HRT & Breast Cancer?

Anonymous · February 2010

I've been reading so many different reports on whether or not HRT taken for pre-menopausal symptoms is really the cause of BC. One report said that BC resulted from "ex HRT users" and another report mentions oposite findings. I'm wondering, if I caused my own BC because I had taken HRT. My DH's Aunt told me that because I "took those Hormones" I got BC. It really bothered me when she said it. Right now I wonder really if I'm still facing future recurrance as an ex HRT user. Thoughts anyone?

idaho · February 2010

Gee... I think if they knew WHAT caused cancer they would beable to find the CURE! I don't think they have a clue what causes it..... don't worry yourself about what caused it and ignore people that don't say positive things. Wishing you peace and health. Tami

lexislove · February 2010

Shana,

Noone knows. Plain and simple.

I've been there...re thinking my lifestyle choices. Was it the social smoking? Too many rum and cokes at the club? Hair dye? Not breast feeding? *blah*

Now, I just dont care. I got it and I focus on keeping it gone.

Sorry about your DH aunt and her stupid comments.

Fidelia · February 2010

No Shana - you did NOT cause your BC - as the ladies say - no-one knows what causes it - sure somethings may tip us over the edge for developing cancer - but if the line between cause and effect were so straight - we could all pack up and go home now!!!! Shame on mean old Aunts!! or more kindly - UNDER informed Aunts

Fidelia

ruthbru · February 2010

Some people take hormones and get BC, some people don't take hormones and get BC. Ladies who have and haven't done _____ (fill in the blank) get BC. Who knows? And there is no use beating ourselves up for anything we did or didn't do in the past, the important thing is to do everything we can to reduce the chance of reoccurence in the future

KorynH · February 2010

I believe (personally) that hormone manipulation of any kind is the cause of breast cancer. Think about it. When did the rapid rise in breast cancer begin? 40-ish years or so ago, right?

When did the birth control pill come on the "scene"? When did HRT come on the scene? When did young women begin getting breast cancer? When did fertility treatments and hormone injections become so very popular? All of this has occured in the last 40 years or so and more recntly when women put off having children until after having started their career, then couldn't get pregnant so they took treatments....there appears to be a correlation to some degree.

When I was diagnosed 16 months ago, that very same day my doctor said to stop taking the birth control pills. I asked "why"? She said, "Because they are known to cause breast cancer." I was shocked, needless to say, because for 13 years every doctor I saw (and I went faithfully every year) told me that they were okay to still be on for my bad periods. But that night I went home, opened my mediciine cabinet, opened up that pill pack and read the pamphlet in there for the first time. There in black and white it said "MAY CAUSE BREAST CANCER IN YOUNG WOMEN WITH LONG TERM USE". I couldn't believe my eyes. NO doctor ever told me this. Do you think those companies just put that warning in there for no reason? Of course there is a reason and that is that there is a very high number of women who take them who get breast cancer. There is another thread on this discussion board regarding those hormones. 98% of the respondants to the birth control question said yes, they took the pill for many years prior to getting breast cancer. Then recently I have a friend who runs a clinical trilas company and is doing a study on Yaz (the pill) and I aksed her what is in Yaz and is it similar to HRT? She asid yes - they are the same drugs, just in different ratios.

When you run the risk calculators they all ask this question (did you ever or are you now on HRT or oral contraceptives?) They ask this for a reason. It all calculates into your overall risk. Same with nursing babies vs. not nursing your babies, having children under age 30 or not having children at all, having children late in life, etc...it all contributes a percentage f risk. We just don't know exactly how much risk.

The FDA KNOWS that smoking cigarettes can lead to lung cancer. They HAVE discovered one of the most MAJOR causes of that cancer and yet they do not have a cure and they do not take the cigarettes off the market. What makes you think that they do not know the cause of breast cancer? Of all of the advancements in breast cancer research in 30 years, they have discovered the thing that feeds most breast cancers and yet they are not going to take those hormones off the market - they merely slap a laebl on the pill packetts like they slap a label on your cigarette carton and expect you to rate your odds.

None of us asked for breast cancer. We did what we did at the time because we felt it was safe and our doctors assured us it was safe. I do not (and neither should you) feel any blame or responsibility for having taken hormones. That is in the past now and you have information in your hands now to empower you. I am using this opportunity to educate the young women in my life (I have a 16 year old daughter and college aged nieces) about the dangers of long term hormone manipluation. Doctors obviously are not talking about it. They would rather block all of our natural hormones in hopes that we don't get breast cancer again, feed the pockets of yet another drug company, than to get the word out about the dangers and take away a woman's convenience...let's face it...the pill is pretty darned convenient! ANd hot flashes and menopausal symptoms are pretty inconvenient so they hand you the script for HRT rather than helping you learn natural ways to ease symptoms because those aren't considered safe or well studied becuase they (foods, exercise, accupuncture, etc) can't be patented and so no drug company can profit financially fro their study, hence we don't get medical support for homeopathic remedies (even though they do work in many cases.)

