What A Group Of College Students Learned From An Experiment On Privilege
Million Women Study Wrong, Group Says
The much relied-upon study can't adequately prove that hormone replacement therapy causes breast cancer.
By Kristina Fiore, MedPage Today
Don't Miss This
Sign Up for OurWomen's HealthNewsletter
Thanks for signing up!You might also like these other newsletters:
TUESDAY, Jan. 17, 2012 (MedPage Today) —A study long used to establish causal links between hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and breast cancer is severely flawed, a group of epidemiologists have charged.
The observational Million Women Study (MWS), conducted in the U.K., doesn't adequately satisfy several criteria for causality — including information bias, detection bias, and biological plausibility — and thus can't be used to conclude that HRT causes breast cancer, according to Samuel Shapiro, PhD, of the University of Cape Town in South Africa, and colleagues.
"HRT may or may not increase the risk of breast cancer, but the MWS did not establish that it does," they wrote in theJournal of Family Planning and Reproductive Healthcare.
Several experts not involved in the study, however, have emphasized that they're well aware of the limitations of observational studies such as the MWS, and that the totality of evidence thus far has shown a strong association between HRT and breast cancer.
"This report would not change how I counsel women, as multiple studies, including a randomized trial, have shown an increased risk of breast cancer from combination hormone therapy," Kathy Helzlsouer, MD, director of the prevention and research center at Mercy Medical Center in Baltimore, said in an email toMedPage Todayand ABC News.
The analysis of the Million Women Study is the latest in a series of four papers by the Shapiro group exploring the credibility of three studies — the MWS, the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), and the collaborative reanalysis (CR) — that causally linking HRT, particularly estrogen plus progestogen therapy, with breast cancer.
The earlier papers similarly found that neither the CR nor the WHI could satisfy criteria for establishing causality.
In the latest analysis, Shapiro and colleagues evaluated whether the evidence in the MWS was consistent with generally accepted principles of causality: time order, information bias, detection bias, confounding, statistical stability, duration-response, internal consistency, external consistency, and biological plausibility.
The MWS included women in the U.K. ages 50 to 64 who were eligible for mammography every three years from 1966 to 2001, and who were subsequently followed via questionnaire. Analyses were released in 2003, 2004, 2006, and 2011, and found significantly increased risks of breast cancer with use of estrogen plus progestogen HRT.
Shapiro and colleagues found the study was lacking across nearly all of the categories establishing causality.
For instance, the study didn't exclude breast cancers that were already present when the women were recruited and HRT users who were already aware of breast lumps or suspected that they had cancer were likely to selectively choose to participate, thus increasing the number of cancers in this group, Shapiro's group said.
Such detection bias could also have been present during follow-up, since those on HRT were advised to have mammography more frequently than those not on HRT, they added.
At the same time, HRT diminishes the sensitivity of mammography, meaning mammograms may be more intensively scrutinized to find disease, they said.
Nor did the MWS researchers adequately control for confounding, they said, since factors such as menopausal status, time since menopause, age at menopause, and BMI changed during follow-up, but such data was missing for 57 percent to 62 percent of women by the third report.
In that vein, the small relative risks observed in the study, few of which exceeded a risk ratio of 2, could have been due to bias or confounding, they reported.
Also, the MWS findings may not be biologically plausible: the average time from recruitment to detection of breast cancer among HRT users was 1.2 to 1.7 years, and the likelihood of the cancer being fatal was 22 percent higher among HRT users. However, Shapiro and colleagues said this is biologically implausible, because such cancers normally take an average of 10 years to develop into a tumor with a diameter of 1 cm.
"The name 'Million Women Study' implies an authority beyond criticism or refutation," they wrote. "Yet ... size alone does not guarantee that the findings are reliable."
"If the evidence was unreliable, the only effect of its massive size would have been to confer spurious statistical authority to doubtful findings," they wrote.
However, few experts contacted byMedPage Todayand ABC News seemed concerned by the analysis, calling attention to a trend in declining breast cancer incidence in recent years that coincides with a drop in the use of estrogen plus progestogen HRT.
"The key study which we all refer to is the WHI, which is a randomized controlled study," Susan Love, MD, president of the Susan Love Research Foundation, said in an email. "The warnings about HRT and breast cancer come from that.
Video: Gotye - Somebody That I Used To Know (feat. Kimbra) - official video
Pregnancy not linked to baby brain’ memory loss
Women Soldiers No More Likely to Develop PTSD, Study Finds
How to Recover from a Disaster
How to Make Smoking Pipes from Everyday Objects
Now Playing: Know your spirits: Whisky
How to Recover an HP Laptop
How to Be Gluten Free
Roasted Shrimp Scampi
The 4 Best Foods For Your Pet, According To Veterinarians
How to Choose the Best Nail Polish
Believe it or not, when summer does eventually roll around in the area, temperatures can be fairly moderate. The record high in the area is actually 96 degrees Fahrenheit. However, the summer months are short-lived, and the brutal winter months drag on for what seems like an eternity