[Debbie L.]

Hi Joan and AA,

What I found most interesting about this study, or at least about the reports of it, is that it did not assume that estrogen is the culprit (we already suspect that), nor that "cycling" (as happens with HRT) is the culprit. As AA says, it asks intriguing questions about progesterone -- about what role it might play in angiogenesis, for example.

Plain estrogen, given to those without uteri, has so far not shown the same association with increased cancer incidence, nor with worse outcomes. There may be many useful clues to be found as we investigate why that might be so.

I think progesterone is made synthetically, not from horses -- that's premarin, isn't it? But it seems to me that the question of source (natural, synthetic, or from horse pee) as what's bad about these hormones is a smoke screen (and/or a profit-maker). We already KNOW that our own natural endogenous (made by our body) hormones influence breast cancer behavior, so why would we think "natural" exogenous (from outside the body) hormones would be safe?

And lastly, although no one seems to have any criticisms of this study's design or validity, it is worth noting that the actual differences are fairly small. Just as most women who did not take HRT did not develop breast cancer, most women who DID take HRT did not develop breast cancer, either. Yet probably all women who took HRT (or, like Joan, ERT) and got breast cancer attribute that to their hormone replacement use. I wish that I were clever enough with numbers to spit out the figure for the percent of those cancers (that occurred in women who used exogenous hormones) that could be attributed to that use.

There's a new acronym for HRT and I've already forgotten it (smile). "M" for menopause is in the name, 3 letters. The intent was supposedly to change the perception that menopause is a "disease" that needs treatment although it didn't seem that different to me. Anyone remember the new name?

Debbie Laxague