonigic Kb. Kuykendall JL. Greasman WT An experience with estrogen replacement therapy in breast ameer suivivnrs. lnl J Fcrtil Womens Med 1999: 186-92.
DiSuia I.J. Odicino I. Grosen FA. Cowan B, Fceorelli 8. Wiie .AG. Hormone replacement therapy in breast cancer. lancet 1903: 312:1232.
Decker I.T, Burdakin J. laiyesimi I. Pemnga J. Benitez P.Hormone replacement thcrap (FRT) in breast cancer survivors. Pmc ASCO 1996: I8:2n8.
Guidozzi F Estrogen replateinent tlierapy in breast cancer survivors. Int. I Gynaecol Obstet 1999;
Powlcs TJ. I lickish T. Casey 8. OBrien M. Hormone replacement after breast cancer. Laneel 1993; 312-60l.
Yitssilopnulou-Sellin R. Theriault R. Klein M|. Estrogen replacement therapy in women with prior diagnosis and trealmenr for breast cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1997: 63:89-93,
P. Wile AG. Oplell RW, Margilelh DA Hormone replacement therapy tn pieVKHisly ireaied breast cancer paiienr.s, Am J Surg 1993. 168;
DiSuia FJ, Grosen FA, Odino F, Replacement therapy loi breast cancer .survivons. Л ріки study. Cancer 1993; Oisnppl t:2678-8,
F.spif M. Gorins A, Perret F. el al. Hormone replacement therapy ER in patients treated lor breast cancer: Analysis of a cohort of 12И patients kibstrach- Proc ASCO 1999, 18:380a.
la Peters GN, Jones Sh. llslrogen replacement iheiapy in Ixcast cancer patients: a time lor hangev [abstract!. J Clin Oncol 1996; 13:121.
JA IXnv J. Filen J. Beller F. ct al, A cobon study of hormone replacement ihcrapy given to women previously treated lor breast cancer. CJimacleric 1993 H37-t2.
IXSaia P[. G rosen FA. Kurnsaki T, Gildeu M. Cowan B. Anron-Cuiver H, Hormone replacement therapy in breast cancel suivivons: a cohort study [see eommentsl. Am 1 Obstet Gynecol 1996; 17 1 Ol 6
DtSaia PI. Brewster WR. Ziogus A. Anton-Culvcr U. Breast cancer survival and hormone replacement therapy: a cohort analysis. Am J Clin Oncol 2000; 23341-6.
Iidcm [, Bush 1 Natrajan I’K. Wren B. A ease-control study ot combined continuous csjrogen-piogestin replacement therapy among women with a personal history of breast cancer. Menopause 1998; 2:67—72.
Mar.sden j. Whitehead M, Allein R. Baum M, Sacks N. Arc ran domized trials of hormone replacement therapy in symptomatic women with breast cancer Feasible!1 Fcrtil Steril 2000; 73-292-9.
20 Natrajan PK, Soumakis K, Gambrell RD Jr. Fstrogen replacement therapy in women with previous breast vanter. Am Obstet Gynecol 1999: 181:288-96.
VassilopoulrJU-Sell in R. Asmar I. I Lorlobagyi GN. et al Fstrogen replacement therapy after localized breast cancer: clinical outcome of 319 women followed prospectively. J Clin Oncol 1999: 17 N82-7.
Wile AG, Optai! RW, Margilelh A, Anion-Culver H. Hormone replacement therapy docs rail effect breast cancer outcome. Froc ASCO 1991: 10:38 Habel I.A. Dnling JR. Newcoomb PA, et al. Risk of recurrence after ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer Epidemiol Biomaikers Prev 1998; 7.6H9-96.
Ursic-Vrscaj M, Clxii: S. A ease-control study ol hormone replacement therapy after primary surgical breast cancer treatment. Fur f Surg Oncol 1999; 23:146-31.
Beckmann MW. ap IX Dahansouzi S. et a!. Hormone replacement therapy after treatment ol fire.ist t ancer: effects on postmenopausal symptoms, bone mliieial density and recurrence rates, Oncology 2001: 60:199-266.
Col NP. Hiroia I.K. Orr RK, Urban K, Wong JB. Lau L. Hormone replatement therapy after breast cancer, a sysicmalk review and iantitalive assessment ol risk. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19:233 —63,
Cobleigb MA. Hormone replacement therapy and nonliormonal control of menopausal .symptoms in breaM cancer survivors. In: Biological and Hormonal Therapies of Cancer. Boon Ka. Muss HB teds.Kluwer Academu Publishers, Boston, 1998; 209-230
Steinberg KK, Smith SI, Thacker SB. Stroup Di. Breast cancer risk and duration of estrogen use: the rote ol study design in mctd-analy- sis. Fpidcmiology 1994; 3:413-21