|
Advertisement |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Originally published as JCO Early Release 10.1200/JCO.2004.06.090 on February 23 2004 © 2004 American Society of Clinical Oncology. Hormone Replacement Therapy and Life Expectancy After Prophylactic Oophorectomy in Women With BRCA1/2 Mutations: A Decision AnalysisFrom the Department of Medicine, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine; Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania; Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute, University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA. Address reprint requests to Katrina Armstrong, MD, MSCE, University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Dr, 1204 Blockley Hall, Philadelphia PA 19104-6021; e-mail: karmstro{at}mail.med.upenn.edu
PURPOSE: The decision about prophylactic oophorectomy is difficult for many premenopausal women with BRCA1/2 mutations because of concerns and controversy about the use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) after oophorectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Markov decision analytic model used the most current epidemiologic data to assess the expected outcomes of prophylactic oophorectomy with or without HRT (to age 50 years or for life) in cohorts of women with BRCA1/2 mutations. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of alternative assumptions about effects of HRT, effects of prophylactic oophorectomy, and risks of cancer associated with BRCA1/2 mutations. RESULTS: In our model, prophylactic oophorectomy lengthened life expectancy in women with BRCA1/2 mutations, irrespective of whether HRT was used after oophorectomy. This gain ranged from 3.34 to 4.65 years, depending on age at oophorectomy. Use of HRT after oophorectomy was associated with relatively small changes in life expectancy (+0.17 to -0.34 years) when HRT was stopped at age 50, but larger decrements in life expectancy if HRT was continued for life (-0.79 to -1.09 years). HRT was associated with a gain in life expectancy of between 0.39 and 0.79 years for mutation carriers undergoing both prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the results of this decision analysis, we recommend that women with BRCA1/2 mutations undergo prophylactic oophorectomy after completion of childbearing, decide about short-term HRT after oophorectomy based largely on quality-of-life issues rather than life expectancy, and, if using HRT, consider discontinuing treatment at the time of expected natural menopause, approximately age 50 years.
Prophylactic oophorectomy reduces the risk of ovarian cancer in women with BRCA1/2 mutations by greater than 95% [1]. Premenopausal oophorectomy also reduces the risk of breast cancer in this high-risk population [2]. However, premenopausal women with BRCA1/2 mutations are often reluctant to undergo prophylactic oophorectomy because of concerns and confusion about hormone replacement therapy (HRT) after surgery. The use of HRT in women with BRCA1/2 mutations after prophylactic oophorectomy is controversial for several reasons. It is difficult to estimate the overall impact of HRT on life expectancy because of its many competing effects, particularly given the increased risk of breast cancer conferred by a BRCA1/2 mutation [3-6]. Recent data from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) trial of HRT in healthy postmenopausal women have dramatically changed beliefs about the effect of HRT on the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), resulting in considerable uncertainty about the use of HRT after menopause for any women [7-10]. Furthermore, it is unclear how the duration of HRT use after oophorectomy affects the balance of risks and benefits in women with BRCA1/2 mutations. Thus, some experts suggest that women with BRCA1/2 mutations use HRT only until age 50 years, the time they were likely to have experienced natural menopause, and others recommend against HRT use completely in these high-risk women [11]. Given these clinical uncertainties, new data on the effects of prophylactic oophorectomy and HRT, and the complexity of the many interrelated risks and benefits involved, we performed a decision analysis to assess the expected outcomes of prophylactic oophorectomy and subsequent HRT (either to age 50 years or for life) in women with BRCA1/2 mutations.
A Markov decision analytic model was developed using DATA 4.0 (Treeage Software, Williamstown, MA) to represent the impact of prophylactic oophorectomy and HRT on five major diseases: breast cancer, ovarian cancer, CHD, osteoporosis, and venous thrombosis [12]. Stroke and colon cancer were not included in the model because of limited and inconsistent evidence about the effect of HRT on these outcomes. The health outcomes of a woman with a BRCA1/2 mutation adopting a particular management strategy were estimated by simulating the life span of a hypothetical cohort of women with BRCA1/2 mutations choosing that strategy. The simulated cohort moved among health states over time according to the probability of developing disease, dying from disease, or dying from other causes. Health state transition probabilities varied over time and by management strategy chosen. To calculate life expectancy, the proportion of the cohort remaining alive in each annual interval was summed from age at entry until all members died or reached age 100 years.
Patient Cohorts, Management Strategies, and Assumptions
Data and Health State Transition Probabilities
Breast and ovarian cancer. Published estimates of the risks of breast and ovarian cancer in women with BRCA1/2 mutations range from 45% to 85% for lifetime risk of breast cancer and 11% to 40% for lifetime risk of ovarian cancer [3,15,16,45,46]. Because the higher estimates were generally derived from highly selected research families, we used age-specific estimates from Struewing et al [16] (56% lifetime risk of breast cancer and 16% lifetime risk of ovarian cancer) in our base-case analysis and examined the higher estimates in sensitivity analyses. To calculate age-specific estimates, incidence estimates at age 50 and 70 years were converted into age-specific rates using established formulas [12]. Rates of second breast cancers were obtained from a cohort study of women with BRCA1/2 mutations [46]. Estimates of survival after a diagnosis of breast or ovarian cancer were obtained from Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results [17]. To match the epidemiologic data as closely as possible while respecting the assumptions of a Markov model, cause-specific mortality after a diagnosis of breast cancer was assumed to be constant after the first year, whereas cause-specific mortality after a diagnosis of ovarian cancer was assumed to occur in the first 5 years after diagnosis. Sensitivity analyses examined variations in these assumptions and in case-fatality rates [18]. CHD. Age-dependent probabilities of developing CHD for women with various CHD risk profiles were calculated from the 30-year follow-up of the Framingham Heart Study [19-22]. The base-case analysis was conducted for a woman without major cardiac risk factors (ie, no history of cigarette smoking, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, or left ventricular hypertrophy). Mortality after a diagnosis of CHD (case-fatality) was obtained from a 1993 analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey I Epidemiologic Follow-up Survey adjusted for the significant decline in CHD case-fatality in the United States since 1990 [24]. Osteoporosis. Mortality from osteoporosis is largely attributable to hip fractures. Age-dependent risk of hip fracture was obtained from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey I Epidemiologic Follow-up Survey and adjusted for second hip fractures [25-28]. Mortality was attributed to hip fracture only in the first year after fracture [29-33]. Dying as a result of other causes. The probability of dying as a result of other causes was calculated from 2000 National Center for Health Statistics mortality data by adjusting age-dependent all-cause mortality for the probability of dying as a result of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, CHD, and hip fracture [47]. Prophylactic surgery. The effects of prophylactic oophorectomy and mastectomy on cancer risks were obtained from our recent analyses of a cohort of women with BRCA1/2 mutations [1,2]. On the basis of these analyses, prophylactic oophorectomy was assumed to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer by 96% and prophylactic mastectomy was assumed to reduce the risk of breast cancer by 85% [1,2]. In addition, these analyses demonstrated that mutation carriers who underwent prophylactic oophorectomy between ages 35 and 50 years experienced a 51% reduction in breast cancer risk that persisted up to age 80. On the basis of observational studies of average-risk women, prophylactic oophorectomy before age 50 without use of HRT was assumed to double the rate of developing CHD and osteoporosis up to age 60 years [41,42]. Although the rates of new diagnoses of CHD or osteoporosis were assumed to be independent of time at menopause after the age of 60, mutation carriers who had undergone premenopausal oophorectomy remained at higher absolute risk of CHD because of the increased incidence from the time of oophorectomy until age 60. Use of HRT after oophorectomy was assumed to negate this increase in risk. These assumptions were all tested in sensitivity analyses. Surgical mortality was assumed to be equivalent to that of general anesthesia (three of 10,000) [48,49]. HRT. We assumed that all mutation carriers had an intact uterus, which was not removed if they underwent oophorectomy, and used both estrogen and progestin if they chose to take HRT. Because specific data about the effects of HRT in women with BRCA1/2 mutations are not currently available and most studies suggest that the effects of HRT do not differ according to family history of breast cancer, we assumed that the effects of HRT were the same among women with BRCA1/2 mutations as women without BRCA1/2 mutations [35,36]. Thus, the effects of HRT on disease outcomes were obtained from the WHI randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women [8]. In the WHI trial, HRT increased the risk of breast cancer by 26% overall, but this effect varied over time with no increase in risk for the first 4 years of therapy and an increase of 58% for subsequent years. This result is similar to a meta-analysis of