Hormone replacement therapy dramatically ups breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Post menopausal women who take hormones for more than five years to relieve symptoms such as hot flashes have twice the risk of developing breast cancer as women who do not take estrogen and progestin to replace their own dwindling supplies, according to a new analysis of over 16,000 post-menopausal woman. The women were all in a 15-year study that was halted more than three years early in 2002 because of a clear link between the hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and the disease.

Researchers reported Saturday at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium in Texas that taking HRT for just two years also hikes the odds of developing the disease. But the good news is that the risk dips when the women go off the drugs. The new data comes from a the Women's Health Initiative, a study launched by the National Institutes of Health in 1991 to gauge the effects of the hormone therapy and other factors on heart disease, bone fractures, and breast and colorectal cancer.  There had been earlier studies showing that HRT might prevent osteoporosis (bone-thinning ) and protect the heart. Researchers, however, abruptly stopped the study after finding that it did not guard against heart disease and that there was a 26 percent higher risk of breast cancer among the women taking hormones.

Scientists kept tabs on participants until 2005. Their findings: that women who had been taking the drugs for at least five years were twice as likely as those not on the meds to develop breast cancer; the risk dipped when the women stopped taking the pills, decreasing to normal levels two years after they went off them.

Despite the snowballing evidence linking hormone replacement therapy to breast cancer, many doctors continue to prescribe it for women with debilitating hot flashes and other symptoms of menopause. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suggests that women with severe hot flashes consider hormone therapy, but recommends they take only the smallest doses for the shortest amount of time.

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death after lung cancer among women in the U.S., according to the National Cancer Institute, which estimates that there will be 182,460 new breast cancer cases among U.S. women this year alone. Recent studies have linked breast cancer risk to a variety of other factors, including dense breast tissue and family history.

Image credit ©iStockphoto.com/Mark Kostich

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe