Figures
Abstract
The purpose of the present meta-analysis was to determine the relationship between hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and lung cancer risk in females. Publications were reviewed and obtained through a PubMed, EMBASE database and Cochrane Library literature search up to May, 2012. The detailed numbers of patients in different groups, odd ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were collected and estimated using a random-effects model. Twenty five studies entered into the meta-analysis. The total number of participates and lung cancer patients was 656,403 and 11,442, respectively. The OR of all 25 studies was 0.91 (95%CI = 0.83 to 0.99) and P value was 0.033. In stratified analyses, the positive association between HRT use and decreased lung cancer risk was also found in the patients with BMI<25 kg/m2 (OR = 0.65, P = 0.000), and never smokers patients (OR = 0.86, P = 0.042). However, HRT use in patients with artificial menopause could increase the lung cancer risk, OR = 1.51(P = 0.001). The result of Egger's test did not show any evidence of publican bias (P = 0.069). In conclusion, our meta-analysis on HRT and lung cancer risk suggests that HRT use is correlated with decreased lung cancer risk in female, especially in female with BMI<25 kg/m2 and never smokers.
Citation: Yao Y, Gu X, Zhu J, Yuan D, Song Y (2013) Hormone Replacement Therapy in Females Can Decrease the Risk of Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 8(8): e71236. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071236
Editor: Pan-Chyr Yang, National Taiwan University, Taiwan
Received: February 18, 2013; Accepted: June 28, 2013; Published: August 14, 2013
Copyright: © 2013 Yao et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: These authors have no support or funding to report.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Lung cancer is now the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer mortality in both men and women worldwide. Since less females smoke than males or females started smoking later than males, lung cancer trends among females lag behind males [1]. However, lung cancer incidence still keeps increasing [2]. Besides smoking, several occupational and environmental carcinogens such as asbestos, arsenic and radon are known to be risk factors for lung cancer in females [1]. Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) remains the most effective treatment for postmenopausal symptoms in menopausal females and young females who go into early menopause due to surgery or chemotherapy or radiotherapy to the pelvic region [3]. Adami et al. first demonstrated that lung cancer risk increased in women receiving HRT [4]. During the past two decades, studies on the HRT and lung cancer risk have demonstrated contradictory results, making the association still remained uncertain. Two clinical trials from Chlebowski confirmed the correlation between increased lung cancer risk and HRT [5], [6], but Chen et al., Clague et al. and Ramnath et al. showed in their studies that HRT use in females can decrease the incidence of lung cancer [7]–[9].
In order to confirm a definite correlation between HRT and lung cancer risk, we conducted a literature search and performed meta-analysis of available studies.
Materials and Methods
Literature search and identification of the publications
A literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE databases and Cochrane Library (updated to May, 2012) was conducted using combinations of the following terms: “hormone replacement therapy”, “HRT”, “oestrogen replacement therapy”, “estrogen replacement therapy”, “progestin replacement therapy”, “ERT”, “lung cancer”. We limited the search to studies in human and written in English. Two of the authors (Yanwen Yao and Xiaoling Gu) independently selected the articles with information on the association between HRT and lung cancer morbidity, and further check the reference list of the publications. All studies providing estimates of odd ratio (OR) or relative risk (RR) or hazard ratio (HR) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), or information sufficient to calculate them, were included in the meta-analysis. Abstracts, reviews, case reports and articles which did not show efficient information were excluded. If multiple studies were published on the same population or subpopulation, the most recent or informative one would be included in the meta-analysis. The flow chart of the selection of publications included in the meta-analysis is shown in Figure 1. The quality assessment of included studies was further conducted according to the Cochrane handbook 5.1.0 for random control trial (RCT) (http://www.cochrane.org/training/cochrane-handbook) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for non-randomized study such as cohort study and case-control study (http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp).
Data extraction
Information was extracted from all eligible publications independently by two of the authors (Yanwen Yao and Xiaoling Gu). The items included in the data form were as follows: study name (together with the first author's name and year of publication), country, study type, study population, age of the subjects, type of used hormone, study-specific ORs or RRs with 95% CI, detailed numbers of patients for “non-HRT user versus HRT user” including “the short period use versus the long period use” and matched or adjusted variables in the analysis. For studies from different countries, the ethnicity of subjects was also collected. Most of the estimated associations between HRT use and lung cancer were adjusted for some factors or their combination. According to the suggestion from Chen et al [10], if both the univariate OR/RR and multivariate-adjusted OR/RR were provided, multivariate-adjusted OR/RR was extracted. The lists from the authors were compared, and disagreements were resolved by consensus.
Statistical analyses
OR/RR and corresponding 95%CI or detailed numbers of patients in each included study was pooled to evaluate the association between HRT and lung cancer risk. Whenever available, we used multivariate-adjusted risk estimates; otherwise, we utilized or computed distribution given in the papers the unadjusted ORs. Since not all including studies providing ORs/RRs but all the detailed numbers of patients were available, we entered the number of patients with HRT use, non-HRT use, lung cancer patients in HRT users and lung cancer patients in non-HRT users to total meta-analysis. Stratified analyses were also carried out by study type, BMI status, histology, smoking status, and menopause type.
Heterogeneity assumption was evaluated with a chi-square-based Q-test. The summary OR estimate of each study was calculated by a fixed effects model (the Mantel-Haenszel method). If the P value is greater than 0.05 of the Q-test, which indicates low heterogeneity or lack of heterogeneity among the included studies, the fixed effects model is proper, otherwise, the random-effects model (the DerSimoniane and Laird method) was performed [11], [12]. Sensitive analysis was also performed to evaluate the influence of individual studies on the final effect. Potential publication bias would be observed by the funnel plot and formally evaluated with Begg's adjusted rank correlation test and Egger's linear regression test. All statistical analysis were done with the Stata software (version 11.0; StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA), using two-sided P values.
Results
Study selection and characteristic in the meta-analysis
A total of 25 eligible studies met the inclusion criteria and entered into the final meta-analysis [4]–[9], [13]–[31]. All studies passed the quality assessment and the result was shown in Table 1. The published years of studies, study types, regions, ethnicity of included patients, the number of patients, the mean age or age range of patients, and type of HRT were all collected. The characteristics of selected studies are presented in Table 2. The time range of studies was from 1988 to 2012. The total number of participates was 656,403 and final 11,442 participates were histologically diagnosed to be lung cancer patients. Four studies were random control trials (RCTs) and ten were case-control studies. Among the total 25 studies, two studies were conducted in the Asian females [7], [18], five studies were in Caucasian [17], [20]–[22], [26] and the ethnicity in the left studies were mixed or not given. Females in studies of Blackman et al., Kabat et al., Liu et al., Olsson et al. and Smith et al. included young females, who were less than 50 years old [13], [16], [18], [20], [27]. Estrogen was used alone as HRT in seven studies [4], [5], [14], [20], [28], [30], [31], estrogen plus progestin were used as HRT in three studies [6], [15], [24] and estrogen or estrogen plus progestin or the combination of both was used in the left 15 studies. The status of oral contraceptive use in patients was also investigated in nine studies [9], [14], [16], [17], [23], [27]–[29], [31].
Meta analyses on HRT use and lung cancer risk
ORs and 95% CI were not all demonstrated in the included 25 studies. However, the number of lung cancer patients in HRT users and in non-HRT users were provided in all the studies, so the detailed numbers in the two groups were collected and shown in Table 3. In subgroup analyses, ORs and the corresponding 95% CIs were collected and meta-analyses were performed in different subgroups.
Test of heterogeneity
Heterogeneity between studies was observed regarding both overall comparisons and subgroup analyses. According to the I2 and P for heterogeneity test listed in the Table 4, the random effect model which based on the Mantel-Haenszel method was adopted when I2 ≥50% and P for heterogeneity test ≤0.05. Otherwise, the fixed effect model was adopted.
As shown in Table 4, P for heterogeneity test of lung cancer patients in HRT users vs. non-HRT users for all studies was 0.000 and I2 was 67.6%, which meant there was heterogeneity for the meta-analysis, so the random effect model was adopted. In the subgroup analyses, meta-analyses on RCTs, BMI<25 kg/m2, 25≤BMI<30 kg/m2, BMI≥30 kg/m2, small cell lung cancer (SCLC), never smokers, artificial menopause, duration of HRT use≤5 years and duration of HRT use>5 years were performed on the fixed effect model, other subgroup analyses were used random effect models.
Meta-analysis results
The result of the meta-analysis on the all 25 studies and the forest plot was shown in Table 3 and Figure 2. OR was 0.91(95%CI = 0.83 to 0.99) and P value of the test for overall effect was 0.033 when analysis performed using random effect model. This result suggested that HRT use was associated with a significant decrease risk of lung cancer compared with non-HRT use in females. A cumulative meta-analysis was further conducted to confirm the result. As shown in Figure 3, the result was shifted to an association between HRT use and a significant decrease risk of lung cancer when the evidence was tracked over time.