observational studies that found a 35% increase in risk after 5 years [4]. Use of HRT was assumed to have no effect on the clinical course of breast cancer [37]. The effect of HRT on CHD is controversial. The WHI trial found that HRT increased the risk of CHD events by 29% (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.29) [8]. However, this effect was not significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons and did not meet the criteria for early stopping. Recent studies of HRT among women with known CHD, including the Heart and Estrogen/Progestin Replacement Study, have generally supported the hypothesis that HRT increases the risk of CHD in postmenopausal women [7,50]. Thus, we assumed that use of HRT after the age of 50 years increased the risk of CHD by 29% in our base-case analysis. The possibilities that HRT did not affect or reduced the risk of CHD were examined in sensitivity analyses [5,51]. On the basis of the results of the WHI, HRT was assumed to increase the risk of venous thromboembolism by two-fold and to reduce the risk of hip fracture by 47%. Both of these effect sizes are similar to those seen in prior cohort studies [5,34,51,52]. Routine surveillance. Because women with BRCA1/2 mutations are recommended to begin mammography screening before the age of 50 years and the effectiveness of mammography is less in women younger than 50 than in those older than 50, the relative risk reduction from mammography in women with BRCA1/2 mutations may be less than that in average-risk women older than age 50 [53,54]. However, increased frequency of screening, potentially higher compliance, and increased use of alternative modalities may improve effectiveness [55]. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been demonstrated to be more accurate than mammography in women with a hereditary risk of breast cancer, and trials of screening MRI in women with BRCA1/2 mutations are currently ongoing [56]. Thus, the overall benefit of more frequent breast cancer surveillance in this population was assumed to be equivalent to that of routine mammography in average-risk women older than 50 (relative risk, 0.74 for breast cancer mortality) [44].
Sensitivity Analyses
Our model suggests that women with BRCA1/2 mutations who undergo prophylactic oophorectomy between the ages of 30 and 40 years will experience a significant gain in life expectancy, irrespective of their decision about HRT after oophorectomy (Table 3). In this setting, the decreased risk of ovarian and breast cancer from oophorectomy more than offset the increased risk of coronary disease and osteoporosis from oophorectomy (in the absence of HRT) or the increased risk of breast cancer from HRT (if HRT is used). The gain in life expectancy from oophorectomy decreases as age at the time of oophorectomy increases, with a range from 4.65 years in a 30-year-old mutation carrier who chooses not to take HRT to 2.63 years for a 40-year-old mutation carrier who chooses to take HRT for life. The addition of prophylactic mastectomy to prophylactic oophorectomy is associated with an additional increase in life expectancy (2.98 years at age 30, 2.56 years at age 35, and 2.15 years at age 40), although these incremental gains are smaller than the comparison of prophylactic oophorectomy to no surgery.
The overall effect of HRT on life expectancy after premenopausal oophorectomy ranged from a gain of 0.79 years to a loss of 1.09 years. The size and direction of the effect depended on length of HRT use, age at oophorectomy, and presence or absence of concurrent mastectomy. For mutation carriers who did not undergo concurrent prophylactic mastectomy, use of HRT from the time of prophylactic oophorectomy until age 50 was associated with a relatively small decrement in life expectancy for a 30-year-old woman (-0.34 years), essentially no change in life expectancy for a 35-year-old woman (-0.08 years), and a relatively small increase in life expectancy for a 40-year-old woman (+0.17 years). These changes were much smaller than the overall gain in life expectancy seen with prophylactic oophorectomy (3.34 to 4.65 years). The difference in the direction of the overall effect of HRT between ages 30 and 40 can be attributed in part to the fact that surviving to age 40 years without cancer extends overall life expectancy (providing more years where the beneficial effect of HRT on risk of osteoporosis can be realized) and in part to the greater risk of breast cancer than CHD between the ages of 30 and 40 (making the use of HRT during that decade relatively detrimental). For mutation carriers who did not undergo prophylactic mastectomy, use of HRT for life was consistently associated with a decreased life expectancy, ranging from -1.09 years in a 30-year-old carrier to -0.76 years in a 40-year-old carrier. In contrast, women with BRCA1/2 mutations who underwent prophylactic mastectomy in addition to oophorectomy experienced a net gain in life expectancy from the use of HRT, ranging from a gain of 0.79 years for a 30-year-old woman who uses HRT to age 50 to a gain of 0.39 years for a 30-year-old woman who uses HRT for life.
Sensitivity Analyses
Breast cancer risk also affected the expected impact of HRT on life expectancy after oophorectomy (Fig 1). If a BRCA1/2 mutation results in a lifetime breast cancer risk of 85%, short-term HRT was associated with a decrement of life expectancy ranging from 0.8 years in a 30-year-old woman to 0.1 years in a 40-year-old woman, and long-term HRT was associated with a decrement in life expectancy ranging from 1.6 years in a 30-year-old woman to 1.1 years in a 40-year-old woman. Variation in the estimated lifetime risk of ovarian cancer had little effect on the outcomes of HRT. Effects of prophylactic oophorectomy. The increase in life-expectancy conferred by premenopausal oophorectomy declined as the estimated effects of oophorectomy on breast cancer risk and ovarian cancer risk declined (Figs. 2 and 3). However, if prophylactic oophorectomy was assumed either not to reduce the risk of breast cancer or not to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, it remained associated with an overall increase in life expectancy (1.4 and 2.6 years, respectively, in a 35-year-old woman). In a worst-case analysis where the effect of prophylactic oophorectomy on both breast and ovarian cancer risk was taken from the upper limits of the 95% CIs of the most recent analysis of oophorectomy in mutation carriers (HR = 0.77 and HR = 0.16, respectively), prophylactic oophorectomy remained associated with an increase in life expectancy of 2.16 years [1,2].
Although the magnitude of ovarian cancer risk reduction from oophorectomy had little effect on the impact of HRT after oophorectomy, varying the effect of oophorectomy on breast cancer risk did affect the impact of HRT. For 35-year-old women who underwent prophylactic oophorectomy, use of HRT to age 50 was associated with a net decrement in life expectancy of greater than half a year if oophorectomy was assumed to reduce breast cancer risk by less than 25% (ie, HR > 0.75). Use of HRT for life was associated with a net decrement in life expectancy of greater than a year if oophorectomy was assumed to reduce breast cancer risk by less than 45% (ie, HR > 0.55). Effects of HRT. Figure 4 shows the relationship among the effects of HRT on the risks of breast cancer, CHD, and life expectancy after oophorectomy for a 35-year-old woman with a BRCA1/2 mutation. Although HRT was associated with a decrement in life expectancy across the majority of the analyses, HRT became associated with an increase in life expectancy when its effect on breast cancer risk was relatively small and its effect on CHD risk was relatively beneficial. These results were similar for 30- and 40-year-old women (data not shown).
The identification of the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 has made it possible to identify women at significantly increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer [57]. Premenopausal prophylactic oophorectomy has been shown to reduce substantially the risk of subsequent breast and ovarian cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers [1,2]. However, the decision of whether and when to undergo oophorectomy is difficult for many women because of concern about the use of HRT after oophorectomy and the potential for a marked decrease in quality of life related to premature menopause. This problem has been exacerbated by the recent results of the WHI, which demonstrated a significant increase in breast cancer risk and no reduction in CHD risk with the use of HRT in healthy postmenopausal women [8]. This decision analysis provides several insights to help women and physicians with these difficult decisions. Most importantly, prophylactic oophorectomy was associated with substantial increased life expectancy irrespective of subsequent use of HRT. To put this benefit in perspective, Table 4 shows the gains in life expectancy seen with several commonly used medical interventions, few of which provide gains of the magnitude seen with prophylactic oophorectomy. The smallest gain in life expectancy (2.6 years) associated with oophorectomy was for a 40-year-old woman who took HRT for life, a gain four times larger than that seen with adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer and 10 times larger than that seen with annual Pap smears among low-risk women [60,61]. Thus, given recent data about the benefits of oophorectomy on breast and ovarian cancer risk, women with BRCA1/2 mutations should not hesitate to undergo oophorectomy because of concerns about HRT.
