Results from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) trial support findings from observational studies that oestrogen -progestin therapy (EPT) use is associated with an increase in breast cancer risk. We conducted a meta-analysis using EPT-specific results from the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer (CGHFBC) pooled analysis and studies published since that report to obtain an overview of EPT use and breast cancer risk. We also assessed risk by histologic subtype of breast cancer, by schedule of the progestin component of EPT, and by recency of use. We estimate that overall, EPT results in a 7.6% increase in breast cancer risk per year of use. The risk was statistically significantly lower in US studies than in European studies -5.2 vs 7.9%. There was a significantly higher risk for continuous-combined than for sequential EPT use in Scandinavian studies where much higher total doses of progestin were used in continuous-combined than in sequential EPT. We observed no overall difference in risk for lobular vs ductal carcinoma but did observe a slightly higher risk for current vs past EPT use. The Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer (CGHFBC) (1997) pooled data from 51 epidemiologic studies to obtain an overall estimate of breast cancer risk associated with menopausal hormone therapy (HT) use. The risk estimate for oestrogen therapy (ET) use was based on large numbers of cases and controls, but the oestrogen -progestin therapy (EPT) result was not. Since then, a number of statistically powerful studies have evaluated EPT in relation to breast cancer risk. Some of these further evaluated differences in risk by schedule of progestin administration, that is, sequential vs continuous-combined use (Magnusson et al, 1999;Ross et al, 2000;Schairer et al, 2000;Newcomb et al, 2002;Porch et al, 2002;Weiss et al, 2002; Million Women Study, 2003;Olsson et al, 2003;Stahlberg et al, 2004), and in relation to histologic subtype of breast cancer (Schairer et al, 2000;Daling et al, 2002;Newcomb et al, 2002;Newcomer et al, 2003;Ursin et al, 2002;Weiss et al, 2002).We conducted a meta-analysis of the results reported by the CGHFBC and studies published since that overview through March 2004 to provide a more precise estimate of the risk from EPT and how it is affected by schedule of progestin administration and histologic subtype. MATERIALS AND METHODSWe used the Medline database to compile a list of studies subsequent to the CGHFBC report investigating the relationship between EPT and incident breast cancer risk using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH): postmenopausal, oestrogen progestin therapy (or combined therapy), and breast cancer. For this analysis we did not include studies that presented results only for overall HT, nor did we include studies that only evaluated ET use, nor studies only evaluating breast cancer mortality. A total of 22 studies were identified for possible inclusion (Persson et al, 1996(Persson et al, , 1997Magnusson et al, 1999;Li et al, 2000Li et al, , 2002Li et al, ,...
A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the effect of mono-component proteases on performance and apparent ileal amino acid digestibility (AIAAD, %) in monogastrics. A total of 67 experimental trials were included in the meta-analysis from published and internal reports, contributing 467 lines of data. Poultry and swine data accounted for 81 and 19% of the dataset, respectively. Forty-four different proteases were included in the meta-analysis, accounting for commercial and non-commercial products. Mixed Model analysis was used to assess protease effect and the influence of inherent characteristics of the control on protease response. The mean performance response to protease was a reduction in feed conversion ratio (FCR) for poultry (1%, P < 0.05) and swine (4%, P > 0.05). The mean relative effect of protease on AIAAD over the control was 1.6 ± 0.3%, ranging from 1.2% for Arg, Phe and Trp to 2.6% for Cys. For the majority of amino acids, inherent AIAAD of control diets influenced (P < 0.05) the magnitude of the protease response such that, as inherent digestibility increased, the effect of protease on amino acid digestibility decreased. The dataset was subsequently divided into 2 subgroups: diets with and without other enzymes, namely non-starch polysaccharide degrading enzymes (NSPase) and phytase. Addition of protease in diets containing no other enzymes significantly (P < 0.05) increased AIAAD for the majority of amino acids and tended (P < 0.10) to improve Met, Trp, Pro, Gly, and Tyr. However, when other enzymes were included in the experiment, the beneficial effect of protease on AIAAD was lost (P> 0.05). These findings suggest that when other enzymes are already included in the diet, addition of protease requires further justification for use in monogastric diets.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.