New evidence regarding hormone replacement therapies is urgently required transdermal postmenopausal hormone therapy differs from oral hormone therapy in risks and benefits

Controversies about the safety of different postmenopausal hormone therapies (HTs) started 30 years ago and reached a peak in 2003 after the publication of the results from the Women Health Initiative (WHI) trial and the Million Women Study (MWS) [Writing group for the women's health initiative investigations. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women. JAMA 2002;288:321-33; Million women study collaborators. Breast cancer and hormone-replacement therapy in the million women study. Lancet 2003;362:419-27]. The single HT formulation used in the WHI trial for non hysterectomized women-an association of oral conjugated equine estrogens (CEE-0.625 mg/day) and a synthetic progestin, medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA-2.5 mg/day)-increases the risks of venous thromboembolism, cardiovascular disease, stroke and breast cancer. The MWS, an observational study, showed an increased breast cancer risk in users of estrogens combined with either medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), norethisterone, or norgestrel. It is unclear and questionable to what extent these results might be extrapolated to other HRT regimens, that differ in their doses, compositions and administration routes, and that were not assessed in the WHI trial and the MWS. Significant results were achieved with the publication of the WHI estrogen-only arm study [Anderson GL, Limacher M, Assaf AR, et al. Effects of conjugated equine estrogen in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy: the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004;291:1701-1712] in which hormone therapy was reserved to women who had carried out hysterectomy. What emerged from this study will allow us to have some important argument to develop.     

Exogenous progestagens and the human breast

The role of progestins (or progestagens) on the breast tissue remains controversial. However, according to the molecule and the duration of application, cell differentiation and apoptosis may predominate over proliferation. Progestins are also used as second-line agents for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. In young women with benign breast disease, long-term treatment with 19-nortestosterone progestins had a trend to decrease breast cancer risk contrarily to what was observed in postmenopausal women receiving estrogens. Several compounds with progestational activity have been used for HRT. Small differences in the structure of the molecules may lead to pronounced differences in activities, some progestins exerting androgenic effects and some exerting estrogenic or glucocorticoid like activities. While most progestins do not bind to the estrogen receptors, it has been shown that some androgenic progestins stimulate MCF7 cells proliferation while progestins derived from progesterone did not induce cell multiplication in the same cell lines. Therefore, different progestins may induce different effects on the breast cells. Whether the progestins available to date are able to bind specifically to the progesterone receptors PR-A or PR-B and whether this is of clinical relevance to breast cell proliferation is still unclear. Although the relationship between progestin use and breast cancer risk is still the subject of debate and controversy, the data reported to date suggest that 5 years of treatment carry a low risk but further duration of use increases the risk. Further studies are still needed, randomised long-term prospective studies as well as from the laboratory, especially to determine whether a sequential or continuous regimen would be preferable as far as breast-cell response and apoptosis are concerned, and what are the effects of the various molecules used for HRT.     

Issues to debate on the Women's Health Initiative: failure of estrogen plus progestin therapy for prevention of breast cancer risk

Several studies on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in the USA have been published. They revealed that the risk of breast cancer is increased with HRT more than with estrogen alone (ERT). A progestin has been given with each dose of ERT, as was the case in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) study. The results of studies in Europe show similar trends. The increased risk of breast cancer in the WHI study was significantly higher only in women who had used HRT for several years before entering the study. The study was non-blind in 3444 cases, i.e. 40.5% of women in the estrogen plus progestin group and 6.8% in controls. If the women in the HRT group had more mammographic examinations it could change the validity of the results of the study. Estradiol-containing drugs have now been added to the list of carcinogens and the packages of these drugs have warning labels. The results of the WHI study do not support this labelling. The results of the WHI study show that the administration of HRT increases the risks of stroke and pulmonary embolism. It is reasonable to think that in the case of bleeding, at least at weekends in nursing homes (when staff levels may be low) patients were immobilized in their beds. Immobilization among women on HRT could have been more dangerous than the HRT itself. Progestins need to be delivered to the endometrium in a manner that will have the least effect on the breast. Systemic administration can be replaced by releasing progestin locally in the uterine cavity. Endometrial protection with a levonorgestrel-releasing intra-uterine system (IUS) is well tolerated. The high hepatic concentrations of estrogens given orally could be avoided by transdermal administration. New studies should be planned to reflect the situation in clinical practice. The time to start HRT in healthy menopausal women is between the ages of 45 to 55 years.     