In our comparison of 30-, 35-, and 40-year-old women, the benefit of oophorectomy on life expectancy increases the earlier oophorectomy is performed. This occurs because of the significant risk of breast cancer among women with BRCA1/2 mutations in their fourth decade of life, with several studies suggesting that a woman with a BRCA1/2 mutation has approximately a 20% risk of developing breast cancer by the time she is age 40 years. Our analysis did not assume that the effect of oophorectomy on breast cancer risk varied according to time before menopause. However, if oophorectomy is associated with a greater relative reduction in breast cancer risk when it is performed at age 30 than at age 40 (as might be expected), then the relative difference in life expectancy from oophorectomy between ages 30 and 40 would be even greater. Despite the greater benefit of oophorectomy at younger ages, we do not encourage women to forego or limit childbearing for this reason, given that the timing of oophorectomy has considerably less impact on life expectancy than the decision to undergo oophorectomy itself. On the basis of data from the WHI, in the absence of prophylactic mastectomy, the use of HRT from the time of oophorectomy until age 50 was associated with relatively small overall changes in life expectancy that were sensitive to the assumptions of the model. This finding suggests that the decision about short-term HRT use after prophylactic oophorectomy should be based on quality-of-life issues, such as symptomatic relief and cancer-related anxiety, rather than the effect of HRT on life expectancy. In contrast, women who have undergone prophylactic mastectomy as well as oophorectomy have a breast cancer risk that is so low that short-term HRT consistently increased life expectancy and should be considered for this reason alone. However, irrespective of whether a woman has undergone prophylactic mastectomy as well as oophorectomy, continuation of HRT after age 50 is associated with consistent and more substantial decrements in life expectancy, suggesting that women who do begin HRT at the time of oophorectomy should strongly consider discontinuing treatment around age 50, the average age of natural menopause in the United States. These results were consistent across the range of estimated penetrance rates for women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, with the decrement in life expectancy from HRT in the absence of prophylactic mastectomy generally being lower for women with BRCA2 mutations given that the estimated breast cancer penetrance is lower. Several previous decision analyses have evaluated effects of surgical prophylaxis in women with BRCA1/2 mutations but none have evaluated the influence of HRT, a critical factor for women making decisions about prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy. Our results are similar to a recent decision analysis that found that prophylactic oophorectomy was associated with a gain of life expectancy of between 5.3 years in a 30-year-old woman and 2.9 years in a 40-year-old woman, assuming a 56% lifetime breast cancer risk and 16% lifetime ovarian cancer risk in mutation carriers (the same rates used in our baseline analysis) [63]. However, this analysis assumed all women would take HRT until age 50 and did not consider alternative decisions about HRT use. Earlier decision analyses found smaller increases in life expectancy associated with prophylactic oophorectomy but did not include recent data demonstrating the marked effectiveness of oophorectomy in breast and ovarian cancer risk reduction or alternative decisions about HRT [1,2,64,65]. Our results differ from prior decision analyses of HRT use after menopause, most of which found gains in life expectancy of between 0.5 and 3.5 years for women, varying by CHD risk factors [6,66,67]. However, these prior analyses were conducted before the recent data release from the WHI demonstrating the lack of benefit of HRT in prevention of coronary disease, and were not focused on women with BRCA1/2 mutation. The primary limitations of this analysis arise from inevitable uncertainty about many of the transition probabilities and the need to restrict the number of options included in the model. Because the ability to identify women with BRCA1/2 mutations is a relatively recent development, the risk of HRT, the clinical course of breast and ovarian cancer, and the benefit of routine surveillance and prophylactic surgery are not known precisely for women with mutations in these genes. On the basis of analyses of the effects of HRT among women with a family history of breast cancer, we assumed that the effect of HRT was the same among women with BRCA1 mutations, BRCA2 mutations, and women without mutations. However, several studies suggest that BRCA1-associated breast cancer is less likely to be positive for estrogen and progesterone receptors than BRCA2-associated breast cancer or sporadic breast cancer, raising the possibility that HRT may be less likely to increase breast cancer risk among women with BRCA1 mutations [68,69]. Although sufficient data are not yet available to allow the development of specific models on the basis of these early findings, potential differences in the effect of HRT on breast cancer risk were included in sensitivity analyses. Because we were unable to include other management alternatives for osteoporosis or CHD risk in the model, the impact of the availability of these alternatives on the decision about HRT was not determined, although they are unlikely to make HRT a more favorable option. We did not examine the use of hysterectomy at the time of oophorectomy, an option that allows women to use estrogen replacement without progesterone supplementation. Although many experts believe that the use of estrogen alone may be associated with fewer risks and greater benefits than the use of estrogen and progesterone, sufficient data are not yet available about this issue to enable a meaningful decision analysis. The completion of the corresponding WHI trial of postmenopausal estrogen supplementation will allow us to address this issue. Similarly, there currently are insufficient data about HRT to determine the optimal length of use after oophorectomy. We chose to examine the use of HRT until age 50 years because of the clear physiologic difference between replacing estrogen until the time of expected menopause and the extension of estrogen exposure after menopause. In addition, the impact of early menopause on the increase in risk of CHD and osteoporosis is fairly well understood. Although we do not yet have data to enable calculation of the association between shorter courses of HRT use and life expectancy, such courses may be reasonable for many women. Because the effect of HRT on quality of life may be quite variable across individual women and the most recent data suggest the effects at the population level are minimal, we did not to include an estimate of the mean effect of HRT on quality of life in our analyses [70]. However, we believe quality-of-life issues are an important part of individual decisions about short-term use of HRT. Despite the limitations inherent in modeling, this study provides important information for women with BRCA1/2 mutations [71]. For these women, premenopausal oophorectomy was associated with a substantial increase in life expectancy, irrespective of the decision about subsequent HRT. Furthermore, the risks and benefits of HRT until age 50 were closely balanced in these women, making the overall impact of HRT on life expectancy relatively small. However, on the basis of recent data from the WHI, long-term continuation of HRT beyond age 50 was associated with a significant decrement in life expectancy. Thus, we believe that all women with BRCA1/2 mutations should be strongly encouraged to undergo prophylactic oophorectomy after completion of childbearing, should decide about the use of short-term HRT after oophorectomy on the basis of quality-of-life issues and, if they choose to take HRT, should plan to discontinue its use at or before the expected age of natural menopause.
