Postmenopausal hormone therapy: cardiovascular risks.

PubMed · 12674130

Postmenopausal hormone therapy: cardiovascular risks.

Abstract

(1) The WHI study was published in 2002: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial in more than 16 000 women with an average age of 63 years at enrollment. The paper reports data on the long-term adverse effects of combined equine estrogen-progestin hormone replacement therapy, taken for 5 years. (2) On average, a yearly excess of 19 severe adverse events per 10 000 women occurred in the estrogen-progestin group. Relative to the placebo group, there were an extra 8 pulmonary embolisms, 7 coronary events, 8 strokes and 8 cases of invasive breast cancer. In contrast, there were 6 fewer colorectal cancers and 5 fewer hip fractures in the active treatment group. (3) The differences in the frequency of coronary events and venous thromboembolism emerged after the first year of treatment, while the curves for stroke and breast cancer diverged after the second and fifth years, respectively. (4) The overall mortality rate did not differ between the two groups. (5) A placebo-controlled trial of the same hormone combination (HERS trial), given for 4.1 years as secondary prophylaxis against coronary heart disease was published in 1998. The drug was ineffective during the trial, and during unblinded post-trial follow-up of 2 321 women for an average of 2.7 years (HERS II study). (6) The estrogen-progestin combination used in these trials did not reduce the risk of coronary heart disease (in primary or secondary prophylaxis) or the risk of stroke. On the contrary, both risks increased. (7) The increased incidence of deep venous thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism associated with estrogen-progestin replacement therapy was confirmed in these trials, even among women with no relevant history. (8) The WHI trial also confirmed the increased risk of breast cancer in women on hormone replacement therapy, but did not study its impact on outcome or mortality. (9) The WHI trial confirmed the beneficial impact of estrogen-progestin combination therapy on the risk of osteoporotic fracture. An average of 5 hip fractures were avoided each year per 10 000 women treated (10 versus 15 observed cases per 10 000 women per year), together with 6 symptomatic vertebral fractures (9 versus 15 cases) and 44 osteoporotic fractures (147 versus 191 cases). It is not known whether the benefit observed at the end of the trial persisted after the end of treatment. (10) In practice, the decision to prescribe hormone replacement therapy, and the optimal duration of treatment, must be weighed up according to each individual's risk factors. And the decision to treat or not to treat must be regularly re-assessed. Women must be informed of the potential risks and benefits, and must be monitored. They should also be advised not to use less well assessed treatments such as phytoestrogens, DHEA and tibolone. (11) Health authorities, especially in Europe, must organise comparative trials to assess the benefits and risks of other hormone combinations used by perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

Explore related subjects

Breast Neoplasms Cardiovascular Diseases Estrogen Replacement Therapy Female Humans Progestins Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Risk Factors Women's Health Services Comparative Study Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

2003. Postmenopausal hormone therapy: cardiovascular risks.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12674130/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Hypernetwork-guided fusion with intra-class MixUp for breast cancer subtyping.

Accurate breast cancer subtyping guides treatment selection, yet histopathology captures morphology without molecular state, while genomic profiling captures molecular signatures without spatial context. Existing fusion methods rely on concatenation, or on attention applied only after each modality is encoded independently. This work identifies a scale-dependent asymmetry in the direction of cross-modal conditioning: the direction that performs best under limited samples is not the one that holds at scale, and the reversal is traced to the capacity of the modulation pathway rather than to the fusion principle. The comparison is carried out within a hypernetwork-guided framework in which an auxiliary network maps one modality to conditioning parameters that modulate the other's feature representation, shaping features at the parametric level rather than the decision stage; modulation is patient-specific rather than patch-specific. Both directions are instantiated-gene-to-image (HyperG2I) and image-to-gene (HyperI2G) - and trained under a label-aware MixUp strategy that interpolates within-class samples across both modalities, preserving the hard binary labels clinical decisions require. The framework is evaluated on two paired TCGA-BRCA cohorts-one limited-sample, one independently assembled at scale-under a single protocol spanning two whole-slide representations, multiple visual backbones, and both conditioning directions. On the limited-sample cohort, gene-to-image conditioning at its optimal augmentation setting exceeds early fusion and both unimodal baselines, giving the highest recall on the aggressive Basal/HER2 class of any configuration evaluated, and an ablation favours intra-class over inter-class mixing. At scale this ordering does not hold: image-to-gene conditioning sustains its performance whereas gene-to-image does not, recovering only partially under the full tissue bag and isolating the capacity of the modulation pathway as the binding constraint. Direction and capacity of cross-modal conditioning, rather than fusion depth alone, therefore govern how such frameworks scale.

