Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kdee69]

Thought I'd post this for anyone who wants to read it

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/aug/29/breast-cancer-risk-from-using-hrt-is-twice-what-was-thought?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[wombat62]

Hello Ladies

I was just about to post the link!

I've not been here for a long time partly because I've been doing ok plus I was getting too focussed on health etc and it was creating more health anxiety! Hope everyone is doing ok....

Bit worrying though as I've been on it quite a few years now, hope to come off it by 60 when I can start winding down work wise (I hope!) but whilst everything is ticketyboo (good sleep, no stress etc) I'm fine but then if I get run down it seems to knock my hormones out of balance and all the yukky symptoms return.

What's a gal supposed to do? Always feel you're between a rock and a hard place. Feel well or not feel well and less risk? I know there are other factors at play, genetics, even alcohol consumption, diet etc but this study doesn't look good.

[Sparrow]

Thanks kdee69.  Very interesting article.

It's on the news this morning.

[Dierdre]

Why all this scaremongering again, not too long ago we were getting the opposite message, that the risks were not as bad as thought and promoting all the good aspects, heart and bone protection and how women had suffered unnecessarily by years of not taking HRT etc.

lts ironic how this news coincides with the shortages and many will be now scared to use it, one way of solving the shortage problem.......

[Countrygirl]

I just heard it on the news too, 6 in 100 will get it with no treatment, but that goes up to 8 in 100 if hrt is taken for up to 5 years.

I don't know if it's just me thinking it as I am one of those untrusting people, but I find the timing of this report being released a little unnerving  x

Tracey E I thought that, but also what about taking birth control pills as they are stronger than hrt x

The BBC news one
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49508671

[kdee69]

Why all this scaremongering again, not too long ago we were getting the opposite message, that the risks were not as bad as thought and promoting all the good aspects, heart and bone protection and how women had suffered unnecessarily by years of not taking HRT etc.

lts ironic how this news coincides with the shortages and many will be now scared to use it, one way of solving the shortage problem.......

I think the article isn't necessarily scaremongering but presents the reports of the Lancet study and allows women and doctors to make informed choices. I personally will weigh up the pros and cons and then decide whether the risk is worth it compared to the utter crap I feel when not on HRT. I will never forget a woman I worked with years ago who had the most miserable time going through the menopause, fanning herself through every meeting, barking at everyone daily and just having a crap existence telling me that she'd never take HRT as it “causes cancer”. She suffered for literally years. I honestly swore if I'd ever become like her, the risk was worth it. Fast forward 15 years and it absolutely was me. I definitely want to read this article in greater detail and consider everything but even now, on first reading, I don't want to be that woman ever again so I think HRT for me still may be the better option.

[CLKD]

Government going to the country might have an impact?

Quality of Life Girls!  We might die of something else whilst taking HRT [I don't] before cancer cells grow anyway. Will be interesting to see Dr Currie's take on this.

[Sparrow]

I don't think you can blame the researchers for scaremongering.  You would not want them not to do any research or not publish adverse affects as that would be worse for everyone.

If you click the lancet link in the article you get the full research results.

[CLKD]

Crikey - the Telegraph have cherry picked big time.  These articles shouldn't be allowed.

Their statistics show a possibility of 1 more woman being diagnosed with breast cancer over 5 years if HRT is used.  What the F*** is MHT [off to check that]

Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) essentially replaces the missing hormones to alleviate menopausal symptoms.
It is commonly referred to as HRT (hormone replacement therapy), although this also includes other therapies such thyroid hormones, growth hormones or testosterone which are not part of this study.


I didn't read any more and DH says that women probably haven't been asked about lifestyle, diet, weight, smoking, alcohol etc..  Stastitics being manipulated again?

[Sparrow]

Exactly CLKD, statistics can be interpreted differently.  But the information has to be out there for women to make an informed decision.

You wouldn't want the research done and not published as is done with statins where the drug companies refuse to release their data.

No doubt the pharmaceutical companies involved will dispute this paper but at least it was written with no commercial interest.

[newbaby1234]

This study is not a randomised controlled study which is the gold standard. Like many have commented it doesn't reflect lifestyle such as drinking, smoking or obesity. Also from what I can see it doesn't include micronised progesterone such as utrogestan but many of the old synthetic progesterones which have always shown an increased link to breast cancer. Just my own personal insight into this paper.

[Butterfly22]

I think this is scaremongering!
I've taken it for 20yrs almost. These reports always come out! It's good, it's bad ect! Like alcohol they say a glass is good then it's not.
If you are getting a better quality of life then to me that out-ways the risks.
Having ME if someone gave me a choice I'd take the risk.
I started taking it at 27 due to early menopause so I'm apparently not as risk just putting in what my body dose not produce but I'm bad enough with it. And having the longest menopause ever no way will I not take it. (I have tried) xx

[Hurdity]

Here is the RCOG and BMS response which I haven't read yet:
https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/news/rcog-bms-response-to-lancet-study/

I haven't had time to read the paper in depth yet as have to go out but looks very complex (and need to be a statisitician to understand it!) and as newbaby1234 says it is not a randomised controlled trial but I think what is known as a meta-analysis ie putting together data from a lot of different studies ( including trials) and analysing the results. It cannot go into very specific types of HRT which is what later trials have done. eg I would want to know the relative risks of using transdermal HRT with micronised progesterone used intermittently, compared to non-use of HRT. Some large analyses have been presented of oral vs transdermal but not sure what. Looks like cyclical progestogen associated with lower increased risk than continuous combined - but that is not new. Also the info refers to lower increased risk from dydrogesterone (compared with other synthetic progestogens?) - but that has also been reported before. Not sure about all the details re follow up.

Hurdity x

Edit The study was carried out by the same team from Oxford University that carried out the Million Women Study - they interviewed Prof Valerie Beral, one of the authors of the current study this morning on Radio 4.

[Wrensong]

Have read the Lancet article which makes for sobering reading.  Also some of the various comment pieces.  Don't think it scaremongering.  One article I read deemed the study well-designed & an excellent piece of research.  Need time to digest it.  Will be interested to see what NICE have to say.

[Emma]

You can read Dr.Currie's response to the article here:
https://www.menopausematters.co.uk/newsitem.php?recordID=204

Also the link to the bms article here