The authors indicated no potential conflicts of interest.
We thank Henry Glick, PhD, for assistance with regression models of coronary heart disease and Tim Rebbeck, PhD, for assistance with prophylactic surgery data.
Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest are found at the end of this article.
1. Rebbeck TR, Lynch H, Neuhausen SL, et al: Prophylactic oophorectomy in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. N Engl J Med 346:1616-1622, 2002
2. Rebbeck T, Levin A, Eisen A, et al: Reduction in breast cancer risk following bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy in BRCA1 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 91:1475-1479, 1999 3. Easton D, Ford D, Bishop D: Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium: Breast and ovarian cancer incidence in BRCA1-mutation carriers. Am J Hum Genet 56:265-271, 1995[Medline] 4. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer.Breast cancer and hormone replacement therapy: Collaborative reanalysis of data from 51 epidemiologic studies of 52,705 women with breast cancer and 108,411 women without breast cancer. Lancet 350:1047-1059, 1997[CrossRef][Medline] 5. Folsom AR, Mink P, Sellers T, et al: Hormonal replacement therapy and morbidity and mortality in a prospective study of postmenopausal women. Am J Public Health 85:1128-1132, 1995[Medline] 6. Col NF, Eckman MH, Karas RH, et al: Patient-specific decisions about hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women. JAMA 277:1140-1147, 1997[Abstract]
7. Hulley S, Grady D, Bush T, et al: Randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. JAMA 280:605-613, 1998
8. Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative Investigators: Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women. JAMA 288:321-333, 2002
9. US Preventive Services Task Force: Postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy for primary prevention of chronic conditions: Recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med 137:834-839, 2002
10. Mosca L, Collins P, Herrington DM, et al: Hormone replacement therapy and cardiovascular disease. Circulation 104:499-503, 2001
11. Newman L: Prophylactic oophorectomy in the genome age: Balancing new data against uncertainties. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:173-175, 2001 12. Beck J, Pauker S: The Markov process in medical prognosis. Med Decis Making 3:419-458, 1983 13. US Department of Education: Demographics and Family Composition. http://www.ed.gov/pubs/YouthIndicators/Demographics.html, 2001 14. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Panel: Ovarian cancer: JAMA 273:491-497, 1995[Abstract] 15. Antoniou A, Pharoah PDP, Narod S, et al: Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case series unselected for family history: A combined analysis of 22 studies. Am J Hum Genet 72:1117-1130, 2003[CrossRef][Medline]
16. Struewing J, Hartge P, Wacholder S, et al: The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews. N Engl J Med 336:1401-1408, 1997 17. Ries L, Kosary C, Hankey B, et al: SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973-1998: Tables and Graphs. Bethesda, MD, National Cancer Institute, 2000
18. Rubin S, Benjamin I, Behbakht K, et al: Clinical and pathological features of ovarian cancer in women with germ-line mutations of BRCA1. N Engl J Med 335:1413-1416, 1996
19. Anderson KM, Wilson PW, Odell PM, et al: An updated coronary risk profile: A statement for health professionals. Circulation 83:356-362, 1991
20. Rosamund W, Chambless L, Folsom A, et al: Trends in the incidence of myocardial infarction and in mortality due to coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med 339:861-867, 1998 21. US Department of Health, Education and Welfare: Some risk factors related to the annual incidence of cardiovascular disease and death using pooled repeated biennial measurements: Framingham Heart Study, 30-year follow-up. In: The Framingham Study: An Epidemiological Investigation of Cardiovascular Disease. Bethesda, MD, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, 1987 22. US Department of Health, Education and Welfare: Some risk factors related to the annual incidence of cardiovascular disease and death using pooled repeated biennial measurements: Framingham Heart Study, 18-year follow-up, in: The Framingham Study: An Epidemiological Investigation of Cardiovascular Disease. Bethesda, MD, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, 1974
