Discussion
In this real-world, nationwide, Danish population, increasing duration and intensity of use of vaginal oestradiol tablets was not found to be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.
Several studies have found orally administrated oestrogen-only treatment to be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.3 A meta-analysis of individual participants worldwide reported a hazard ratio of 1.33 in current users of oral oestrogen-only treatment compared with no use.3 The meta-analysis reports a hazard ratio of 1.09 with use of vaginal oestrogen without further consideration to intensity of use.3 Similarly, a prospective cohort study by the Women’s Health Initiative of 45 663 postmenopausal women did not find any association between vaginal oestrogen use and breast cancer risk, but did not investigate the association according to duration or intensity of use.4 A nationwide observational study from Finland reported that use of vaginal oestrogen for less than five years was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, but the study did not have sufficient power to study the effect of use of more than five years or the role of the intensity of use.16
The apparent absence of association between use of vaginal oestradiol tablets and development of breast cancer have previously been explained by the low dose of oestradiol absorbed into the blood with vaginal application of low-dose oestrogen.17 18 Our study suggests that use of >50-70 µg/week for more than four years is not associated with increased breast cancer risk (hazard ratio 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.81-1.08)) compared with never-use. Use of >50-70 micrograms per week corresponds to 2.5-fold to 3.5-fold more than recommended weekly maintenance dose of the currently marketed low dose 10 µg vaginal oestradiol tablet.
To our knowledge, our study is the first to report on the breast cancer risk with vaginal oestradiol tablets according to duration and intensity of use. One strength of our study is its nationwide design with a large unselected study population. Additionally, a strength is the use of high quality registry data with accurate and continuously updated data for breast cancer diagnoses and vaginal oestradiol prescriptions as well as medical conditions, reproductive factors, and education. These data allow adjustment for several known risk factors for breast cancer and potential confounders. Use of registries covering the entire Danish population eliminated recall bias, minimised selection bias, provided a long study period, and resulted in no missing data for exposure, outcome, and covariates for all eligible study patients. Thus, no cases or controls were selected on missing data. Cancer diagnoses were from the cancer registry, in which all cancer diagnoses are histologically verified, further enhancing validity.8 For all women included in the study, we had at least five years of prescription history (establishment of the National Prescription Registry in Denmark was in 1995).
Considering the observational nature of our study, the main limitation is potential existence of bias by unknown or unmeasured confounders. Women who were were adherent users of vaginal oestradiol tablets could potentially be healthier than women who did not use the tablets because adherence to a long term, expensive treatment for a physiological condition might be more likely in women prioritising health and having a favourable socioeconomic status. This potential healthy user bias may have biased our results towards the null. However, the results remained robust in a subpopulation of all healthy women with a Charlson comorbidity index score of zero. Furthermore, as in many other countries, in Denmark, high socioeconomic position has been associated with higher incidence of breast cancer, including in our study (data not shown).19 Thus, if healthy user bias was present in our study, the direction of the bias would not necessarily cause an underestimation of the association. Finally, we did adjust for education and income in our study.
Despite controlling for several potential confounders, we cannot exclude the occurrence of residual confounding and unmeasured confounding. Obesity has been associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, and obesity is expected to be more common among women who do not use vaginal oestradiol tablets because their oestrogen production in lipid tissue likely decreases the need for exogenous oestrogen.20 Thus, not adjusting for obesity might have caused an underestimation of the association between vaginal oestradiol and breast cancer. However, obesity is highly (and inversely) correlated with educational status in Denmark, and we did adjust for such.21