Association between menopausal hormone therapy, mammographic density and breast cancer risk: results from the E3N cohort study.
Breast cancer risk
Mammographic density
Mediation analysis
Menopausal hormone therapy
Menopause
Journal
Breast cancer research : BCR
ISSN: 1465-542X
Titre abrégé: Breast Cancer Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100927353
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 04 2021
17 04 2021
Historique:
received:
03
08
2020
accepted:
01
04
2021
entrez:
18
4
2021
pubmed:
19
4
2021
medline:
4
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is a risk factor for breast cancer (BC). Evidence suggests that its effect on BC risk could be partly mediated by mammographic density. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between MHT, mammographic density and BC risk using data from a prospective study. We used data from a case-control study nested within the French cohort E3N including 453 cases and 453 matched controls. Measures of mammographic density, history of MHT use during follow-up and information on potential confounders were available for all women. The association between MHT and mammographic density was evaluated by linear regression models. We applied mediation modelling techniques to estimate, under the hypothesis of a causal model, the proportion of the effect of MHT on BC risk mediated by percent mammographic density (PMD) for BC overall and by hormone receptor status. Among MHT users, 4.2% used exclusively oestrogen alone compared with 68.3% who used exclusively oestrogens plus progestogens. Mammographic density was higher in current users (for a 60-year-old woman, mean PMD 33%; 95% CI 31 to 35%) than in past (29%; 27 to 31%) and never users (24%; 22 to 26%). No statistically significant association was observed between duration of MHT and mammographic density. In past MHT users, mammographic density was negatively associated with time since last use; values similar to those of never users were observed in women who had stopped MHT at least 8 years earlier. The odds ratio of BC for current versus never MHT users, adjusted for age, year of birth, menopausal status at baseline and BMI, was 1.67 (95% CI, 1.04 to 2.68). The proportion of effect mediated by PMD was 34% for any BC and became 48% when the correlation between BMI and PMD was accounted for. These effects were limited to hormone receptor-positive BC. Our results suggest that, under a causal model, nearly half of the effect of MHT on hormone receptor-positive BC risk is mediated by mammographic density, which appears to be modified by MHT for up to 8 years after MHT termination.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is a risk factor for breast cancer (BC). Evidence suggests that its effect on BC risk could be partly mediated by mammographic density. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between MHT, mammographic density and BC risk using data from a prospective study.
METHODS
We used data from a case-control study nested within the French cohort E3N including 453 cases and 453 matched controls. Measures of mammographic density, history of MHT use during follow-up and information on potential confounders were available for all women. The association between MHT and mammographic density was evaluated by linear regression models. We applied mediation modelling techniques to estimate, under the hypothesis of a causal model, the proportion of the effect of MHT on BC risk mediated by percent mammographic density (PMD) for BC overall and by hormone receptor status.
RESULTS
Among MHT users, 4.2% used exclusively oestrogen alone compared with 68.3% who used exclusively oestrogens plus progestogens. Mammographic density was higher in current users (for a 60-year-old woman, mean PMD 33%; 95% CI 31 to 35%) than in past (29%; 27 to 31%) and never users (24%; 22 to 26%). No statistically significant association was observed between duration of MHT and mammographic density. In past MHT users, mammographic density was negatively associated with time since last use; values similar to those of never users were observed in women who had stopped MHT at least 8 years earlier. The odds ratio of BC for current versus never MHT users, adjusted for age, year of birth, menopausal status at baseline and BMI, was 1.67 (95% CI, 1.04 to 2.68). The proportion of effect mediated by PMD was 34% for any BC and became 48% when the correlation between BMI and PMD was accounted for. These effects were limited to hormone receptor-positive BC.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest that, under a causal model, nearly half of the effect of MHT on hormone receptor-positive BC risk is mediated by mammographic density, which appears to be modified by MHT for up to 8 years after MHT termination.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33865453
doi: 10.1186/s13058-021-01425-8
pii: 10.1186/s13058-021-01425-8
pmc: PMC8053286
doi:
Substances chimiques
Receptors, Estrogen
0
Receptors, Progesterone
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
47Références
Breast Cancer Res. 2016 Sep 21;18(1):94
pubmed: 27654859
JAMA. 2013 Oct 2;310(13):1353-68
pubmed: 24084921
Br J Cancer. 1995 Aug;72(2):476-9
pubmed: 7640235
Psychol Methods. 2010 Dec;15(4):309-34
pubmed: 20954780
JAMA. 2002 Jul 17;288(3):321-33
pubmed: 12117397
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020 Aug;182(3):555-579
pubmed: 32572713
Am J Epidemiol. 2010 Dec 15;172(12):1339-48
pubmed: 21036955
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Mar 10;26(8):1260-8
pubmed: 18323549
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 May 10;106(5):
pubmed: 24816206
N Engl J Med. 1997 Jun 19;336(25):1769-75
pubmed: 9187066
Cancer Epidemiol. 2017 Aug;49:156-160
pubmed: 28697417
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017 Sep 1;109(9):
pubmed: 28376149
Lancet. 2019 Sep 28;394(10204):1159-1168
pubmed: 31474332
J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Apr;21(4):363-6
pubmed: 16686814
Eur J Cancer Prev. 1998 Feb;7 Suppl 1:S47-55
pubmed: 10866036
Epidemiol Rev. 1998;20(1):81-90
pubmed: 9762511
Atherosclerosis. 2016 Nov;254:282-290
pubmed: 27745704
J Gen Intern Med. 2004 Jul;19(7):791-804
pubmed: 15209595
Stat Med. 1992 Jan 30;11(2):167-78
pubmed: 1579756
CMAJ. 2019 Sep 30;191(39):E1088-E1089
pubmed: 31570552
Int J Epidemiol. 2015 Jun;44(3):801-9
pubmed: 25212479
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Mar 10;(3):CD002229
pubmed: 25754617
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017 Apr;26(4):651-660
pubmed: 28062399
Ann Intern Med. 1992 Dec 15;117(12):1016-37
pubmed: 1443971
Am J Epidemiol. 2008 May 1;167(9):1027-36
pubmed: 18385204
Int J Cancer. 2010 Jul 15;127(2):452-61
pubmed: 19924817
Ann Intern Med. 1992 Dec 15;117(12):1038-41
pubmed: 1443972
Int J Biostat. 2020 Sep 30;17(2):191-221
pubmed: 32990647
J Couns Psychol. 2017 Nov;64(6):659-671
pubmed: 29154577
Brain Res. 2011 Mar 16;1379:244-52
pubmed: 20977895
Int J Cancer. 2005 Apr 10;114(3):448-54
pubmed: 15551359
Cancer Causes Control. 2000 Aug;11(7):653-62
pubmed: 10977110
JAMA. 2001 Jan 10;285(2):171-6
pubmed: 11176809
Cancer Causes Control. 2018 Jun;29(6):495-505
pubmed: 29671181
Medicina (Kaunas). 2019 Sep 18;55(9):
pubmed: 31540401