Estrogen is one of the most talked-about hormones when it comes to women’s health, especially during perimenopause and menopause. Despite its importance, confusion and fear often surround its use, particularly due to concerns about breast cancer, heart attacks, and blood clots. To understand why these fears persist and how they impact decisions around hormone replacement therapy (HRT), we need to explore the history of estrogen therapy, what happened 20 years ago, and how things have evolved since then.
Before the early 2000s, estrogen was commonly prescribed to women without the stigma that often accompanies it today. Women seeking relief from menopause symptoms or looking to optimize their health were supported in their choice to use estrogen. However, the lack of solid evidence supporting claims about estrogen’s benefits for heart health and longevity led to a need for rigorous research. This set the stage for one of the most influential studies in the history of hormone therapy: the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI).
The WHI was a massive study conducted in the 1990s and early 2000s, involving over 160,000 participants and costing more than $625 million. The study focused on two groups: women without a uterus using estrogen-only therapy and women with a uterus using a combination of estrogen and progestin. The estrogen used in the study was Conjugated Equine Estrogen (CEE), derived from horse urine and given orally, while the progestin used was Medroxyprogesterone Acetate (MPA).
The study aimed to determine whether HRT could improve heart health. However, the results were mixed and led to significant confusion and fear. The study group using combined therapy was terminated early due to concerns about an increased risk of invasive breast cancer, while the estrogen-only group was stopped because it failed to show the expected heart health benefits. The publication of these results in 2002 had a profound impact, leading to a sharp decline in HRT use as the media and medical community interpreted the findings as evidence that hormone therapy was dangerous.
The WHI data was presented using hazard ratios (HR) and confidence intervals (CI). An HR greater than 1 indicates an increased risk, while an HR less than 1 indicates a decreased risk. However, the interpretation of these statistics is critical. For example, in the combined therapy group, the HR for invasive breast cancer was 1.26, suggesting a 26% increase in risk. However, the CI ranged from 1.00 to 1.59, meaning the result was not statistically significant since the CI crossed 1.0. Despite this, the study was stopped, and the message that HRT increases breast cancer risk became widespread.
In contrast, the estrogen-only group showed a trend toward reduced breast cancer risk with an HR of 0.77 and a CI of 0.59 to 1.01, indicating a 23% reduction in risk. Although this result wasn’t statistically significant, it suggested that estrogen alone might actually protect against breast cancer. Unfortunately, this nuance was lost in the broader discussion, and the fear of breast cancer associated with estrogen therapy persisted.
As more studies have been conducted over the past 20 years, a clearer picture has emerged. The increased risk of breast cancer observed in the WHI was likely due to the progestin component of the combined therapy, not estrogen itself. Several studies have shown that progestins, particularly synthetic ones like MPA, upregulate gene expression linked to cancer at much higher rates than natural progesterone. For instance, a 2017 Swedish cohort study involving 290,000 women demonstrated that the increased breast cancer risk was primarily associated with progestins, not estrogen or micronized progesterone.
Furthermore, a 2022 UK cohort study found that only progestin use was linked to an increased breast cancer risk (28% higher), while neither estrogen nor micronized progesterone carried this same risk. These findings suggest that progestins are the real culprit behind the increased breast cancer risk seen in the WHI study, and that natural alternatives like micronized progesterone offer a safer option for women.
When HRT is carefully designed—using estradiol and micronized progesterone instead of synthetic progestins—the risks associated with hormone therapy can be minimized or even eliminated. For example, a 2022 meta-analysis found that micronized progesterone is either equal to or better than progestins in preventing endometrial hyperplasia, breast cancer, cardiovascular disease, cognitive decline, and fractures. Additionally, estradiol, when used alone, has been shown to reduce the risk of blood clots and better protect against age-related cognitive decline and fractures compared to CEE.
One of the most significant concerns women have about HRT is the potential for an increased risk of breast cancer. However, it’s important to understand that while estrogen may be involved in the growth of hormone-sensitive cancers, it does not cause breast cancer. Studies have shown that women on HRT, particularly those using estradiol, are more likely to receive regular screenings and have their cancers detected earlier, leading to better outcomes.
A 2016 Finnish study found that women using HRT at the time of a breast cancer diagnosis were less likely to die from the disease, with those on estradiol alone showing up to a 54% reduction in breast cancer mortality. The study suggests that HRT users are more likely to have cancers with benign features and favorable biomarkers, making them more treatable. This highlights the importance of nuanced conversations with patients about the risks and benefits of HRT, rather than relying on fear-based decisions.
Another concern stemming from the WHI is the increased risk of blood clots associated with HRT. However, this risk is primarily linked to progestins and oral forms of estrogen. By using micronized progesterone and switching to a topical form of estradiol (such as a patch or cream), the risk of blood clots can be significantly reduced. This approach allows women to benefit from HRT without the heightened risk of stroke, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), or pulmonary embolism (PE).
The fear surrounding estrogen and HRT largely stems from misunderstandings and misinterpretations of early studies like the WHI. While it’s true that hormone therapy carries risks, these risks are often overstated, especially when the therapy is not properly designed. By using estradiol and micronized progesterone instead of synthetic progestins, and by choosing the appropriate route of administration, many of the risks can be mitigated.
If you never started estrogen due to a misunderstanding of the risks involved, your HRT might be failing you. With the right information and a thoughtful approach, many more women could benefit from HRT, improving their quality of life during perimenopause and beyond. It’s time to move past the fear and embrace a more informed and balanced view of hormone therapy.
.jpg)
Access to proper care and personalized hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is crucial for women to fully benefit from its potential in optimizing health and relieving menopausal symptoms.
.svg){kind=icon}
.jpg)
Optimizing hormone replacement therapy (HRT) requires personalized care, regular monitoring, and the right combination of hormones, doses, and delivery methods to achieve the best health outcomes.
.jpg)
Rhythmic hormone replacement therapy, which mimics natural hormonal cycles, may offer greater health benefits than traditional static dosing, potentially improving outcomes for bone, breast, and cardiovascular health in postmenopausal women.
