Tibolone and endometrial cancer: a cohort and nested case-control study in the UK.
OBJECTIVE
Case series and spontaneous reports of endometrial cancer have raised the question as to whether the use of tibolone (introduced into the UK in 1991) is associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer. This study set out to evaluate whether tibolone use is associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer.


METHODS
Age-adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of endometrial cancer were calculated for tibolone use compared with the use of other hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Separate sets of controls, matched for age and general practice, were compared with cases, all nested within a cohort of HRT users identified from the UK General Practice Research Database (GPRD). Conditional logistic regression analysis, adjusted for potential confounders, was used to study the association between tibolone use and the risk of endometrial cancer.


RESULTS
4995 women used tibolone as their first HRT product; 10 783 (4.3%) of the users of combined HRT had changed to tibolone at some time during the study period. Amongst women whose HRT began with tibolone, the age-adjusted IRR relative to those who started with combined sequential HRT was 1.83 (95% CI 1.19, 2.82). The nested case-control study comprised 162 cases, each matched to two sets of 972 controls. There were 43 tibolone-exposed subjects, 28 of whom had used other HRT before or after tibolone. The adjusted odds ratio of the risk of endometrial cancer in women who had ever used tibolone, compared with users of combined sequential HRT, was 1.54 (95% CI 1.03, 2.32) in the age-matched set and 1.58 (95% CI 1.01, 2.47) in the practice-matched set. Sensitivity analyses did not decrease the risk estimates found.


CONCLUSIONS
Tibolone may be associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer compared with conventional forms of HRT, but our data are fragile. Residual bias and uncontrolled confounding cannot be excluded, and follow-up time is insufficient to draw any firm conclusions with respect to the endometrial safety of tibolone.
de Vries
Corinne S
CS
Department of Pharmacoepidemiology, Postgraduate Medical School, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK. c.de-vries@surrey.ac.uk
Bromley
Susan E
SE
Thomas
Hilary
H
Farmer
Richard D T
RD
D000368:Aged; D016022:Case-Control Studies; D015331:Cohort Studies; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D003710:Demography; D016889:Endometrial Neoplasms / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000209:etiology*; D005260:Female; D020249:Hormone Replacement Therapy / Q000379:methods; D006801:Humans; D015994:Incidence; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009652:Norpregnenes / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000378:metabolism / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D016017:Odds Ratio; D013997:Time Factors; D006113:United Kingdom
D009652:Norpregnenes; C027385:tibolone
Lancet. 1997 Oct 11;350(9084):1097-9
10213569
Maturitas. 1991 Sep;13(3):243-51
1943832
Lancet. 1997 Feb 15;349(9050):458-61
9040575
Maturitas. 1995 Feb;21(2):121-5
7752949
J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 1993 May;45(5):345-51
8499344
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999 Jul 7;91(13):1131-7
10393721
Steroids. 2002 Jul;67(8):681-6
12117614
Menopause. 2002 Jul-Aug;9(4):293-5
12082366
Menopause. 1999 Winter;6(4):299-306
10614676
BJOG. 2004 Apr;111(4):369-76
15008775
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Dec;183(6):1456-61
11120510
Popul Trends. 1997 Spring;(87):36-40
9134574
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994 Jan;101(1):53-6
8297869
Gynecol Endocrinol. 1998 Jun;12(3):213-20
9675570
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994 Jul;101(7):632-3
8043545
Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Feb;85(2):304-13
7824251
Lancet. 2000 Sep 9;356(9233):881-7
11036892
JAMA. 1996 Feb 7;275(5):370-5
8569016
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994 Feb;101(2):158-61
8305393