Sorry for hopping on this soap box. It just pushed my buttons because once again, nobody seems to be telling women about these risks and then we are wondering what caused our cancers.

Does anybody else out there feel this way?

lexislove · February 2010

I have to agree Koryn.

Now that I think about it. Glad your putting the message out. Im shocked that your doc didnt warn you about breast cancer risks and birth control. So many young woman are on birth control too. Its scary.

I have never been on birth control.

Let-It-Be · February 2010

I never took the birth control pill. Sorry, still got bc.

Pure · February 2010

one of the reasons finding a cure is so difficult it bc is a collection of diseases. There is triple neg, triple pos, er pos, etc. Different BC's that act differently.

KorynH · February 2010

I said that this was only one factor contributing to your risk. (Not THE risk) . Please read again. Risk calculators will factor it is so I am just saying it DOES have something to do with some women getting the disease.

Also, my family history went back 2 generations so I didn't even know about it until after I was diagnosed. My geneticist said that BRCA 1 & 2 are not the only genes we have to worry about....there are others that have not yet been identified. They are working on developing tests for those. There are many many factors that contribute and some weigh more heavily than others.

AnacortesGirl · February 2010

That's what I like about these boards. We all look at things a different way and it's good to be reminded of the various viewpoints.

My hot button is risks and the way they are touted. Implying that if you avoid the risks you avoid the bc. I've seen too many women do everything "right" and still get bc.

My advice to my DD (now 28) has been to do the things that make sense with the information you have. Weigh the concern against the benefit. Birth control pills? Didn't take them - didn't save me from anything either. But I consider pregnancy a much higher risk that needs to be considered. After all, it involves a new life and all the responsibilities.

So why didn't I start using the pill back when I was 18 and met my 1st husband? Because I didn't like the idea of the hormones in my body. So my son was born when I was 19 from the other risk. The hormone avoidance theory didn't pan out as well.

Life worked out great. My DS is fantastic, DD is wonderful and I was able to grow up and find my 2nd husband who is (and always will be) the love of my life.

Until they can give me a cause for bc and the triggers then risks are just some ideas to think about. Life is for the living. Not to be lived in fear of what might or might never be.

AnacortesGirl · February 2010

Shanagirl -

I wanted to get back to your original question. I heard Dr. Julie Gralow address this question a few weeks ago but couldn't remember specifics and my notes were lousy. I did some research and found a summary of the HRT/ERT study that I believe answers your question.

If you look at the following link you'll find on page 4 the statement:

"Past users of HRT not at increased risk."

http://www.asbd.org/images/Gralow_1.pdf

KorynH · February 2010

A little realized risk is that American women, in general, have a high incidence of breast cancer than the rest of the world. Think about some of the things in our country that are different from other countries...

Hormone fed cattle both beef and dairy cattle as well as our general lifestyle of inactivity...lots of lower incidence countries spend considerable portions of their day sweating out toxins from their bodies just to live and work and we do not. We drive cars and escalators and subways and planes and produce is readily available at the market which we drive to and do not harvest our foods. We do not sweat. We are getting better about fitness but the vast majority of women do not sweat on a daily basis. I realize that all of this is theory but at some point we have to start asking ourselves, what is America doing differently?

This study in the link AnacortesGirl wrote above was very interesting. It appears that <5 years use of HRT or being beyond the use by 5 years, brings one back to her original risk. Did I read that right, Anna? The thing that I found most interesting, however, is that 50% of the participants either were current or past cigarette smokers. Wouldn't it be interesting to run this study with women who were never smokers? I wonder how much that played into it.

Family history of cancer of ANY kind is also a risk factor accoring to my geneticist. I wondered why he kept probing questions about my grandfather's prostate cancer and my grandmothers skin cancer. He said cancer of any kind increases your risk for breast cancer if your family members had it. NOT just breast cancer or ovarian cancer.

Of course, there is going always going to be that one women on here who says she isn't even 10 pounds overweight, she sweats 30+ minutes every day and always has, never took hormones, ate organic food and milk her entire childhood and adult life, didn't smoke, doesn't or never drank alcohol at all, had her kids under age 28, breast fed all of them at least 1 year, never took the pill or HRT, fertility treatments, never took hormones to stop lactation, never had a miscarriage or abortion, never had a family member with any type of cancer (well, the family members she KNOWS about), and she still got breast cancer. I guess there's always that one. Obviously this discussion isn't about what we don't know caused or can cause breast cancer. It is about what is known to contribute. That's all....contributing factors.

ananda8 · February 2010

I asked my doctor if my HRT use for four years caused my cancer. He said that since my use was over ten years ago, it probably had no affect.

