bioidentical hormones

Terri,

There are no studies that show that bio-identical progesterone increases the risk of breast cancer. In fact several show that it is protective. This is not true of progestin, which is not biologically identical to the progesterone your body makes.

Hope this helps a little.

Sandie

I'm with Timothy on this, especially after something the integrative specialist at UCLA recently pointed out to me, which is -- even if a hormone is bioidentical, if your body isn't making it and you're adding it, then it's not exactly natural in the same sense as if it was naturally there.  This idea has stopped me from kicking myself for not switching to bioidentical hormones years ago (instead of the Prempro I was on when dx'd), and it's also stopped me from dabbling with Progesterone Cream, which I had done since my bc dx.  Also, I've noticed quite a few women on BCO who were on bioidentical hormones when dx'd.  I'm not saying they're not safe.  I honestly don't know, which is what the doctors I most respect have told me -- we just don't know.   Deanna

One of my friends has a fellowship in bio identical hormones, and she said no to me when I asked about them.

Nancy

Sorry ladies, I went back 24 eye bulging pages and didn't know where to post this.

This is all the buzz in our health news today...October 20, 2010, 12:20 pm

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) can increase the risk of more advanced, potentially deadly breast cancer, a study has shown.

Death rates from the disease were found to double in a group of women who underwent HRT for an average 5.6 years.

A link between HRT and breast cancer in post-menopausal women is well known, and was demonstrated by a large American study called the Women's Health Initiative (WHI).

Now new findings from the WHI show that use of oestrogen plus progestin hormone therapy increases the incidence of more advanced forms of breast cancer.

It is also associated with a higher risk of deaths attributed to the disease.

Women taking part in the study were either given combination HRT or a dummy "placebo" pill.

Almost 13,000 women consented to having their condition monitored for an extended 11-year period after treatment.

Invasive breast cancer occurred in 385 women who received hormone treatment compared with 293 who did not.

A significantly larger percentage of women in the HRT group had breast cancers that had spread to the lymph glands.

There were 25 deaths from breast cancer among the HRT group and 12 among the placebo group. At a population level, this was the equivalent of 2.6 against 1.3 deaths per 10,000 women per year.

The findings were reported in the latest issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Rowan Chlebowski, from the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, and colleagues wrote: "With some exceptions, the preponderance of observational studies have associated combined hormone therapy use with an increase in breast cancers that have favourable characteristics, lower stage, and longer survival compared with breast cancers diagnosed in non-users of hormone therapy.

"However, in the WHI randomised trial, combined hormone therapy increased breast cancer risk and interfered with breast cancer detection, leading to cancers being diagnosed at more advanced stages.

"Now, with longer follow-up results available, there remains a cumulative, statistically significant increase in breast cancers in the combined hormone therapy group, and the cancers more commonly had lymph node involvement.

The observed adverse influence on breast cancer mortality of combined hormone therapy can reasonably be explained by the influence on breast cancer incidence and stage."

Victoria

Please note that the study talked about HRT and progestin.  These are NOT studies of bio-identical hormones, they are studying the use of synthetic hormones such as Prempro and Premarin. 

This was a study following women, average age 67, who were taking Prempro, the combination of synthetic estrogen and that specific toxic progestin, Provera.

It does not apply to bioidenticals.

I'm reading Suzanne Somers' "Ageless..." and find it fascinating. I know there have been threads about her/her books/bioidentical hormones here in the past.

Anyone here have any positive info about this subject? I am doing some research in finding a doctor in my area (Chicagoland) to see about this subject and my declining hormone issues. Is there a better thread for me to post on?

Thanks! Janis

Please send us the studies.

I believe this is referring to pharmaceutical hormone replacement, and not bio-identical/natural hormone replacement therapy.Everything that I have read on BHRT states that (natural)progesterone protects against bc.This is what they give to women going through invitro fertilization.

http://www.yourlifesource.com/progesterone-breast-cancer.htm

http://www.project-aware.org/Health/BreastCancer/ivy-progest.shtml

http://www.virginiahopkinstestkits.com/bioidenticalbreastcancer.html

http://allonhealth.com/natural-progesterone/provera-is-not-progesterone.htm

Taken from the previous link....