23. Kinosian B, Glick H, Garland G: Cholesterol and coronary heart disease: Predicting risks by levels and ratios. Ann Intern Med 121:641-647, 1994 24. Brett K, Madans J: Long term survival after coronary heart disease: Comparisons between men and women in a national sample. Ann Epidemiol 5:25-32, 1995[CrossRef][Medline] 25. Rodriguez J, Sattin R, Waxweiler R: Incidence of hip fractures, United States, 1970-1983. Am J Prev Med 5:175-181, 1989[Medline]
26. Huang Z, Himes J, McGovern P: Nutrition and subsequent hip fracture risk among a national cohort of white women. Am J Epidemiol 144:124-134, 1996
27. Karagas M, Lu-Yao G, Barrett J, et al: Heterogeneity of hip fracture: Age, race, sex and geographic patterns of femoral neck and trochanteric fractures among the US elderly. Am J Epidemiol 143:677-682, 1996 28. Melton L, Ilstrup D, Beckenbaugh R, et al: Hip fracture recurrence: A population based study. Clin Orthop 167:131-138, 1982 29. Fisher E, Baron J, Malenka D, et al: Hip fracture incidence and mortality in New England. Epidemiology 2:116-122, 1991[Medline]
30. Jacobsen S, Goldberg J, Miles T, et al: Race and sex differences in mortality following fracture of the hip. Am J Public Health 82:1147-1150, 1992 31. Keene G, Parker M, Pryor G: Mortality and morbidity after hip fractures. BMJ 307:1248-1250, 1993
32. Lu-Yao G, Baron J, Barrett J, et al: Treatment and survival among elderly Americans with hip fractures: A population based study. Am J Public Health 84:1287-1291, 1994
33. Marottoli R, Berkman L, Leo-Summers L, et al: Predictors of mortality and institutionalization after hip fracture: The New Haven EPESE Cohort. Am J Public Health 84:1807-1812, 1994 34. Grodstein FSM, Goldhaber SZ, Manson JE, et al: Prospective study of exogenous hormones and risk of pulmonary embolism in women. Lancet 348:983-987, 1996[CrossRef][Medline]
35. Colditz G, Rosner B, Speizer F: Risk factors for breast cancer according to a family history of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 88:365-371, 1996
36. Parazzini F, LaVecchia C, Chatenoud L, et al: Risk factors for breast cancer according to a family history of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 88:1003-1004, 1996
37. Bergvist L, Adami O, Persson I, et al: Prognosis after breast cancer diagnosis in women exposed to estrogen and estrogen-progesterone replacement therapy. Am J Epidemiol 130:221-228, 1989 38. Grady D, Kerlikowske K, Ernster V, et al: Hormone replacement therapy and endometrial cancer risk: A meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 85:304-313, 1995[Abstract] 39. Jick S, Walker A, Jick H: Estrogens, progesterone, and endometrial cancer. Epidemiology 4:20-24, 1993[Medline] 40. Persson I, Weiderpass E, Bergstron R, et al: Risk of breast and endometrial cancer after estrogen and estrogen-progestin replacement therapy. Cancer Causes Control 10:253-260, 1999[CrossRef][Medline] 41. Colditz G, Willett W, Stampfer M, et al: Menopause and the risk of coronary heart disease in women. N Engl J Med 316:1105-1110, 1987[Abstract] 42. Melton L, Crowson C, Malkasian G, et al: Fracture risk following bilateral oophorectomy. J Clin Epidemiol 49:1111-1115, 1996[CrossRef][Medline]
43. Meijers-Heijboer H, van Geel B, van Putten WL, et al: Breast cancer after prophylactic bilateral mastectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. N Engl J Med 345:159-164, 2001 44. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin S, et al: Efficacy of screening mammography: A meta-analysis. JAMA 273:149-154, 1995[Abstract] 45. Ford D, Easton D, Stratton M: Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. Am J Hum Genet 62:676-689, 1998[CrossRef][Medline] 46. Frank T, Manley S, Olopade O, et al: Sequence analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2: Correlation of mutations with family history and ovarian cancer risk. J Clin Oncol 16:2417-2425, 1998[Abstract] 47. Gardner P, Hudson B: Advance report of final mortality statistics, 1998: Monthly vital statistics report. Hyattsville, MD, National Center for Health Statistics, 2000 48. Bunker J, Forrest W: The National Halothane Study. Washington, DC, National Institutes of Health, 1969 49. Wingo P, Heuzo C, Rubin G, et al: The mortality risk associated with hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 152:803-808, 1985[Medline]