CI: confidence interval.
Since heterogeneity was revealed in the overall meta-analysis, subgroup analyses were performed after stratifications of data by study type, BMI status, histology, smoking status, oral contraceptive use, menopause type, and duration of HRT use. The overall ORs and corresponding 95% CI of subgroup analyses were demonstrated in Table 4. In analysis of ten case-control studies, the association between significant decreased lung cancer risk and HRT use was also been revealed, while increased lung cancer risk was correlated with HRT use according to the meta-analysis of four RCTs but the difference is not significant. The forest plot of the study type subgroup analysis is demonstrated in Figure 4–A. In the analysis of different types of hormone replacement therapy, estrogen, progestin or the combination of both were used in participates in 17 studies. The sub-analysis result of these 17 studies revealed that this type of hormone use could reduce the lung cancer risk (OR = 0.83, 95%CI 0.76–0.91, P = 0.000) (Figure 4–B). Five studies in which estrogen was used as the replacement hormone demonstrated that although the difference was not significant, only estrogen use could increase the lung cancer risk (OR = 1.16, 95%CI 0.98–1.37, P = 0.079).
B: Meta-analysis with a random-effects model for the association between HRT use and cancer risk in females stratified by hormone type. CI: confidence interval.
As shown in Table 4 and Figure 5, the positive association between HRT use and decreased lung cancer risk was found in the patients with never smokers patients (OR = 0.86, 95%CI 0.75–0.99, P = 0.042), and BMI<25 kg/m2 (OR = 0.65, 95%CI 0.53–0.79, P = 0.000). However, HRT use in patients with artificial menopause increased the lung cancer risk (OR = 1.51, 95%CI 1.17–1.94, P = 0.001). A subgroup analysis was also done on HRT use in smokers, but the evidence showed negative correlation between smoking and the risk of lung cancer, P = 0.333.
CI: confidence interval.
Publication bias
The publication bias of the literatures was assessed by using Begg's funnel plot and Egger's test. The shape of the funnel plots seemed approximately symmetrical (Figure 6) and the result of Egger's test did not show any evidence of publican bias, t = 1.91 and P = 0.069 for HRT use vs. non-HRT use.
Each point represents a separate study for the indicated association. Log (OR): natural logarithm of OR; Horizontal line: mean effect size.
Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis was also analyzed as previous study (Table 5 and Figure 7) [32]. As shown in Figure 7, none of the studies appears to be an outlier or has results very different from the rest of the studies. After each study was excluded from the overall meta-analysis, the similar results were obtained, which suggested that the result of the meta-analysis was stable.
Each point represents a OR and corresponding 95%CIs after excluding each study.
Discussion
To date, the current and estimated morbidity and mortality of lung cancer in females are still less than that in males [2]. Although much has been learned about the epidemiology, the reason is still unclear. Besides the different smoking status, the kind and altering levels of endogenous and exogenous hormone in males and females has become to be the subject of the epidemiology study.
As the most common therapy for menopausal females and young females with artificial menopause, HRT has been proved to be associated with increased risk of breast cancer and endometrial cancer and decreased risk of colorectal cancer and coronary heart disease [33]–[37]. The role of HRT in lung cancer incidence has also been investigated in several studies. Wu et al in their study firstly demonstrated that the menopause type and hormone intake were associated with the lung cancer risk in female [29]. Previous studies in past years revealed the controversial association between HRT and lung cancer risk.
Our meta-analysis of total 25 studies on HRT use and lung cancer risk demonstrated that HRT use in female could decrease the risk of lung cancer. The positive correlation was also identified between decreased lung cancer risk and HRT use in females with BMI<25 kg/m2 and never smokers, increased lung cancer risk and HRT users with artificial menopause.
Estrogen in HRT was considered to be the most likely candidate for mediating growth-promoting effect in lung cancer, because evidence showed that expression of estrogen receptors (ER) in lung cancer mediated transcriptional responses in lung cancer cells [38]–[40]. On the other side, progestin which is also a type of hormone in HRT is reported to take a protect role against lung cancer [40], [41]. In the study of Ishibashi, progestin receptor was revealed to be in about half of lung cancer, and progestin mediated pathways to induce apoptosis and reduce growth in lung cancer cells [41]. These results demonstrated that HRT can act tumor growth-promoting or tumor growth-suppressing effects depending on the components of HRT, the expressions of estrogen receptors and progestin receptors.
