New report about HRT risks on BBC website

[Egghead68]

Menopausal hormone therapy risks 'bigger and last longer' than thought www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49508671

Sorry link doesn’t click.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49508671

There you go

Thank you!

The irony is that 1000s of menopausal women can’t get their hrt anyway due to shortages in supply.

This new research is really worrying. I think it’s still indicating that the coil and gel or patch are safer?

on Radio4 a few minutes ago. The interviewee mentioned the drop in users (2Million to 1Million) being a significant driver in the manufacturer’s lack of interest in keeping up supply.

I’d imagine with this latest news, they’ll have even less incentive to keep on manufacturing.

This latest research appears to show a real but still small increased risk. It does not mean that if you take HRT you will get breast cancer.
Each woman’s risk profile is individual to her. Being obese carries the same level of risk for example. I’m taking the view that as I’m slim, take a great deal of exercise, don’t drink alcohol, breastfed for more than two years and, importantly, have no cancer in my family history, for me the benefits outweigh the extra risk.
I simply can’t live a life without sleep, so for now, I’ll continue with my HRT and take a view in a couple of years.

I've seen it but would like other opinions and to read the full text.

It doesn't seem to say anything new other than the risk after stopping may last longer.

The actual stats seem the same: 6% women NOT using HRT would get BC over a 20 yr period, 8% women using HRT.

Less than drinking, being overweight and not breast feeding.

Prof Val Beral who is quoted , was slated for her Million Women study which came out years back. It was shown to be flawed and she is clearly anti HRT despite being a scientist (if such a thing is possible.)

What this news doesn't do is show the benefits especially for women (like me) who had low bone density and HRT gives protection.

It also contradicts all the evidence that women under 50 who have an early menopause are not at risk of using HRT.

I'd want to read the study because- sadly- some of this stuff starts with a theory and then they try to find the stats to prove it.
I'd want to see lifestyle factored in- whether the risks over 10 years post HRT accounted for women who were overweight, drank etc etc because they add risks of their own.

I'd also want to see more detailed analysis of the type of progestogens used because again, there is a scale of risks with each of them which is not talked about.

Just had a look at this. I'm slim, don't drink, did breastfeed. Will continue with my HRT and make sure I have screening. Quality of my life is very good on HRT and really crap not on it.

Have read the report from the Lancet link someone left here on the 'shortage' thread.

The upshot is that using HRT on a sequential basis raises the risk from 6% for never-using to 7.4%. That's just over 1%.

There is also evidence in the stats that transdermal appears to cause fewer cases and there are no stats for micronised progesterone use , only synthetic progestagens.

I've just listened to a piece about this on my local radio. The risks of cancer are far higher for people who drink alcohol and are obese. My peers absolutely pack away alcohol (I was one of them).
I don't know if I will go on HRT or not. I'm looking into a vaginal one but if my symptoms worsen I'll reconsider.
I gave up alcohol because I drank far too much and it was causing poor sleep and making me feel awful.

Daily Mail (sorry!) has a good feature by a breast surgeon.

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7409263/Yes-cancer-risks-Id-prescribe-HRT-writes-breast-surgeon-PROF-KEFAH-MOKBEL.html

They've just done an item on this on BBC Breakfasr.

One message that came across loud and clear to me is that the increase in diagnoses of breast cancer in those who use HRT is less than the increase associated with being overweight/obese.

Thanks for that link @JinglingHellsBells That breast surgeon suggests that transdermal estradiol plus the body-identical micronised form of progesterone (Utrogestan) does not carry the same risks as the older forms of Hrt.

Is there any information about which forms of Hrt were being studied in this new survey?

Just been looking at this. They are saying that 1 in 20 breast cancers are attributed to HRT. Bearing in mind that breast cancer is already the most common cancer, that is a lot of women.
It was certainly a factor in my decision not to take HRT. I struggled with years of horrendous hot flushes.
The irony is that I now have breast cancer.

Oh and I am very far from being obese.
Of course there are other risk factors associated with BC. You can eliminate them all and still get it. There are in fact many types of BC as I have now learned and I wonder whether the connection with HRT is to a particular type? ER+?

www.rcog.org.uk/en/news/rcog-bms-response-to-lancet-study/
www.menopausematters.co.uk/newsitem.php?recordID=204

Responses to the press coverage.

From what I can work out this morning's news only tells us what we already know.

(Valerie Beral is an epidemiologist so looks at population statistics and patterns rather than the science.)

I find the timing of this report interesting - just after we find out about a shortage in HRT.

There are in fact many types of BC as I have now learned and I wonder whether the connection with HRT is to a particular type?

HRT seems to result in more diagnoses but not necessarily more deaths, so the current thinking is that it encourages growth in cells that are already there, that then become apparent earlier.

I think you are right that breast cancer is many diseases. So sorry you have drawn the short straw there [flowers

My ILs both had difficult to diagnose and untreatable cancers and lived a quiet healthy life with outdoor exercise and no drinking or smoking etc. Lifestyle factors have some effect but they are not the biggest. I am just aiming to get past 70 as healthily and happily as I can - quality and all that.

some proper

Good point @heronontoast, I can't help but wonder if we're being played! They can shove their research where the sun don't shine as far as I'm concerned. I would be divorced without HRT.

I think there has been some media management going on - the organisations that you would think would be interested seemed to take a while to respond. You would think they would all know about it already if it was important.

Good news at least for me. I have had mental health condition since twenties and I am afraid they will tell me my problems are because of perimenopause and try to push hrt.

I started HRT at 46. There is no history of breast cancer in my family.
One interesting thing my GP said was that even if there was a history of breast cancer they were being advised to prescribe HRT to women going through an early menopause as it would be replacing hormones that usually would still be there .
(I think that's gist of what she was saying - in their 40s, it was too early for a woman's body to function well without oestrogen so could be safely topped up til 51-52 years when a review would be done).

i'm 47 & started hrt just over a month ago which has improved my life hugely however my mother had breast cancer (survivor) so it's something i'm watching with interest.

Really really don't want to stop taking it.

@Willowcat77 There are some figures in the Lancet article. It was linked to in the thread about HRT shortages. It's a long article- or rather paper- so you have to scroll through it to find the types of HRT used and cases of BC.

Utrogestan was not used.

There are figures of pills v transdermal and they show transd is safer.