Blog of the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research

Early menarche, late menopause and breast cancer – what’s the whole story?

December 10th, 2009 by Laura Wershler
Mammograms showing healthy (left) and (right) cancerous breast. Courtesy of the National Cancer Institute.

Mammograms showing healthy (left) and (right) cancerous breast. Courtesy of the National Cancer Institute.

Can having too many menstrual cycles give you breast cancer?  That’s what one might conclude from two unrelated articles that appeared in national newspapers this week.

First was Nicholas D. Kristof’s Op-Ed in the New York Times. Kristof had recently attended a symposium exploring whether certain common chemicals are linked to breast cancer and other ailments. The role of estrogen – both the real thing our bodies produce and the pseudo-estrogens – in breast cancer was his major example.

The real thing:

One theory starts with the well-known fact that women with more lifetime menstrual cycles are at greater risk for breast cancer, because they’re exposed to more estrogen. For example, a woman who began menstruating before 12 has a 30 percent greater risk of breast cancer than one who began at 15 or later.

The pseudo-estrogens:

One class of chemicals that creates concern — although the evidence is not definitive — is endocrine disruptors, which are often similar to estrogen and may fool the body into setting off hormonal changes. This used to be a fringe theory, but it is now being treated with great seriousness by the Endocrine Society the professional association of hormone specialists in the United States. …These endocrine disruptors are found in everything from certain plastics to various cosmetics.

(Do you ever wonder, like I do, why the birth control pill is not considered an ‘endocrine disruptor’ when that is exactly what it is?)

The second mention of the connection between too many periods and breast cancer came in dietician Leslie Beck’s Food For Thought column in Canada’s Globe and Mail. She was reporting on a new study showing that women with breast cancer need not shun soy:

By acting like weak forms of the body’s own estrogen, some experts have worried that soy isoflavones could possibly promote cancer growth.  That’s because certain risk factors for breast cancer, such as beginning your menstrual period before age 12 or starting menopause after 55, are related to the length of time breast cells are exposed to the body’s own circulating estrogen. It’s thought that estrogen can promote the growth of breast cancer cells.

It’s reasonable to think that the both the writers and readers of these articles (and the many more that have surely mentioned this connection) might assume from this information that too many menstrual cycles means too much estrogen, therefore too many menstrual cycles must be a bad thing.  What they don’t know is that not all menstrual cycles are created equal. It’s not necessarily about quantity, it’s about quality.

Common belief is that all menstrual cycles are ovulatory. (Unless, of course, you are using a hormonal birth control method that suppress ovulation like the pill, patch or ring.) In other words, the assumption is that if get your period you must have ovulated. This assumption is challenged by UBC endocrinolgist Jerilynn Prior, MD, and Scientific Director of the Centre for Menstual Cycle and Ovulation Research (CeMCOR). In her article Is Ovulation (and are normal Progesterone levels) Important for the Health of Women?, Dr. Prior has this to say about the connection between ovulation, menstruation and breast cancer:

PremPro’s Losing Streak Continues

November 23rd, 2009 by Elizabeth Kissling

There are more than 10,000 lawsuits against Wyeth/Pfizer regarding the link between PremPro and breast cancer. There have been 12 verdicts so far, and juries have awarded money to the plaintiffs in ten of those cases. The latest was announced today, in Donna Kendall v. Wyeth (Phila. CCP, June Term, 2004, No. 0965). The jury awarded Ms. Kendall $6.3 million in compensatory damages, and $28 million in punitive damages.

So far, thirteen women have settled their claims with Wyeth/Pfizer, but if awards like these continue, can we expect Pfizer soon to be offering to settle the rest?

The film clip at left is a video press release prepared by Littlepage Booth, the Houston law firm that represented both Connie Barton and Donna Kendall in their claims against Wyeth/Pfizer.

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Update in Prempro Case

November 4th, 2009 by Elizabeth Kissling
Image from Online Journal

Image from Online Journal

Even though the verdict regarding punitive damages awarded to Connie Barton in her suit against Prempro was sealed (as we wrote last week), the figure has leaked out. A Philadelphia jury awarded her $75 million in punitive damages, in addition to $3.7 million in compensation for her trouble.  Although Pfizer/Wyeth will surely appeal, it’s a substantial victory to see punitive damages in an amount that is more than 20 times the compensatory damages. The jury found Wyeth’s conduct in marketing and selling the drug was “willful and wanton,” and put their money where their mouth is.

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Pyrrhic Victory for Prempro Users

October 27th, 2009 by Elizabeth Kissling

Connie Barton, an Illinois woman who developed breast cancer after taking Prempro for menopausal symptoms, was awarded punitive damages by a jury in Philadelphia yesterday. The jury has already awarded her $3.7 million in compensatory damages, back in September, but we will not learn the amount of punitive damages until another Philadelphia jury reaches their verdict in similar case against the Pfizer, the drug’s manufacturer. (Technically, the case was filed against Wyeth, but the two companies just completed a merger deal last week, and Wyeth is now a subsidiary of Pfizer.)

Wyeth’s attorneys successfully argued that public revelation of the amount of damages might influence the jurors in Kendall v. Wyeth. However, the jury’s finding that Wyeth ignored evidence that the drug could cause cancer is now public information. Would I sound bitter if I said I hope that news influences potential jurors?

According to the news story about Barton’s case at philly.com, Pfizer has now lost five of eight trials over its hormone-replacement drugs since cases began reaching juries in 2006. 1500 more trials against Wyeth are pending at the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. But a longer story in Philadelphia Magazine reports 23 out of 31 cases set for trial have been resolved favorably for Wyeth; the company has settled five, and several are on appeal.

Christine Speer also writes,

The future of Prempro . . . seems pretty stable, no matter what the juries decide. Doctors in some 85 countries continue to prescribe it for hot flashes.

[. . . .]

The Philadelphia judge who basically invented mass tort pharmaceutical litigation — Sandra Mazer Moss — has made it her court’s mission to get through this docket and hear all 1,500 Philly-based trials. There might even be cases tried in groups. “The plaintiffs are due their day in court,” Moss says. “And so are the defendants. That is justice. Even one-tenth of a courtroom in your lifetime is better than nothing because you’re dead.”

If you were on the jury, you’d likely hear that Moss — who came to this court’s bench in January — arrived too late for the 205 women who died still waiting for their cases to come to trial. If you were on the jury, you’d hear that WHI’s lead researcher thinks 200,000 women who got breast cancer in the past decade have long-term hormone therapy to thank for it. If you were on the jury, you’d hear that Wyeth did everything a responsible drug company can possibly do in getting out a drug whose benefits still outweigh its risks.

Of course, if you’re not on the jury, you might never hear any of that. You might just be a patient.

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Readers should note that statements published in re: Cycling are those of individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the Society as a whole.