Effects of progestins on estrogen-induced increase in C-reactive protein in postmenopausal women

Background: C-reactive protein (CRP) represents an independent risk factor for coronary disease and stroke. Because oral estrogens increase CRP levels, with inflammatory and thrombotic consequences, we determined whether the co-administration of a progestin might modify the estrogenic effect on CRP. Methods: In a non-randomized, non-blinded study, we measured C-reactive protein serum concentrations with high-sensitivity technique (hs-CRP) in 163 healthy postmenopausal women divided into groups as follow: 52 not taking hormones (referent group), and 111 taking hormone replacement therapy (HRT) (42 of whom treated with unopposed estrogen, and 69 with an estrogen/progestin combination). Results: Compared with non-users of hormones, median CRP levels were 66% (95% confidence interval: from 44 to 89%) higher and 112% (95% confidence interval: from 89 to 168%) higher among women using a combined estrogen/progestin regimen and, respectively, among women taking unopposed estrogen [1.54 mg/L in the referent group; 2.56 mg/L in the estrogen/progestin group (P=0.032), and 3.27 mg/L in the unopposed estrogen group (P=0.004)]. Furthermore, there was no difference in CRP distributions between women taking different types of progestins. Conclusion: concurrent progestin administration may attenuate estrogen’s pro-inflammatory effects, independently on the type of used progestin.     

Lessons to be learned from animal studies on hormones and the breast

The relation of hormone use by postmenopausal women to breast cancer risk has been controversial and unclear. A recent large randomized trial, the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) and a large observational study (Million Women Study) provided somewhat conflicting answers. The WHI found an increased incidence of breast cancer among women given hormone therapy (conjugated equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate) but no increase in those given estrogen only therapy (conjugated equine estrogen alone). Whereas, the Million Women Study found an increased breast cancer risk among the estrogen plus progestin and the estrogen only users. This review brings comparative perspective to the issue of the effects of estrogen plus progestin versus estrogen only effects on breast cancer and is focused particularly on nonhuman primates. Although data from rodents is mixed, studies of monkeys suggest that estrogen only treatment has little or no effect on breast cell proliferation, and by inference, on breast cancer risk. On the other hand, data from both mouse and monkey studies strongly support the conclusion that the co-administration of a progestogen with an estrogen markedly increases breast cell proliferation and the potential for breast cancer promotion.     

Metabolic and vascular effect of progestins in post-menopausal women. Implications for cardioprotection

Estrogen therapy causes changes in a variety of cardiovascular risk factors, including insulin resistance, lipoprotein profile, haemostasis, coronary atherosclerosis and vascular reactive, that suggest a potential cardioprotective effect in postmenopausal women. With respect to the role of adjunctive progestins, currently available data suggest that the cardiovascular effects may differ depending on the type, dosage and route of administration of the progestin. Androgenic progestins antagonise the favourable cardiovascular effect of estrogens, whilst non-androgenic progestins do not impair, or may even enhance, the beneficial effect of estrogens. Therefore, less androgenic progestins would appear to be the agent of choice for combined hormone therapy in postmenopausal women with cardiovascular risk factors.     

Postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy: endometrial and breast effects

The history of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) dates back to the late 1800s, when animal extracts of ovaries were first used. With the development of synthetic hormones, widespread use in postmenopausal women extended throughout the industrialized world, so that by the late 1900s roughly one-third to one-half of all postmenopausal women in the United States and Europe were taking HRT. Two events changed the course of use of HRT: the association of an increased rate of endometrial carcinoma with estrogen-only HRT and the association of an increased breast cancer rate with combined estrogen and progestin HRT. This review explores the evidence of the effects of HRT on the endometrium and the breast, with emphasis on the pathologic changes.     

Postmenopausal testosterone therapy and breast cancer risk

Background: Testosterone therapy is being increasingly used in the management of postmenopausal women. However, as clinical trials have demonstrated a significantly increased risk of breast cancer with oral combined estrogen–progestin therapy, there is a need to ascertain the risk of including testosterone in such regimens. Objective: Evaluation of experimental and epidemiological studies pertaining to the role of testosterone in breast cancer. Design: Literature review. Setting: The Jean Hailes Foundation, Research Unit. Main Outcome Measures: Mammary epithelial proliferation, apoptosis and breast cancer. Results: In experimental studies, testosterone action is anti-proliferative and pro-apoptotic, and mediated via the AR, despite the potential for testosterone to be aromatized to estrogen. Animal studies suggest that testosterone may serve as a natural, endogenous protector of the breast and limit mitogenic and cancer promoting effects of estrogen on mammary epithelium. In premenopausal women, elevated testosterone is not associated with greater breast cancer risk. The risk of breast cancer is also not increased in women with polycystic ovary syndrome who have chronic estrogen exposure and androgen excess. However, in postmenopausal women, who are oestrogen deplete and have increased adipose aromatase activity, higher testosterone has been associated with greater breast cancer risk. Conclusion: Available data indicate the inclusion of testosterone in estrogen–progestin regimens has the potential to ameliorate the stimulating effects of hormones on the breast. However, testosterone therapy alone cannot be recommended for estrogen deplete women because of the potential risk of enhanced aromatisation to estrogen in this setting.     

Menopause, hormone replacement therapy and cancer

OBJECTIVE: To comparatively review available evidence on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and cancer. METHODS: Qualitative literature review. RESULTS: Most potential favorable and adverse effects on cancer risk of HRT are restricted to current users. On the basis of observational epidemiological data, the RR of breast cancer is moderately elevated in current and recent HRT users, and increases by about 2.3% per year with longer duration of use, but the effect drops after cessation and largely, if not totally, disappears after about 5 years. Unopposed estrogen use is strongly related to endometrial cancer risk, but cyclic combined oestrogen-progestin treatment appears to largely or totally reduce this side effect, if progestin are used for at least 14 days per cycle. However, combined HRT may be associated with higher risk of breast cancer as compared to unopposed estrogens. HRT has been inversely related to colorectal cancer, although the issue of causal relation remains open to discussion. No consistent association was reported for ovarian, liver, other digestive or lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations for prolonged HRT use must be considered on an individual basis, taking into account the presence of other risk factors mainly for breast cancer, such as family history of breast cancer or a personal history of benign breast disease, as well as individual risk for other chronic diseases.     

HRT and breast cancer risk: a clue for interpreting the available data

Epidemiological and biological data on HRT and breast cancer risk are reviewed. Some aspects deserve consideration. (1) The majority of epidemiological data have been gathered from populations where high estrogen doses (≥1.25 mg daily of conjugated estrogens) were used as first line therapy. (2) HRT does not increase the risk in overweight women, even in the series in which a risk increase (in longterm users) is found. This could be as a result of the fact that oral estrogens, through their metabolic and hepatocellular effects, reverse some biological features of obesity (e.g. increased insulin-like growth factor I activity and decreased sex hormone binding globulin level) which potentially increase breast cancer risk, so balancing the estrogen stimulation. (3) The progestin addition seems to increase the risk when the 19 nor-testosterone derivatives are used. These androgenic compounds contrast the metabolic and hepatocellular effects of oral estrogens. To sum up, the possibility does exist that even the longterm use of oral estrogens at the right (‘low’) dose, with the addition of a non-androgenic progestin, will be shown to be associated with a very limited breast cancer risk increase.     

Potential age-dependent effects of estrogen on neural injury

In 2000, approximately 10 million women were receiving hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for alleviation of menopausal symptoms. A number of prior animal studies suggested that HRT may be neuroprotective and cardioprotective. Then, in 2003, reports from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) indicated that long-term estrogen/progestin supplementation led to increased incidence of stroke. A second branch of the WHI in women with prior hysterectomy found an even stronger correlation between estrogen supplementation alone and stroke incidence. Follow-up analyses of the data, as well as data from other smaller clinical trials, have also demonstrated increased stroke severity in women receiving HRT or estrogen alone. This review examines the studies indicating that estrogen is neuroprotectant in animal models and explores potential reasons why this may not be true in postmenopausal women. Specifically, age-related differences in estrogen receptors and estrogenic actions in the brain are discussed, with the conclusion that animal models of disease must closely mimic human disease to produce clinically relevant results.     

Could transdermal estradiol + progesterone be a safer postmenopausal HRT? A review

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in young postmenopausal women is a safe and effective tool to counteract climacteric symptoms and to prevent long-term degenerative diseases, such as osteoporotic fractures, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus and possibly cognitive impairment. The different types of HRT offer to many extent comparable efficacies on symptoms control; however, the expert selection of specific compounds, doses or routes of administration can provide significant clinical advantages. This paper reviews the role of the non-oral route of administration of sex steroids in the clinical management of postmenopausal women. Non-orally administered estrogens, minimizing the hepatic induction of clotting factors and others proteins associated with the first-pass effect, are associated with potential advantages on the cardiovascular system. In particular, the risk of developing deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary thromboembolism is negligible in comparison to that associated with oral estrogens. In addition, recent indications suggest potential advantages for blood pressure control with non-oral estrogens. To the same extent, a growing literature suggests that the progestins used in association with estrogens may not be equivalent. Recent evidence indeed shows that natural progesterone displays a favorable action on the vessels and on the brain, while this might not be true for some synthetic progestins. Compelling indications also exist that differences might also be present for the risk of developing breast cancer, with recent trials indicating that the association of natural progesterone with estrogens confers less or even no risk of breast cancer as opposed to the use of other synthetic progestins. In conclusion, while all types of hormone replacement therapies are safe and effective and confer significant benefits in the long-term when initiated in young postmenopausal women, in specific clinical settings the choice of the transdermal route of administration of estrogens and the use of natural progesterone might offer significant benefits and added safety.     

Postmenopausal hormone therapy and the risk of breast cancer: the view of an epidemiologist

OBJECTIVES: Postmenopausal hormone therapy (PMH) has been widely used by menopausal women living in western countries for the past several decades. Numerous studies have evaluated the relationship between PMH and breast cancer risk because steroid hormones have been implicated in breast cancer etiology. METHODS: A review of selected studies was performed to evaluate the history of investigations of the association between PMH and breast cancer, with a focus on studies evaluating different PMH regimens and different histologic types of breast cancer. RESULTS: Though studies conducted before the early 1990s suggest that both combined estrogen and progestin (E + P) PMH and unopposed estrogen (E) PMH are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, more recent observational studies suggest that E + P, particularly current use for 5 years or longer, is more strongly associated with breast cancer risk than is unopposed E. Results from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) randomized trials have confirmed these findings as they indicate that E + P is causally related to breast cancer (relative risk (RR) = 1.24; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.54), while E alone is not (RR = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.59-1.01). CONCLUSIONS: There is clear and consistent evidence that use of E + P increases a woman's risk of breast cancer. Alternatively, current evidence suggests that use of unopposed E is not as strongly associated with breast cancer risk. Further studies are needed though to examine how different PMH regimens, doses, and methods of delivery are related to breast cancer risk, and how PMH impacts the risks of different types of breast cancer.     

Estrogen affects post-menopausal women differently than estrogen plus progestin replacement therapy

BACKGROUND: In the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Trial (WHI RCT), estrogen-only treatment compared with combined estrogen-progestin treatment resulted in less coronary artery disease, no increase in breast cancer and no reduction in colorectal cancer. Since we previously reasonably replicated the combined estrogen-progestin WHI RCT using the UK General Practice Research Database (GPRD), estrogen-only treatment was investigated using a similar methodology. METHODS: This GPRD study simulated the estrogen-only WHI RCT of women who had undergone a hysterectomy except for randomization. The primary analysis examined 11 572 unexposed and 6890 Exposed women (aged 55-79) treated with conjugated equine estrogen and was compared with the combined estrogen-progestin GPRD study. RESULTS: At baseline, women with a hysterectomy exhibited more cardiovascular disease than those with an intact uterus. In the estrogen-only GPRD study, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were 0.50 (0.38-0.67) for myocardial infarction (MI), 1.13 (0.91-1.41) for breast cancer, and 1.18 (0.72-1.92) for colorectal cancer. Compared to the HRs in the estrogen-progestin GPRD study, the estrogen-only results are significantly lower for MI and breast cancer and higher for colon cancer, a pattern similar to the WHI RCT study comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that post-menopausal women in the overall population respond differently to estrogen-only treatment compared with estrogen-progestin treatment, due to different hormone regimens and/or increased cardiovascular disease in hysterectomized women.     

Rationale for use of lower estrogen doses for postmenopausal hormone therapy

In placebo-controlled clinical trials low dose estrogens have been shown to reduce hot flashes an average of 65%. Low dosage is effective in preventing bone loss in early menopause and both low and ultralow estrogen dosages can prevent bone loss among women many years beyond menopause. Epidemiological studies indicate less risk of cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism in women who use low dose estrogens compared to standard dose. Low dosages of estrogens are less likely to produce unacceptable side effects, such as vaginal bleeding or breast tenderness. When prescribing low dosage estrogen, one can safely use less progestogen, either less daily dosage or less frequent cycles. Older women on ultralow estrogen may not require regular progestogen because the endometrium is not stimulated. In conclusion, there is a strong rationale for use of lower estrogen dosage in HT. Low dosage estrogen can relieve vasomotor symptoms and can prevent postmenopausal bone loss. Women taking low dosages of estrogens are less likely to have unacceptable side effects, such as vaginal bleeding or breast tenderness. Moreover, the potential harm caused by standard dosages of estrogen with progestin, including coronary heart disease, venous thromboembolism, stroke, and breast cancer may be mitigated by use of lower estrogen doses that do not require daily or monthly progestin opposition.     

Curcumin inhibits MPA-induced secretion of VEGF from T47-D human breast cancer cells

OBJECTIVE: Recent clinical trials show that women who receive combined estrogen and progestin hormone therapy (HT) have a higher risk of breast cancer than women who receive estrogen alone or placebo. We have shown that progestins stimulate expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a potent angiogenic factor, in human breast cancer cells that express the progesterone receptors and mutant p53 protein. Because increased levels of VEGF promote tumor progression, compounds that prevent progestin-induced expression of VEGF could be clinically useful. The objective of this study was to examine whether the polyphenol compound curcumin has the capacity to block progestin-induced secretion of VEGF from T47-D human breast cancer cells. DESIGN: The estrogen and progesterone receptor containing T47-D human breast cancer cells was exposed to 10 nM progesterone or synthetic progestins and varying concentrations of curcumin to determine whether curcumin blocks progestin-dependent production of VEGF from tumor cells. RESULTS: Curcumin (0.001-10 microM for 18 h) reduced medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA)-induced secretion of VEGF from T47-D cells in a dose-dependent manner. Secretion of VEGF from cells treated with progesterone or progestins other than MPA was unaffected by curcumin. CONCLUSIONS: MPA is the most widely used progestin in HT. Curcumin may therefore provide a clinically useful tool for the suppression of MPA-induced elaboration of VEGF by tumor cells. We propose therefore that clinical trials to assess the beneficial effects of curcumin in postmenopausal women are warranted.     

