HRT Risk?

My stance is that until HRT (in whatever form) is proven to have no link to breast cancer, I'd say don't take it. For me, even the potential benefits do not outweigh the cancer risk. There are so many alternative methods for addressing heart disease and the negative effects of menopause that HRT should almost never be necessary treatment for anyone.

But that's just my take. I blame HRT, at least partially, for my cancer.

~Marin

You know, it's sort of ironic.  No, it's REALLY ironic:  I've been in/past menopause for 5 yrs already and decided right away not to take HRT. I even had a doctor harrass me about that decision--he actually (literally) pleaded with me to just try it (TRY it, you'll LIKE it). Made me think of those old stories about shady characters in alleys, pushing drugs on new users.  I said no and dropped that doc.

My sister, OTOH, has been on HRT for more than 5 yrs because she just can't deal with the hot flashes etc. I think hers is a specially concocted type, and she gets tested now and then to see if it's the right amount. It is STILL an estrogen/progestin combination, tho.

So which of us, do you suppose, developed BC??? 

Life just ain't fair.

otter 

The FDA is after some of those bioidentical compounded estrogens.

Apparently they've made claims about it's wonderfulness that aren't held up by fact.

I think for bc gals that it's best to stay away from ANY estrogens. 

An article was on my computer today--titled "Estrogen Helps Bring Breast Cancer Back"  from Web MD.  Even our fat produces estrogen.   

Here's another wrench thrown into the mix...

I was just reading an article the other day that was talking about the fact that, prior to tamoxifen coming onto the scene, high dose estrogen was the hormonal treatment of choice to treat breast cancer. Go figure!!!

http://breast-cancer-research.com/content/4/4/133

leaf,

That's true about knowledge of a link between "hormones" (estrogen) and BC even many decades ago.  One of my family members had BC way back in the 1940's.  She was pre-menopausal at the time.  Her treatment was a "Halstead radical" mastectomy, plus irradiation of her ovaries to eliminate that source of estrogen.  She did just fine, as far as the BC was concerned--there was no recurrence.  (The SE's of her abrupt introduction into menopause, plus the loss of muscle with the Halstead radical, were apparently pretty brutal.)  She eventually died of something completely unrelated to her BC, 20+ years later.

otter 

My experience with HRT is a little different .. my doc begged me to quit.

When I was in my late 30's I had my uterus removed, ovaries were left in.  I didn't take HRT until I was about 46 when my ovaries were removed due to an 8 cm tortion cyst on one of them.  I started HRT then.  About 9 months later I had a stereotactic biopsy of my left breast.  I thought nothing of it. I had always had cysts.  They left the little metal chips to mark the spot.  My doc called and said everything was fine.  End of story.  I never questioned it or asked to see the report.  I never thought of breast cancer.  (As an aside, it was a very stressful time, just caught my ex with his secy, and going through a divorce.)  I moved out of state.  Two years later I had a new doctor who begged me to quit HRT, I said no.  I didn't want to be 48, single and in menopause.  Three years later, in yet another state, I realize I haven't had a mammo in 1 1/2 years and that's BAD.  Whoops. Bad mammo, bad stereo biopsy ... cancer in the same breast as previous biopsy, but different area.  First thing to go, HRT.  Instant menopause at 51, along with lumpectomy and rads. That was exactly one year ago. 

Is there any significance to this or not, I don't know. My first questionable biopsy was 9 months after starting HRT.  So, my guess is, I still would have got cancer, maybe just not as soon.

My tumor was 100% er/pr +. 

Best bet overall ... skip the HRT (in my opinion).

Bren

PS - I might add that I am now a total information junky and know everything about my cancer.

That's what my friend's mammograms are showing -- calcifications. I'm so frightened for her. I can't tell if i'm overreacting because of my own ER positive bc or if this is really dangerous. Her theory is HRT can't be that dangerous or they would have taken it off the market.

good one, otter.

Hello Brenda, my comrade in arms - We followed same path - BC found in area where prior bx had taken place, after a longer than usual absence of having mammograms, and being abruptly taken off HRT - the fountain of youth - thank God for Ativan and Xanax is all I can say.

It has been one year, and hallelujah, we are still here.  What a road it has been.

Thank you my friend, for letting me fall apart a million times and not judging me. 

I too am boggled by HRT.  For a long time after my diagnosis, I thought HRT was the cause having taken it for 20 years after hysterectomy.  Yet, my maternal cousin has been on HRT for more than 35 years (after hysterectomy) is now in her 70's and still fine (we took the same HRT in the same dosage).

Reading about the history of breast cancer opened my eyes to the fact that BC is a very old disease, dating back to the beginning of time - long before HRT was thought of by drug companies.  Unfortunately for us, records were not kept back then thus we don't have any way of knowing which commonalities, if any, those women shared but we know for certain it wasn't HRT.

Another factor is our risk INCREASES age we age despite the fact that our estrogen levels decrease.  Isn't that odd?

It appears to me that something (?) in our own bodies is the cause, but WHAT that something is remains a mystery. All women have estrogen to a certain age, yet thankfully all women do not get breast cancer.  All women with breast cancer have not partaken in HRT.  Furthermore, all women with breast cancer are not BRCA 1 and/or 2 carriers.  ????? Okay, obviously, something that's yet to be discovered is involved.