Abstract P1-10-03: Estrogen and breast cancer benefits: Emerging hormone replacement therapy breast cancer paradigms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND. Large scale clinical hormone replacement therapy [HRT] studies have yielded conflicting breast cancer [BrCa] outcomes. The studies reviewed include:. Two Non-Randomized Studies [Non-RS], based on either estrogen+progestin Provera [E+P HRT]; or estrogen-alone [E-HRT]:. 1. Collaborative Group Meta-analysis of 58 HRT studies [CG-M] [1]. 2. Million Women Study [MWS] [2]. Two Randomized Studies [RS] - the Women’s Health Initiative [WHI] Trials 1 and 2:. 1. WHI HRT Trial 1 - based on E+P HRT [3] 2. WHI HRT Trial 2 - based on E-HRT [3]. Of all the above HRT studies, only the WHI HRT Trial 2 showed long-term reductions in Breast Cancer Incidence [BrCa-I] and Mortality [BrCa-M], while all others showed varying degrees of BrCa harms. OBJECTIVES. To evaluate differences between the representative HRT studies, their results and conclusions. METHODOLOGY. Compared were BrCa outcomes:. i. Between the two the RS - WHI HRT Trial 2 vs. 1 (Analysis 1) ii. E-HRT impact from a RS [i.e., the WHI HRT Trial 2] vs. Non-RS [the CG-M/MWS] (Analysis 2). For both analyses, risk ratios (RR) for BrCa-I & BrCa-M, and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI), were obtained from the studies [RR1 and RR2, respectively]. Subsequently, the ratio of “risk ratios” (R-RRs), were estimated, in each analysis, separately for BrCa-I and BrCa-M. The 95% confidence intervals and p-values for the R-RRs were derived through logarithmic transformation of the risk ratios and 95% CI originally reported. RESULTS. CONCLUSIONS.. Based on these outcomes, the following emerging HRT paradigms can be considered:. PARADIGM 1: The addition of Progestin Provera abrogates the benefits of E-alone HRT [4]. PARADIGM 2: Considering the presence of many confounding factors in non-randomized HRT studies [e.g., selection bias, with more high-risk women receiving HRT (5)], the reduction of BrCa-I and BrCa-M rates observed in the WHI Trial 2 has to be accepted as the least biased conclusion of the E-HRT impact on breast cancer. PARADIGM 3: The mechanism of the E-alone based HRT breast cancer benefit could be explained by the Estrogen Duality [endogenous estrogen remaining breast carcinogenic, while the exogenous estrogen emerging breast cancer suppressive] - a concept articulated already in 2010 [6], now confirmed in the WHI HRT Trial 2 final outcomes, and in these analyses. REFERENCES. 1. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. The Lancet, 2019; vol. 394(1024). 2. Beral V et al. The Lancet, 2019; vol. 394. 3. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA, 2020; vol. 324(4). 4. Ragaz J et al. AACR, 2019; vol. 79(4) Supplement. 5. Shapiro S et al. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care, 2013; vol. 39(2). 6. Ragaz J et al. Ca Res, 2010; vol. 70(24) Supplement. Analysis 1: RS WHI Trial 2 vs. 1 [ 3]RS - RRs: E-HRT vs. Placebo. RR1 [95% C.I.]RS - RRs: E+P HRT vs. Placebo. RR2 [95% C.I.]Ratio of “Risk Ratios” [R-RRs]PBrCa Incidence0.78 [0.65-0.93]1.28 [1.13-1.45]0.61 [0.49-0.76]<0.001BrCa Mortality0.60 [0.37-0.97]1.35 [0.94-1.95]0.44 [0.25-0.81]0.008Analysis 2: [E-HRT] of RS vs. Non-RS - [WHI Trial 2 vs. CG-M/MWS 1,2]RS: E-HRT vs. Placebo- RRs. RR1 [95% C.I.]Non-RS E-HRT “users” vs. “Non-users” - RRs. RR2 [95% C.I.]R-RRs. RR1/RR2 [95% C.I.]PBrCa Incidence0.78 [0.65-0.93]1.33 [1.28-1.38]0.59 [0.49-0.70]<0.001BrCa Mortality0.60 [0.37-0.97]1.35 [1.24-1.47]0.44 [0.27-0.72]0.001 Citation Format: Joseph Ragaz, John J Spinelli, Hong Qian, Hubert Wong, Shayan Shakeraneh, Joel Fox, Kenneth S Wilson. Estrogen and breast cancer benefits: Emerging hormone replacement therapy breast cancer paradigms [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-10-03.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".