Not Buying Into It

It could be that both are true as far as a theory. If the cancer feeds on estrogen then removing it will starve it but if you get the cancer to "over eat" that could cause it to die too. Just a theory nothing based on fact here.

Then again it could be that for some women starving the cancer will work better and for others over feeding the cancer works better.

The link to the thread is here: link  

Link to article is here:
Oestrogen Reduces Aggression In Breast Cancer   

BTW the article lucy88 posted has this quote:

"Cobleigh and associates summarized data from 5 studies and found that the prognosis
was better for women with breast cancer who took HRT before diagnosis than those who never took HRT. Those patients who took HRT before diagnosis had smaller
tumors, with better differentiation and less cellular proliferation than women who developed breast cancer and had not taken HRT. "

I also found an expert of this article also with "Cobleigh" listed:
Estrogen Replacement Therapy in Breast Cancer Survivors  

Cobleigh is my onc. She has me on Anastozole (Generic Arimidex). Granted I was perimenopausal prior to chemo so this might mean something… but she has me on an Als. This article be based on dated information.

Iago, you're right. There is something protective about having taken HRT beforehand. Less aggressive tumors, etc. Mysteries abound.Then taking it afterward seems to have benefit too according to this.

http://oncolink.org/resources/article.cfm?c=3&s=8&ss=23&Year=2001&Month=5&id=1334

HRT after breast cancer seems not to increase risk of recurrence, mortality

Last Updated: 2001-05-15 16:01:01 EDT (Reuters Health) - Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in women previously diagnosed with invasive breast cancer does not appear to increase the risk of recurrence or mortality, and may even have a protective effect, according to investigators in Washington state.

Dr. Ellen S. O'Meara, of the University of Washington in Seattle, and associates collected data on 2755 women aged 35 to 74 treated for breast cancer. The investigators identified 174 patients who used HRT after diagnosis, and matched them to 695 subjects who had not used HRT.

After follow-up for a median of 3.7 years, the rate of recurrence was 17 per 1000 person-years in HRT users and 30 per 1000 person-years in nonusers, the researchers report in the May 16th issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. After adjustment for bilateral oophorectomy, hysterectomy, mastectomy, and tamoxifen use, the risk of recurrence was 0.50 for the HRT-user group relative to nonusers.

Median follow-up for mortality was 4.6 years. The relative risk of dying of breast cancer was 0.34 for the HRT-user group compared with the nonuser group. Relative risk for all-cause mortality was 0.48.

"Certain results of this study argue against a causal influence of HRT after breast cancer on recurrence and mortality," Dr. O'Meara's team writes. For example, disease-free and overall survival were unaffected by cumulative use of HRT or the form--oral or vaginal--that was used. Therefore, they suggest that the results be "interpreted with caution."

In an editorial, Dr. Jack Cuzick, of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund in London, comments, "Even if HRT turns out to have no effect on the prognosis of breast cancer, this knowledge would be a major step forward in terms of lowering morbidity and improving quality of life."

If a beneficial effect is confirmed, he adds, "the hormonal treatment of breast cancer will require very major reevaluation."

Is this clearer? The patients were mixed ER/PR +. Some were ERPR- negative. All were non metastatic. Twice as many died in the group not taking HRT

Background:  Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is typically avoided for women with a history of breast cancer because of concerns that estrogen will stimulate recurrence. In this study, we sought to evaluate the impact of HRT on recurrence and mortality after a diagnosis of breast cancer. Methods: Data were assembled from 2755 women aged 35-74 years who were diagnosed with incident invasive breast cancer while they were enrolled in a large health maintenance organization from 1977 through 1994. Pharmacy data identified 174 users of HRT after diagnosis. Each HRT user was matched to four randomly selected nonusers of HRT with similar age, disease stage, and year of diagnosis. Women in the analysis were recurrence free at HRT initiation or the equivalent time since diagnosis. Rates of recurrence and death through 1996 were calculated. Adjusted relative risks were estimated by use of the Cox regression model. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results: The rate of breast cancer recurrence was 17 per 1000 person-years in women who used HRT after diagnosis and 30 per 1000 person-years in nonusers (adjusted relative risk for users compared with nonusers = 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.30 to 0.85).

Breast cancer mortality rates were five per 1000 person-years in HRT users and 15 per 1000 person-years in nonusers (adjusted relative risk = 0.34; 95% CI = 0.13 to 0.91). Total mortality rates were 16 per 1000 person-years in HRT users and 30 per 1000 person-years in nonusers (adjusted relative risk = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.29 to 0.78).

 The relatively low rates of recurrence and death were observed in women who used any type of HRT (oral only = 41% of HRT users; vaginal only = 43%; both oral and vaginal = 16%). No trend toward lower relative risks was observed with increased dose.

Conclusion: We observed lower risks of recurrence and mortality in women who used HRT after breast cancer diagnosis than in women who did not. Although residual confounding may exist, the results suggest that HRT after breast cancer has no adverse impact on recurrence and mortality.

I'm sure your onc has you taking Anastrazole as standard of care as is her responsibility.

But data and outcome don't become "dated" because the experiment itself doesn't change or grow old. Even 50 year-old studies done removing the ovaries have the same outcome as they do today.

It would be good to see any study repeated, of course. As far as I know, there are more than 20 other studies that show similar outcomes as Dr. O'meara's group.

I've often wondered if blocking hormones helps and taking hormones helps ---but doing nothing may be a bad idea because you aren't altering the biology that was a hospitable place for cancer. Now, that would be a nice experiment!

Heidi,

These posts go onto the Internet? Seriously?

Check this link out ladies.  Then it will be a little more clear why the Komen Foundation will not fund this study.  The are about awareness and not the cure.   If I remember correctly, they are suing someone for using their slogan-"for the cure". What a bunch of hypocrites.  

http://www.breasthealthandhealing.org/socialnetworking/drruddymessage.html

Hi Pompeed----if you get that one figured out please let us know.I am not takin any of the ALs.but im goin holistic.I did do 33 tx of rads.glad i did but thats all im doing.

every day the picture changes.take it,dont take it,eat soy,dont eat soy.what the hell..its like we are back to square one.my dr said I can take DIM instead of the ALs and thats all im doin.

and the beat goes on...how are you feeling???

I just spent 10 weeks downhill skiing 5 out of 7 days starting 5 weeks post dble MX w/ DIEP recon. I will be 57 in 2 months. I am planning on doing it again next winter. Three years ago when I did RADS I went to the gym everyday after my rads session for an hour workout. I met a woman at the gym who was 6 weeks post chem who was doing competitive mountain biking circuit across the US. I'm not sure why you have to give up your horses?

Pompeed you have PM!