It has not been long since breast cancer stopped sounding like a death sentence to millions of women all over the world. Indeed, though the advances of modern surgery allow for addressing the disease at its early stages, breast cancer still remains a tangible threat. To address the issue and provide the measures to prevent it, a range of researches have been carried out, the key ones being the works of the Woman health Initiative (WMI). WMI has been exploring the issue of breast cancer for quite a while, and the discoveries that the organization has made can be seen as groundbreaking. Nevertheless, there are a number of differences , contradictions and even the opinions that are diametrically opposite between the views of the WMI and the views of other researchers on the problem.
To be more exact, in the study in question, the WMI considers not only breast cancer, but also the controversy of certain methods of addressing it. Indeed, according to the research carried out by the WMI, the popular medicine known as estrogen and progesterone treatment (i.e., a post-surgical hormone therapy), is fraught with a number of consequences for a female organism; more to the point, the aforementioned method of treatment brings the rates of cardiovascular disease development, as well as “greater risk of fatal and nonfatal malignancies” (Heiss et al., 2008, para. 5) is 12% higher among the women, who have received the as estrogen and progesterone treatment than in those, who were suggested a placebo as an alternative to the aforementioned treatment type. The problem of women developing a breast cancer recidivism as a result of an enhanced estrogen and progesterone treatment is far from being a new fact; older studies show that the problem was spotted several times in the past, yet was notbeen researched up until recently (Heiss et al., 2008, para. 22).
Although the conclusions provided by the WHI in the study conducted to research the effects of estrogen and progesterone cessation on the chance of developing a breast cancer do not comply with the results of other researches on the issue, the information provided by the WMI Research Center still seems more credible than the studies carried out by other researchers, since other authors, such as Chlebowski and Anderson (2011) seem to focus on evaluating the hazard ratio instead of considering the factors affecting the patients.
As a infamously frequent disease, breast cancer has a very long history of
Indeed, the study conducted by Chlebowski and Anderson shows that the authors rely on the analysis of the statistical information rather than on a careful consideration of the factors affecting women, who are under the estrogen and progesterone therapy: “If hormone users in the MWS had more mammograms after entry compared with non-hormone users, the estimated relative risks of breast cancer for hormone therapy users would be increased” (Chlebowski & Anderson , 2011, para. 7).
It would be wrong to assume that focusing solely on the statistical information is a major fault; quite on the contrary, the argument that Chlebowski and Anderson make is quite feasible and reasonable. However, placing it at the top of their line of arguments regarding the negative effects of the hormone therapy on the breast cancer survivors clearly makes the research results provided by the authors less impressive than the ones that the study conducted by the WMI researchers does: “Follow-up during the postintervention phase was missing for 389 of 15 730 participants (<2.5%). Women without postintervention follow-up did not differ by treatment assignment (P =.63)” (Heiss et al., 2008, para. 7).
True, some of the statements made by Heiss et al. may be uqiteconfusing. For instance, at some point, the researchers claim that the differences in the two groups of research participants were not that different:
There were no statistically significant differences between the CEE plus MPA and placebo groups across any of the 19 variables examined. Follow-up during the postintervention phase was missing for 389 of 15 730 participants (<2.5%). Women without postintervention follow-up did not differ by treatment assignment (P =.63).
Such bits as the example provided above, nevertheless, are the sign that Heiss et al. attempt at approaching the issue objectively. The research is obviously aimed at providing accurate and verified results. Consequently, the research conducted by the WMI seems much stronger by comparison. To start with, the WMI offers a much better thought out methodology of the reaerch, with a very careful selection of the participants. The fact that the research was based on the principle of the “time-to-event and intention-to-treat methods” (Heiss et al., 2008, para. 3), as well as that the study was split into the intervention and a post-intervention phase (Heiss et al., 2008, para. 3), shows that the approach adopted by the WMI is much more thorough and consistent.
Consequently, it can be assumed that the strategy suggested in Chlebowski and Anderson’s article is less credible and more likely to have a deplorable effect than the approach offered by Heiss et al. While one must keep in mind that the treatment of women, who have undergone breast cancer surgery, and the prevention of the possible recidivism, as well as further health complexities, is a very tricky area. Nevertheless, the WMI methods seem to be a few steps ahead of what the rest of the researchers suggest.
Reference List
Chlebowski, R. & Anderson, C. L. (2011). The influence of time from menopause and mammography on hormone therapy–related breast cancer risk assessment. JNCI, 103(4), 284–285.
Heiss,G., Wallace, R., Anderson, G. L., Aragaki, A., Beresford, S. A. A., Brzyski, R., Stefanick, M. L. (2008). Health risks and benefits 3 years after stopping randomized treatment with estrogen and progestin.JAMA, 299(9):1036-1045. Web.