But the typical doctor if you ask "What is that Provera", they say "Oh that is progesterone". You don't know, maybe they can't read the PDR !!
So a progestin is the word that has been arrived at meaning compounds that have progesterone like properties, but are not progesterone and are synthetic, and you can add to that, they don't have the full spectrum of all of progesterone's benefits, and they are loaded with side effects.
So progestin is the name of the artificial synthetic drug that is sold by the doctor thinking it is progesterone.
Real progesterone is the one made from the plants.
Doctors know that real progesterone must be used for invetro fertilizations - Provera won't work.

Mathteacher,

Please provide the actual study results about "mushed a bunch of rat organs w/progestins and progesterone" and how it pertains to this study article because I don't think we are talking about the same study.  Also, "mush got red so they are claiming this means the mushed rat organs got inflamed"  If this is your own interpretation, well, thanks, but that's not what I read!  

In the Pepi Trial, they found that micronized/natural progesterone increased mammography density, thus bc risk, to nearly the same extent as other types of HRT.

BHRT or HRT a comparison.  A product that is plant based and bioidentical may sound more natural than other forms of HRT.  But it's debatable as to whether it really is.

Mathteacher, would you please share what the actual study of this http://news,msu.edu/story/6713 that you got from your library?  I don't want you to go away but you do realize how absurd the "mushed rat organs in blender" theory sounds? I just want to know if the study actually states these things or if it your own interpretation OR could it be a different study you are referring to?  Please, I was so kind to provide you a link to a study I was referring to when you asked, please do the same.  Thanks kindly.

Hi Mathteacher,

Any chance this is the study you're thinking of?

Progesterone receptor A-regulated gene expression in mammary organoid cultures
 

Although this study basically *does* use what amounts to mushed up rat guts, isn't that a sort of overly simplistic way of dismissing the research, especially for one so insistent on distinguishing facts from hype?  

The study itself says, "Progesterone (P) plays an important role in the development and differentiation of the normal mammary gland and has been implicated in increasing breast cancer risk [1, 2]" and then it goes on to attempt to further clarify this relationship between breast cancer risk and progesterone. 

It sounds as if you're saying that progesterone does not increase breast cancer risk (and may, in fact, be preventive).  Is that the case? The scientific studies seem to all point to at the very least a likely link, so hopefully you can clarify and share what your implications are based on? Please help us sort the headlines from the facts!

Hi Mountains1day,

You're so welcome.  I hate that you were misled and I hate that there's so much misinformation out there from people trying to make money from dishonest/unethical "medical advice."  I honestly don't get it.   Even though Dr. Lee has been dead for 7 years and his website has not been updated since then, and even though the sole purpose for his site seems to be the sales of old, outdated and obsolete information and products, some people continue to insist he's The Expert on BHRT??? 

As for Suzanne Somers, I'll have to bite my tongue on that one except to say that she has absolutely NO business offering any kind of medical advice (despite the disingenuous disclaimers that she's not giving advice but merely telling others what she has chosen. Bah.).

It makes me frustrated, disgusted, and sometimes downright angry to read false claims, misinformation, and twisted interpretations that have the potential to influence people's decisions on something as critial as breast cancer treatment.

I've done a lot of research, looking for more information on BHRT, especially since I'm triple negative and have pretty much exhausted all "conventional" forms of treatment and still face an unnervingly-high risk of recurrance and so I'm always looking to see what more I can do.  I've asked and asked  and have yet to find out the secret of what, specifically, makes BHRT better/more effective/safer than conventional HRT, which at this point I'm not willing to risk my life on.  

Hi Kathy044,

Thanks for sharing!  Your quote is probably more concise than what I posted, and it's what keeps me wondering why some people insist that progesterone is "good" and progestin is "bad" (or BHRT is "good and HRT is "bad.")  From your quote and mine above, it seems that both are equally implicated in BC risk.

"...no significant variation in the risk of breast cancer among different estrogens or progestins, doses, or routes of administration."

Well, it reminds me of the "studies" on vitamin E--they use a synthetic Alpha molecule, which is denatured, instead of the full spectrum E, and call it a day.  Again, they paint progesterone as if it was progestin.  Progestin is the issue in this study.  Progestin is not a nice molecule--it is a denatured and patented molecule distantly related to progesterone and it causes cancer.  Progesterone is an entirely different molecule.  The study being bandied here is about progestin based HRT. 

Funny how they don't refer to the progestin based birth control pills so many of us took, what, so, those are okay?  They are very high in progestins. 

Thenewme, I read the study and the raw data--they used progestins, and they are only referring to progestins, but the author very mysteriously intermixed progesterone with progestin in the narrative.  This remains a very sloppy and poorly completely study.