Moore et al firstly suggested in his study that according to the respective data, young women (age from 31 to 50 years) presented more often with advanced disease [42]. This may help to explain why HRT users with artificial menopause who were always young women had increased lung cancer risk. The mechanism involved may be estrogen plays a deleterious role in lung cancer in younger female patients, especially in early stage disease [42]. The reason for undefined risk in smoking HRT users may be that higher circulating levels of estrogen in women make susceptible to the carcinogenic influence of tobacco smoke [43].
The analyses showed that the ORs and significance were different in case control studies, cohort studies and RCT. As provided in each article, all females in four RCT studies included in this meta-analysis, were postmenopausal women, with the age range or the mean age of 50–79, 50–79, 69 and 63, respectively. While in cohort and case-control studies, females were younger than those in RCTs, suggesting these females were not in the menopause or were close to the menopause.
Vandenbroucke JP [44] indicated that adjustment for previous use of hormones already increased the estimates in the trials. HRT is usually started close to menopause, so the observational studies had shown a relatively true situation. However, this situation was diluted in the randomized trial because fewer women close to menopause were enrolled. The discrepancy between the RCT and observational study was not only in HRT and lung cancer, but also in HRT and coronary heart disease, and breast cancer. It was not due to differences in study design, but to the timing of start of treatment.
Randomized trials are necessary for showing whether the benefit of a medical intervention exists [45]. In contrast, observational study is often used to investigate adverse effects [46]. It was suggested that the same adverse effect for the same treatment can rarely be investigated by observational research and in very large randomized trials [47], such as breast cancer and HRT, and lung cancer and HRT shown in our meta-analysis. Vandenbroucke JP also suggested that observational studies may better reflect the true harm in real-life than selected populations in randomized trials [44].
In the subgroup analyses HRT use was confirmed to be associated with decreased lung cancer risk in non-smoking females. However, HRT use in ever smoking females failed to be associated with lung cancer risk. The fact that smoking can induced increased lung cancer risk in females could help to explain the result. In a study on smoking-related mortality in the United States, smoking was shown to be also hazardous for women comparable to men [48]. Since smoking and other socio-economic status were proved to be associated with increased lung cancer risk, the effect of HRT may be potentially confounding by these factors.
The present study provides a quantitative analysis of available epidemiologic studies on HRT and lung cancer risk in females. There is a broad time span in the 25 studies, from 1988 to 2012, and the sample size is large (total 656,403 participates). Stratified analyses were conducted. Heterogeneity was tested and random-effects model was used to estimate the magnitude of the heterogeneity and assign a greater variability to the combined risk estimate to account for the heterogeneity if detected. Publication bias was also examined and corrected if detected.
Some limitations of this meta-analysis should be acknowledged. First, many observational studies which were susceptible to various biases were included in our meta-analyses. The subgroup analysis in different types of studies showed different results. However, taking these results together still shows the positive association between HRT and lung cancer risk. Second, although subgroup analyses was proceed by the kind of HRT, HRT dose which may also affects the result were not taking into analysis. Finally, only published studies were included in our meta-analysis. Therefore, publication bias may be occurred although no publication bias was indicated from both funnel plot and Egger's test.
Conclusion
Taken together, our analysis of currently available studies on HRT and lung cancer risk suggests that HRT use is correlated with decreased lung cancer risk in female, especially in female with BMI<25 kg/m2 and never smokers, but HRT in female with artificial menopause could increase the lung cancer risk. Considering that lung cancer is one of the leading causes of death in female, further investigations or larger observational study with women closer to menopause rather than postmenopausal was needed in future to further validate the influence of HRT in lung cancer.
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: YY YS. Performed the experiments: YY XG JZ. Analyzed the data: YY DY. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: YY XG. Wrote the paper: YY.
References
- 1. Siegel R, Ward E, Brawley O, Jemal A (2011) Cancer statistics, 2011: the impact of eliminating socioeconomic and racial disparities on premature cancer deaths. CA Cancer J Clin 61: 212–236.
- 2. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A (2012) Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 62: 10–29.
- 3. Biglia N, Gadducci A, Ponzone R, Roagna R, Sismondi P (2004) Hormone replacement therapy in cancer survivors. Maturitas 48: 333–346.
- 4. Adami HO, Persson I, Hoover R, Schairer C, Bergkvist L (1989) Risk of cancer in women receiving hormone replacement therapy. Int J Cancer 44: 833–839.
