One of my science reporting pet peeves is when articles say things like "the risk of XX is 60% higher when they do YY" because they almost never tell people the base probability of risk in the articles. For example you are 500% more likely to get eaten by a tiger if you wear cologne made of beef gravy, sure it could absolutely be true but if you live in Alaska your base likelihood of getting attacked is almost zero and well 500*.000000001 is still unlikely.
From the study summary:
During prospective follow-up, 108,647 postmenopausal women developed breast cancer at mean age 65 years (SD 7); 55,575 (51%)
If these associations are largely causal, then for women of average weight in developed countries, 5 years of MHT, starting at age 50 years, would increase breast cancer incidence at ages 50–69 years by about one in every 50 users of oestrogen plus daily progestagen preparations; one in every 70 users of oestrogen plus intermittent progestagen preparations; and one in every 200 users of oestrogen-only preparations. The corresponding excesses from 10 years of MHT would be about twice as great.
In 2001, 17.9 million U.S. women too at least one HRT drug. By 2008, that plummeted to 5.8 million, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
One of my science reporting pet peeves is when articles say things like "the risk of XX is 60% higher when they do YY" because they almost never tell people the base probability of risk in the articles. For example you are 500% more likely to get eaten by a tiger if you wear cologne made of beef gravy, sure it could absolutely be true but if you live in Alaska your base likelihood of getting attacked is almost zero and well 500*.000000001 is still unlikely.
From the study summary:
>During prospective follow-up, 108,647 postmenopausal women developed breast cancer at mean age 65 years (SD 7); 55,575 (51%)
>If these associations are largely causal, then for women of average weight in developed countries, 5 years of MHT, starting at age 50 years, would increase breast cancer incidence at ages 50–69 years by about one in every 50 users of oestrogen plus daily progestagen preparations; one in every 70 users of oestrogen plus intermittent progestagen preparations; and one in every 200 users of oestrogen-only preparations. The corresponding excesses from 10 years of MHT would be about twice as great.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)31709-X/fulltext
Here are statistics from the overall risk of getting breast cancer:
>The absolute risk of developing breast cancer during a particular decade of life is lower than 1 in 8. The younger you are, the lower the risk
https://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/understand_bc/risk/understanding
>In 2001, 17.9 million U.S. women too at least one HRT drug. By 2008, that plummeted to 5.8 million, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
https://www.today.com/health/hormone-replacement-therapy-doesn-t-kill-more-women-study-t116198 (not a great source)
Still a very high risk range.
One of my science reporting pet peeves is when articles say things like "the risk of XX is 60% higher when they do YY" because they almost never tell people the base probability of risk in the articles. For example you are 500% more likely to get eaten by a tiger if you wear cologne made of beef gravy, sure it could absolutely be true but if you live in Alaska your base likelihood of getting attacked is almost zero and well 500*.000000001 is still unlikely.
From the study summary:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)31709-X/fulltext
Here are statistics from the overall risk of getting breast cancer:
https://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/understand_bc/risk/understanding
https://www.today.com/health/hormone-replacement-therapy-doesn-t-kill-more-women-study-t116198 (not a great source)
Still a very high risk range.