HER2 Support Group Forums - View Single Post

dlaxague · 07-27-2007, 05:40 AM

There have been some interesting articles recently about estrogen's effects on breast cancer. In JNCI, apparently there's an editorial by Don Berry and Peter Ravdin and they say (quoted from Eureka news)

" In an accompanying editorial, Donald Berry, Ph.D., and Peter Ravdin, M.D., of the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston suggest that hormone therapy itself may not cause breast cancer. Instead it could promote tumor growth while its withdrawal may slow or stop it. They add that using individual-based—in addition to population-based—data would give researchers a better picture of relationship between hormone therapy use and breast cancer."

Then Craig Allred and someone else have an article called "The Estrogen Paradox", here: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/559611 .

The first sentence of that article begins: "A randomized controlled trial published in 2006 demonstrated that postmenopausal women who underwent hormone therapy with estrogen alone for a mean of 7.1 years unexpectedly had a decreased risk of breast cancer.[" 

Go figure! They go on to say that estrogen may promote tumor cell apopotosis (death) in some instances and fuel growth in others. (I'm having trouble with font format after the copy/paste. 'Hope this is legible. Anyway, read the rest of the article. I had trouble understanding why they think this paradox is possible, but I do not doubt that they know what they're talking about and that this is at least a plausible theory to explore. 

So much that we do not (yet) understand. It makes it hard to make these decisions, but I agree that this is a very large qol issue. Brenda, as for the "use-it-or-lose-it" theory, my experience is that it only makes things worse, because the tissue keeps getting damaged and doesn't heal very well. That may work for garden-variety menopausal atrophy but I don't think it's enough to combat the conditions that go with AI use, at least for some of us. I'd want to see studies of women on AI's that showed that this approach worked - and I don't think that there are any. 

Debbie L.

07-27-2007, 05:40 AM	#22
dlaxague Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 221	Estrogen, more than just cream - should I start a new thread? There have been some interesting articles recently about estrogen's effects on breast cancer. In JNCI, apparently there's an editorial by Don Berry and Peter Ravdin and they say (quoted from Eureka news) " In an accompanying editorial, Donald Berry, Ph.D., and Peter Ravdin, M.D., of the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston suggest that hormone therapy itself may not cause breast cancer. Instead it could promote tumor growth while its withdrawal may slow or stop it. They add that using individual-based—in addition to population-based—data would give researchers a better picture of relationship between hormone therapy use and breast cancer." Then Craig Allred and someone else have an article called "The Estrogen Paradox", here: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/559611 . The first sentence of that article begins: "A randomized controlled trial published in 2006 demonstrated that postmenopausal women who underwent hormone therapy with estrogen alone for a mean of 7.1 years unexpectedly had a decreased risk of breast cancer.<SUP>[" </SUP> <SUP></SUP> <SUP>Go figure! They go on to say that estrogen may promote tumor cell apopotosis (death) in some instances and fuel growth in others. (I'm having trouble with font format after the copy/paste. 'Hope this is legible. Anyway, read the rest of the article. I had trouble understanding why they think this paradox is possible, but I do not doubt that they know what they're talking about and that this is at least a plausible theory to explore. </SUP> <SUP></SUP> <SUP>So much that we do not (yet) understand. It makes it hard to make these decisions, but I agree that this is a very large qol issue. Brenda, as for the "use-it-or-lose-it" theory, my experience is that it only makes things worse, because the tissue keeps getting damaged and doesn't heal very well. That may work for garden-variety menopausal atrophy but I don't think it's enough to combat the conditions that go with AI use, at least for some of us. I'd want to see studies of women on AI's that showed that this approach worked - and I don't think that there are any. </SUP> <SUP></SUP> <SUP>Debbie L.</SUP> <SUP></SUP> <SUP></SUP> __________________ 3/01 ~ Age 49, occult primary announced by large axillary node found by my husband. Multiple CBE's, mammogram, U/S could not find anything in the breast. Axillary node biopsy - pathology said + for "mets above diaphragm, probably breast". 4/01 ~ Bilateral mastectomies (LMRM, R simple) - 1.2cm IDC was found at pathology. 5 of 11 axillary nodes positive, largest = 6cm. Stage IIIA ERPR 5%/1% (re-done later at Baylor, both negative at zero). HER2neu positive by IHC and FISH (8.89). Lymphovascular invasion, grade 3, 8/9 modified SBR. TX: Control of arm of NSABP B-31's adjuvant Herceptin trial (no Herceptin): A/C x 4 and Taxol x 4 q3weeks, then rads. Arimidex for two years, stopped after second patholgy opinion.