- 5. Chlebowski RT, Anderson GL, Manson JE, Schwartz AG, Wakelee H, et al. (2010) Lung cancer among postmenopausal women treated with estrogen alone in the women's health initiative randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 102: 1413–1421.
- 6. Chlebowski RT, Schwartz AG, Wakelee H, Anderson GL, Stefanick ML, et al. (2009) Oestrogen plus progestin and lung cancer in postmenopausal women (Women's Health Initiative trial): a post-hoc analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 374: 1243–1251.
- 7. Chen KY, Hsiao CF, Chang GC, Tsai YH, Su WC, et al. (2007) Hormone replacement therapy and lung cancer risk in Chinese. Cancer 110: 1768–1775.
- 8. Clague J, Reynolds P, Sullivan-Halley J, Ma H, Lacey JV Jr, et al. (2011) Menopausal hormone therapy does not influence lung cancer risk: results from the California Teachers Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 20: 560–564.
- 9. Ramnath N, Menezes RJ, Loewen G, Dua P, Eid F, et al. (2007) Hormone replacement therapy as a risk factor for non-small cell lung cancer: results of a case-control study. Oncology 73: 305–310.
- 10. Chene G, Thompson SG (1996) Methods for summarizing the risk associations of quantitative variables in epidemiologic studies in a consistent form. Am J Epidemiol 144: 610–621.
- 11. Mantel N, Haenszel W (1959) Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 22: 719–748.
- 12. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7: 177–188.
- 13. Blackman JA, Coogan PF, Rosenberg L, Strom BL, Zauber AG, et al. (2002) Estrogen replacement therapy and risk of lung cancer. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 11: 561–567.
- 14. Elliott AM, Hannaford PC (2006) Use of exogenous hormones by women and lung cancer: evidence from the Royal College of General Practitioners' Oral Contraception Study. Contraception 73: 331–335.
- 15. Hulley S, Furberg C, Barrett-Connor E, Cauley J, Grady D, et al. (2002) Noncardiovascular disease outcomes during 6.8 years of hormone therapy: Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study follow-up (HERS II). JAMA 288: 58–66.
- 16. Kabat GC, Miller AB, Rohan TE (2007) Reproductive and hormonal factors and risk of lung cancer in women: a prospective cohort study. Int J Cancer 120: 2214–2220.
- 17. Kreuzer M, Gerken M, Heinrich J, Kreienbrock L, Wichmann HE (2003) Hormonal factors and risk of lung cancer among women? Int J Epidemiol 32: 263–271.
- 18. Liu Y, Inoue M, Sobue T, Tsugane S (2005) Reproductive factors, hormone use and the risk of lung cancer among middle-aged never-smoking Japanese women: a large-scale population-based cohort study. Int J Cancer 117: 662–666.
- 19. Mahabir S, Spitz MR, Barrera SL, Dong YQ, Eastham C, et al. (2008) Dietary boron and hormone replacement therapy as risk factors for lung cancer in women. Am J Epidemiol 167: 1070–1080.
- 20. Olsson H, Bladstrom A, Ingvar C (2003) Are smoking-associated cancers prevented or postponed in women using hormone replacement therapy? Obstet Gynecol 102: 565–570.
- 21. Persson I, Yuen J, Bergkvist L, Schairer C (1996) Cancer incidence and mortality in women receiving estrogen and estrogen-progestin replacement therapy – long-term follow-up of a Swedish cohort. Int J Cancer 67: 327–332.
- 22. Pukkala E, Tulenheimo-Silfvast A, Leminen A (2001) Incidence of cancer among women using long versus monthly cycle hormonal replacement therapy, Finland 1994–1997. Cancer Causes Control 12: 111–115.
- 23. Rodriguez C, Spencer Feigelson H, Deka A, Patel AV, Jacobs EJ, et al. (2008) Postmenopausal hormone therapy and lung cancer risk in the cancer prevention study II nutrition cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 17: 655–660.
- 24. Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, LaCroix AZ, Kooperberg C, et al. (2002) Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results From the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 288: 321–333.
- 25. Schabath MB, Wu X, Vassilopoulou-Sellin R, Vaporciyan AA, Spitz MR (2004) Hormone replacement therapy and lung cancer risk: a case-control analysis. Clin Cancer Res 10: 113–123.