50. Alexander K, Newby L, Hellkamp A: Initiation of hormone replacement therapy after acute myocardial infarction is associated with more cardiac events during follow-up. J Am Coll Cardiol 38:1-7, 2001
51. Grodstein F, Stampfer M, Colditz G, et al: Postmenopausal hormone therapy and mortality. N Engl J Med 336:1769-1775, 1997
52. Cauley J, Seeley D, Ensrud K, et al: Estrogen replacement therapy and fractures in older women. Ann Intern Med 122:9-16, 1995
53. Miller A, To T, Baines CJ, et al: The Canadian National Breast Screening Study-1: Breast cancer mortality after 11 to 16 years of follow-up. Ann Intern Med 137:305-312, 2002 54. Tabar L, Duffy S, Burhenne L: New Swedish breast cancer detection results for women aged 40-49. Cancer 72:1437-1448, 1993[CrossRef][Medline] 55. Burke W, Daly M, Garber J, et al: Recommendations for follow-up care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to cancer: II. BRCA1 and BRCA2. JAMA 277:997-1003, 1997[Abstract]
56. Stoutjesdijk MJ, Boetes C, Jager GJ, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging and mammography in women with a hereditary risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:1095-1102, 2001
57. Armstrong K, Eisen A, Weber B: Assessing the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 342:564-571, 2000 58. Messori ABL, Costantini M, Alterini R: Cost-effectiveness of autologous bone marrow transplantation in patients with relapsed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Bone Marrow Transplant 19:275-281, 1997[CrossRef][Medline]
59. Tsevat J, Williams LW, Tosteson ANA, et al: Expected gains in life expectancy from various coronary heart disease risk factor modifications. Circulation 83:1194-1201, 1991 60. Hillner BE, Smith TJ: Efficacy and cost effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy in women with node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 324:160-168, 1991[Abstract] 61. Eddy DM: Screening for cervical cancer. Ann Intern Med 113:214-226, 1990 62. Lindfors KK, Rosenquist RJ: The cost-effectiveness of mammographic screening strategies. JAMA 274:881-884, 1995[Abstract]
63. van Roosmalen MS, Verhoef LC, Stalmeier PFM, et al: Decision analysis of prophylactic surgery or screening for BRCA1 mutation carriers: A more prominent role for oophorectomy. J Clin Oncol 20:2092-2100, 2002
64. Grann V, Jacobson J, Thomason D, et al: Effect of prevention strategies on survival and quality-adjusted survival of women with BRCA1/2 mutations: An updated decision analysis. J Clin Oncol 20:2520-2529, 2002
65. Schrag D, Kuntz K, Garber J, et al: Decision analysis: Effects of prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy on life expectancy among women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. N Engl J Med 336:1465-1471, 1997
66. Gorsky R, Koplan J, Peterson H, et al: Relative risks and benefits of long-term estrogen replacement therapy: A decision analysis. Obstet Gynecol 83:161-166, 1994 67. Grady D, Rubin S, Petitti D, et al: Hormone therapy to prevent disease and prolong life in post-menopausal women. Ann Intern Med 117:1016-1037, 1992
68. King MC, Wieand S, Hale K, et al: Tamoxifen and breast cancer incidence among women with inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. JAMA 286:2251-2256, 2001
69. Lakhani SR, van de Vijver MJ, Jacquemier J, et al: The pathology of familial breast cancer: Predictive value of immunohistochemical markers estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, HER-2 and p53 in patients with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. J Clin Oncol 20:2310-2318, 2002
70. Hays J, Ockene JK, Brunner RL, et al: Women's Health Initiative Investigators: Effects of estrogen plus progestin on health-related quality of life. N Engl J Med 348:1839-1854, 2003 71. Pauker S, Kassirer J: Decision analysis. N Engl J Med 316:250-258, 1987[Medline] Submitted June 18, 2003; accepted November 12, 2003. Related Editorial
This article has been cited by other articles:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