I answered an add for a class action lawsuit against the manufacturers of HRT. I sent in all of my medical records. They turned me down for joining the class because my use of HRT was too many years before I developed cancer. I guess my oncologist was right.

Over one's life one is exposed to many potential causes of cancer. I was a kid when there was still lead in gasoline. I used to play in the fog of DDT that was sprayed by mosquito control trucks in the late 50's and early 60's. In college, my lab for chemistry had 30 students and we spent two weeks distilling and experimenting with Benzene. Benzene is a heavy carcinogen. These types of experiments are no longer done.

Each of these incidents may have caused damage to my genes. Personally, I think low Vitamin D and a great deal of stress over my husband's poor health was what put me over the top.

Thinking about what caused your cancer is like being shot with an arrow and wanting to know who made the arrow, what type of wood was it made from, what type of feathers were attached to the end. It does no good. Pay attention to what you can do to pull the arrow out and get rid of the cancer.

Pure · February 2010

Just focus on keeping it gone. THere is nothing you can do even if this is true.

You have great stats-your chances of reoccurrence are low-onward and upward.

KerryMac · February 2010

Jen is so right - what is done is done. You cannot go back, even if you knew what caused it, you cannot undo things. You made a decision to do HRT based on a medical need at the time. All you can now do is move forward.

Anonymous · February 2010

Yes I do believe that hormone manipulation and estrogen imbalances increase the risk of BC. I've read about most of the research here at bc.org and suprised at how much information from research is listed. Click here: Research News on Menopause and HRT

Anonymous · February 2010

anondenet ~ Thank you for posting this research on the Prempro thread. I thought I would copy and paste it here too.

Barb

anondenet

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 662

An hour ago anondenet wrote:

Here is the article that showed that BC patients who had taken HRT lived longer than those who took no hormones. The researchers ( two different studies found the same thing) think the HRT "pretreats" the cancer in some positive way.

Improved breast cancer survival among hormone
replacement therapy users is durable after 5 years of
additional follow-up

Dara Christante, M.D., SuEllen Pommier, Ph.D., Jennifer Garreau, M.D.,
Patrick Muller, B.S., Brett LaFleur, B.S., Rodney Pommier, M.D.

American Journal of Surgery, Oct 2008

Abstract
Background
We previously reported that breast cancer patients who used hormone
replacement therapy (HRT) had significantly lower stage tumors and higher
survival than never-users. We present an update with longer follow-up,
HRT use data, and in vitro research.

Methods
Our database of 292 postmenopausal breast cancer patients was updated
to include HRT type, duration, and disease status. In vitro effects of
estrogen (E) and/or medroxyprogesterone (MPA) on breast cancer cell
growth were measured.

******Results
Tumor prognostic factors were better and survival rates higher for both E
and combination HRT users of any duration. Use greater than 10 years
correlated with node-negative disease, mammographically detected
tumors, and 100% survival.********

Conclusions******HRT users, regardless of type or duration of HRT use, continued to have higher survival rates. ********** In vitro results supported the clinical finding that outcomes for users of E and E+MPA were similar.We previously reported that breast cancers in hormone replacement therapy (HRT) users were smaller, lower grade, more often node-negative, lower stage, and had significantly higher survival rates compared to those in never-users.1 Recent events have raised concerns about the impact of HRT on breast cancer. Particular concern has been raised about the use of combinations of estrogen (E) and medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA). Results from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) trial indicated that breast cancers were more advanced among users of E and MPA (combination HRT) than among patients receiving placebo.2 This would be expected to result in lower survival rates among users of combination HRT. Concerns also exist about duration of HRT use and breast cancer.3, 4Due to these concerns, we investigated if the higher survival rate we reported was durable after an additional 5 years of follow-up.

AnacortesGirl · February 2010

That is great news for women like yourself who were on HRT. It also fits with the message Dr. Gralow had about HRT. She felt that too many women were put on HRT -- it was being used as a panacea and it was appropriate for all the women. On the other hand, when the negative news started coming out the exodus was huge. But again, she believes that there were some very positive results and once the data is weeded through they will have a better understanding of where the negatives really lay. She seems to suspect the progesterone rather than the estrogen. But that about exceeds my knowledge of HRT...

HRT & Breast Cancer?

Comments

Categories