Breast Neoplasms↗

PubMed2025

Metagenomic analyses reveal E. coli-derived siderophores as potential signatures for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality in women. Recent evidence implicates the gut microbiome and metabolites in breast cancer pathogenesis. This study explores associations between gut microbial species, their predicted metabolites, and breast cancer to uncover potential mechanistic insights. METHODS: Comprehensive metagenomic analyses were conducted on the gut microbiome of pre- and postmenopausal breast cancer patients, where microbial species were profiled through AMPHORA2 and metabolites were predicted through antiSMASH. Multivariate association analysis was used to identify significant associations between specific microbial species, predicted metabolites, and breast cancer status. A custom ensemble machine learning classifier was developed to classify pre- and postmenopausal breast cancer cases and controls based on microbial and predicted metabolite features. Additionally, a synthetic microbiome dataset was generated through MIDASim to validate the reproducibility of the ML results. Using our results, we explored the underlying dynamics of identified taxa and metabolite in breast cancer through literature and statistical support. RESULTS: Our analysis identified 471 microbial species and predicted 40 key metabolites in the metagenomic data. Multivariate analysis identified significant positive associations (p-value < 0.05) of E. coli, siderophore, and thiopeptide with breast cancer. The custom ensemble model achieved accuracy and AUC as high as 78% and 90%, respectively, in classifying pre- and postmenopausal cases and controls. The high-ranking features i.e., E. coli, siderophore, and thiopeptide were consistent with the results of the multivariate association analysis, thereby substantiating their biological significance. Using these findings, we propose a mechanistic model in which E. coli secretes siderophores under iron-limited conditions in breast cancer patients, for iron sequestration from the host, which can potentially promote angiogenesis and tumor progression. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that microbial iron acquisition mechanisms may play a critical role in breast cancer pathophysiology. Functional validation of these mechanisms is needed to assess therapeutic potential. This study highlights gut microbiota and their metabolites as promising targets for breast cancer research and intervention.

Breast Neoplasms↗

PubMed2025

Foundation model based multimodal transformer framework for survival analysis in HER2 stratified breast cancer.

Objective. To improve survival prediction for HER2-positive breast cancer by integrating histopathological, molecular, and clinical data using a multimodal transformer framework.Approach. We propose a multimodal transformer framework for breast cancer survival prediction using HER2 stratified (SurvMBC), a foundation model-enhanced architecture that fuses three data modalities: whole-slide images, clinical narratives, and molecular features. Tumor microenvironment features are extracted using a pathology language and image pre-training (PLIP), clinical narratives are processed with BioBERT, and miRNA expression plus DNA methylation data are embedded using Gen2Vec. These representations are integrated through a cross-modal transformer with attention mechanisms for survival prediction.Main results. The model was evaluated on 1,095 HER2-positive breast cancer patients from The Cancer Genome Atlas. SurvMBC achieved a concordance index (C-index) of 0.857 (95% CI: 0.834, 0.880), a low integrated Brier score, and a strong inverse negative binomial log-likelihood. Risk stratification based on model outputs significantly separated high- and low-risk groups (log-rankp< 0.01) and showed strong associations with tumor stage, grade, and hormone receptor status (allp< 0.05).Significance. SurvMBC demonstrates the effectiveness of multimodal fusion in addressing tumor heterogeneity and improving prognostic accuracy. The attention-based integration enables context-aware learning of survival-relevant features across modalities, supporting individualized risk stratification and risk-adaptive treatment planning for HER2 stratified breast cancer patients.

Breast Neoplasms↗