- 26. Slatore CG, Chien JW, Au DH, Satia JA, White E (2010) Lung cancer and hormone replacement therapy: association in the vitamins and lifestyle study. J Clin Oncol 28: 1540–1546.
- 27. Smith JR, Barrett-Connor E, Kritz-Silverstein D, Wingard DL, Al-Delaimy WK (2009) Hormone use and lung cancer incidence: the Rancho Bernardo cohort study. Menopause 16: 1044–1048.
- 28. Taioli E, Wynder EL (1994) Re: Endocrine factors and adenocarcinoma of the lung in women. J Natl Cancer Inst 86: 869–870.
- 29. Wu AH, Yu MC, Thomas DC, Pike MC, Henderson BE (1988) Personal and family history of lung disease as risk factors for adenocarcinoma of the lung. Cancer Res 48: 7279–7284.
- 30. Brinton LA, Schwartz L, Spitz MR, Park Y, Hollenbeck AR, et al. (2012) Unopposed estrogen and estrogen plus progestin menopausal hormone therapy and lung cancer risk in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study Cohort. Cancer Causes Control 23: 487–496.
- 31. Meinhold CL, Berrington de Gonzalez A, Bowman ED, Brenner AV, Jones RT, et al. (2011) Reproductive and hormonal factors and the risk of nonsmall cell lung cancer. Int J Cancer 128: 1404–1413.
- 32. Zhang Y, He J, Deng Y, Zhang J, Li X, et al. (2011) The insertion/deletion (I/D) polymorphism in the Angiotensin-converting enzyme gene and cancer risk: a meta-analysis. BMC Med Genet 12: 159.
- 33. Gompel A, Santen RJ (2012) Hormone therapy and breast cancer risk 10 years after the WHI. Climacteric 15: 241–249.
- 34. Crosbie EJ, Zwahlen M, Kitchener HC, Egger M, Renehan AG (2010) Body mass index, hormone replacement therapy, and endometrial cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 19: 3119–3130.
- 35. Freedman DM, Rajaraman P, Fuhrman B, Hoffbeck R, Alexander BH (2010) Sunlight, hormone replacement status and colorectal cancer risk in postmenopausal women. Int J Cancer 126: 1997–2001.
- 36. Hodis HN, Mack WJ (2009) Coronary heart disease and hormone replacement therapy after the menopause. Climacteric 12 Suppl 171–75.
- 37. Low AK, Russell LD, Holman HE, Shepherd JM, Hicks GS, et al. (2002) Hormone replacement therapy and coronary heart disease in women: a review of the evidence. Am J Med Sci 324: 180–184.
- 38. Ganti AK, Sahmoun AE, Panwalkar AW, Tendulkar KK, Potti A (2006) Hormone replacement therapy is associated with decreased survival in women with lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 24: 59–63.
- 39. Omoto Y, Kobayashi Y, Nishida K, Tsuchiya E, Eguchi H, et al. (2001) Expression, function, and clinical implications of the estrogen receptor beta in human lung cancers. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 285: 340–347.
- 40. Siegfried JM (2006) Hormone replacement therapy and decreased lung cancer survival. J Clin Oncol 24: 9–10.
- 41. Ishibashi H, Suzuki T, Suzuki S, Niikawa H, Lu L, et al. (2005) Progesterone receptor in non-small cell lung cancer – a potent prognostic factor and possible target for endocrine therapy. Cancer Res 65: 6450–6458.
- 42. Moore KA, Mery CM, Jaklitsch MT, Estocin AP, Bueno R, et al. (2003) Menopausal effects on presentation, treatment, and survival of women with non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 76: 1789–1795.
- 43. Thomas L, Doyle LA, Edelman MJ (2005) Lung cancer in women: emerging differences in epidemiology, biology, and therapy. Chest 128: 370–381.
- 44. Vandenbroucke JP (2009) The HRT controversy: observational studies and RCTs fall in line. Lancet 373: 1233–1235.
- 45.
Prentice RL (2008) Data analysis methods and the reliability of analytic epidemiologic research. Epidemiology 19: 785–788; discussion 789–793.
- 46. Vandenbroucke JP (2004) When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials? Lancet 363: 1728–1731.
- 47. Vandenbroucke JP, Psaty BM (2008) Benefits and risks of drug treatments: how to combine the best evidence on benefits with the best data about adverse effects. JAMA 300: 2417–2419.
- 48. Thun MJ, Carter BD, Feskanich D, Freedman ND, Prentice R, et al. (2013) 50-year trends in smoking-related mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 368: 351–364.