Search

What are the guidelines for screening in postmenopausal women? Who should be given chemopreventive agents? Does HRT increase breast cancer risk? Find answers to these questions as well as how to care for survivors of breast cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To describe long-term mortality trends by ethnicity, sex, and age for selected cancers and to assess the effect of age-adjustment using different standard populations on rate ratios and rate differences comparing black to white cancer mortality. DESIGN: Mortality rates for selected cancers were obtained from published reports of the Vital Statistics of the United States (1950-1992). All ethnic- and sex-specific cancer rates were directly age-adjusted to the total 1970 US standard population and to a subset of the 1970 US standard population 40 years and older. RESULTS: Over a 42-year period, lung cancer mortality increased in all population subgroups. Colorectal cancer mortality declined in whites, but increased in blacks. Prostate cancer mortality increased slightly in white men, but dramatically increased in black men. Breast cancer mortality stabilized in white women, but increased markedly in black women. Uterine cancer mortality declined for both ethnicities, while ovarian cancer mortality rates increased for both ethnicities. As expected, the ratios of the age-adjusted cancer mortality rates comparing blacks to whites were the same regardless of the age structure used as the standard population. In contrast, the differences in the age-adjusted rates between blacks and whites were greater when the age-truncated standard population was used. CONCLUSIONS: There are unexplained ethnic differences in the long-term mortality trends of selected cancers. Of particular concern are the increasing death rates in black individuals from colorectal, prostate, breast, and ovarian cancers. Since almost all deaths from these cancers occur in persons over 40, age-adjustment using an age-truncated standard population that includes only those age groups at risk should be considered, particularly when the question to be addressed is one dealing with the impact of a characteristic, such as ethnicity or sex, on mortality risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Yes and no. Now with an indication for breast cancer prevention, tamoxifen offers new hope--but not for all, and with some risk. Other possibly safer agents are becoming available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Yes and no. Now with an indication for breast cancer prevention, tamoxifen offers new hope-but not for all, and with some risk. Other, possibly safer, agents are becoming available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We review herein the evidence that estrogen is protective against the development of cardiovascular disease in women. To our knowledge, no studies in women have looked at endogenous estrogen levels as predictors of cardiovascular disease. Studies of surrogate measures of endogenous estrogen such as parity, age at menarche, and age at menopause have provided inconsistent results. Current use of oral contraceptives increases risk in older women who smoke cigarettes, but most studies of past use show no increased risk. Most, but not all, studies of hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women show around a 50% reduction in risk of a coronary event in women using unopposed oral estrogen. These important observations need to be confirmed in a double-blind, randomized clinical trial, since the protection is biologically plausible and the magnitude of the benefit would be quite large if selection factors can be excluded. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent data indicate that hormone replacement therapy reduces the risk of heart disease and can be taken safely by an increasing number of women. Is it time you took a fresh look at HRT? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We report on agreement in interpreting endometrial biopsy specimens between the local and central pathologists of the Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions (PEPI) trial. This trial was a 3-year, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial of four groups taking estrogen or estrogen/progestin combinations. A total of 1804 follow-up biopsies were performed in 596 subjects. Relative sensitivity and relative specificity using the diagnosis from the central pathologist as the gold standard and overall agreement are presented. Almost 90% of the diagnoses were reported normal by both readers. There were significant differences in agreement among clinics and treatment arms (p < 0.0001). The visit at which the biopsy specimen was obtained, age at baseline, prior postmenopausal estrogen use, parity, and drug adherence were not associated with agreement between the two readers. Higher proportions of disagreement were seen in two clinics (13% and 11%) compared with the other five clinics (2%-5%). Biopsy specimens from participants who were taking conjugated equine estrogens (CEE) only were more likely to be diagnosed differently by both readers (11%) than biopsy specimens from women taking a placebo (2%) or CEE combined with progestins (5%). Relative specificity varied from 86.4% to 98.9% among the clinics (p < 0.0001). Relative sensitivity was based on a small number of diagnoses, as few biopsy specimens were classified abnormal by the central pathologist. In patients assigned to CEE combined with progestin, 5 of the 7 biopsy specimens that were recorded abnormal by the central pathologist received a normal diagnosis locally. Our findings show that sample size requirements for study designs in which a central reader is used can be at least threefold lower than the requirements for designs relying on local diagnoses. Centralized protocols for endometrial histopathology reading and staff training are highly desirable in multicenter trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What are the guidelines for screening in postmenopausal women? Are mammograms passe? Who should be given chemopreventive agents? Does ERT/HRT increase breast cancer risk? Find answers to these and other important questions in this latest update. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]