Controversies about HRT--lessons from monkey models

Lessons from monkey models contribute significantly to a better understanding of the controversies in reconciling the differences in postmenopausal hormone treatment outcomes between observational and randomized trial data. Monkey studies brought attention to premenopausal estrogen deficiency with resulting premature coronary artery atherosclerosis. Recently, those monkey studies were confirmed for premenopausal women in the NHLBI-sponsored Women's Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation (WISE) Study. Monkey studies have provided convincing evidence for the primary prevention of coronary artery atherosclerosis when estrogens are administered soon after the development of estrogen deficiency. Equally convincing are the data from monkey studies indicating the total loss of these estrogens beneficial effects if treatment is delayed for a period equal to six postmenopausal years for women. An attempt has been made using the monkey model to identify the hormone treatment regimen most effective in preventing the progression of coronary artery atherosclerosis. By a substantial margin, the most effective approach is that of using estrogen containing oral contraceptive during the perimenopausal transition, followed directly by hormone replacement therapy postmenopausally. Because of similarities between human and nonhuman breast, monkeys have had a major role in clarifying controversies surrounding the breast cancer risk of estrogen only versus estrogen plus progestin therapies. The results of monkey studies suggest little or no effects of estrogen only treatment; whereas, estrogen+progestin clearly increases breast cancer risk.     

Differential effects of progestins on hemostasis

Recently large, prospective, randomized studies on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) have indicated that the progestin use might interfere with hemostasis and thus increase venous thrombotic events. Therefore, available publications were evaluated to determine whether progestins interfere with hemostasis, either when given alone via oral or parenteral routes or in combination with ethinylestradiol as synthetic estrogen or natural estrogens. There are indications that such interference is dependent upon the type and dose of the progestin, the route of application, the length of treatment and the type and dose of the estrogen with which it is combined. For natural progesterone, no negative effects on the hemostatic system were seen with either oral or parenteral application, in cyclic or continuous regimens, for the doses investigated. Similarly, no unwanted effects were seen with progestin only pills (POP), independent of the type and dose of progestin, or parenteral progestins. With the high-dose progestins used in gynaecological oncology, the increased activation of the hemostatic system resulting from the disease itself has to be taken into account when looking at any increased incidence of thromboembolic events in these patients. For estrogen/progestin combinations, the risk of venous thromboembolism is attributed to the estrogen used. Recent studies showed an increased rate of thromboembolic events in association with desogestrel-and gestodene-containing oral contraceptives, compared with those containing levonorgestrel. With HRT, a decrease in antithrombin factors could explain the increased rate of venous thrombotic events. In conclusion, progestins seems to have different effects on the hemostatic system due to their different pattern of biological activities. This was also shown in the arterial vascular system, where some progestins may reduce the endothelium-dependent vasodilating action of estrogens and stimulate intima proliferation and upregulate thrombin receptor expression while other progestins did not.     

Androgenic progestins amplify the breast cancer risk associated with hormone replacement therapy by boosting IGF-I activity.

Recent epidemiology indicates that unopposed oral estrogen replacement therapy has a surprisingly small impact on breast cancer risk--little if any in overweight women--whereas combined regimens featuring synthetic progestins are attended by a much larger increase in this risk. These findings may reflect the fact that oral estrogen acts on the liver to down-regulate systemic IGF-I activity, whereas concurrent administration of androgens--including the androgenic progestins often used in replacement therapy--abrogates this effect. Increased systemic IGF-I activity has been linked to increased breast cancer risk, and may be largely responsible for the greater incidence of breast cancer in overweight postmenopausal women--who thus should have the most to gain from suppression of IGF-I activity by oral estrogen. Down-regulation of IGF-I may likewise account for the marked reduction in colon cancer risk associated with current estrogen replacement therapy. Fortunately, natural progesterone--now available in micronized oral preparations--does not oppose the hepatic effects of oral estrogen, and moreover may be preferable to androgenic progestins with respect to vascular function. Oral replacement therapy featuring micronized progesterone, if administered throughout postmenopausal life, can be expected to have a highly positive impact on vascular health, bone density, and risks for Alzheimer's disease and colon cancer--benefits which, in most women, may vastly outweigh the associated increase in risk for breast and endometrial cancers.