JAMA & ARCHIVES
JAMA & Archives
SEARCH
GO TO ADVANCED SEARCH
HOME  EMBARGOED CONTENT  PAST ISSUES  EVENTS  HELP  SEARCH RELEASES


April 13, 2004

JAMA news releases are made available to the public after 3 pm US Central time on the first 4 Tuesdays of each month. The Archives Journals news releases are made available to the public after 3 pm Central time on Mondays. We also provide a list of previous news releases.

THIS WEEK'S CONTENT

JAMA NEWS RELEASES
(Embargoed for Release: 3 p.m. CT, Tuesday, April 13, 2004)


JAMA NEW RELEASES

>   ESTROGEN OFFERS NO OVERALL BENEFIT FOR DISEASE PREVENTION IN POSTMENOPAUSAL WOMEN WITH PRIOR HYSTERECTOMY

>   'VIRTUAL COLONOSCOPY' TECHNIQUES AND TRAINING NEED TO BE IMPROVED BEFORE WIDESPREAD CLINICAL USE

>   ARTICLE EXAMINES REASONS CONTRIBUTING TO EPIDEMIC OF LUNG CANCER IN U.S. WOMEN


INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THESE NEWS RELEASES IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT. JOURNAL ATTRIBUTION IS REQUIRED.

TV Note: This week's JAMA video news release is on the effects of estrogen in postmenopausal women who have had a hysterectomy. The release will be fed Tuesday, April 13, from 9:00 - 9:30 a.m. ET on Telstar 6, Transponder 11 (C-Band) and from 2:00 - 2:30 p.m. ET on Telstar 6, Transponder 11 (C-Band). For more information, call 312/464-JAMA (5262).

Please Note: Our e-mail has changed to mediarelations{at}jama-archives.org

JOURNALISTS CAN NOW ACCESS EMBARGOED JAMA/ARCHIVES STUDIES ONLINE

Go to www.jamamedia.org for more information and to apply for access.

Please Note: The FOR THE MEDIA Web site now has a search feature to enable media to find previous JAMA/Archives news releases on specific medical topics. This search feature link is located on the home page at www.jamamedia.org

EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE: 3 P.M. CT, TUESDAY, April 13, 2004
Media Advisory: To contact WHI Steering Committee Writing Group Chair Garnet L. Anderson, Ph.D., call Kristin Woodward at 206-667-5095. To contact editorialist Stephen B. Hulley, M.D., M.P.H., call Wallace Ravven at 415-476-2557.

ESTROGEN OFFERS NO OVERALL BENEFIT FOR DISEASE PREVENTION IN POSTMENOPAUSAL WOMEN WITH PRIOR HYSTERECTOMY

CHICAGO—Taking estrogen provides no overall benefit for chronic disease prevention in postmenopausal women with previous hysterectomy, but does appear to increase the risk of stroke and decrease the risk of hip fracture, according to a study in the April 14 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Estrogen therapy has been available to postmenopausal women for more than 60 years, according to background information in the article. Despite decades of use and considerable research, the role of estrogen alone in preventing chronic diseases in postmenopausal women remains uncertain.

The Women's Health Initiative (WHI) clinical trials of hormone therapy were undertaken to determine whether conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) alone (for women with prior hysterectomy) or in combination with progestin (medroxyprogesterone acetate) would reduce coronary heart disease (CHD) events in mostly healthy postmenopausal women. The WHI estrogen plus progestin trial was halted in July 2002 because health risks exceeded benefits, including increased risks for CHD, stroke and breast cancer.

In this new report on the estrogen alone intervention, the WHI investigators assessed the effects of CEE, the most commonly used postmenopausal hormone therapy in the U.S., on major disease incidence rates. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled disease prevention trial conducted in 40 U.S. clinical centers beginning in 1993, 10,739 postmenopausal women, aged 50-79 years, with prior hysterectomy were enrolled, including 23 percent of minority race/ethnicity. The women were randomly assigned to receive either 0.625 mg/day of CEE or placebo.

The WHI authors write that in February 2004, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) decided to end the intervention phase of the trial early. Based on data for the major clinical outcomes available through February 29, 2004, the researchers found that with an average of 6.8 years of follow-up, CEE had no significant effect on reducing the risk of CHD (376 cases), but did cause a significant increase (39 percent increase) in risk of stroke (276 cases). CEE significantly reduced the risk of hip fracture (39 percent reduction, 102 cases), was associated with a non-significant reduction in risk of breast cancer, (218 cases), and had no significant effect on risk of pulmonary embolism (85 cases) or colorectal cancer (119 cases). Corresponding results for composite outcomes were a significant increase (12 percent) in the risk of total cardiovascular disease, and a significantly decreased risk (30 percent) of total fractures, but no significant effect on total cancer, total mortality, and a global index . For the outcomes significantly affected by CEE, there was an absolute excess risk of 12 additional strokes per 10,000 person-years and an absolute risk reduction of 6 fewer hip fractures per 10,000 person-years. The estimated excess risk for all monitored events in the global index was a nonsignificant 2 events per 10,000 person-years.

"Based on these findings, women and their health care professionals now have usable risk estimates for the benefits and harms of CEE alone. Women considering taking CEE should be counseled about an increased risk of stroke but can be reassured about no excess risk of heart disease or breast cancer for at least 6.8 years of use. At present, these data demonstrate no overall benefit of CEE for chronic disease prevention in postmenopausal women and thus argue against its use in this setting. Overall, these data support the current U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommendations for postmenopausal women to use CEE only for menopausal symptoms at the smallest effective dose for the shortest possible time," the researchers write.
(
JAMA. 2004;291:1701-1712. Available post-embargo at jama.com)

Editor's Note: The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) funds the WHI program. Wyeth provided study pills (active and placebo) but had no other role in the study. For the financial disclosures of the researchers, please see the JAMA article. The NHLBI has organized a telephone briefing for reporters on Tuesday, April 13 at 10:30 a.m., Eastern time. WHI investigators will be available to take questions on the study findings. Reporters are asked to dial 1-888-276-9998 at 10:20 am ET. Teleconference name: Women's Health Initiative.

EDITORIAL: THE WHI ESTROGEN-ALONE TRIAL - DO THINGS LOOK ANY BETTER?

In an accompanying editorial, Stephen B. Hulley, M.D., M.P.H., and Deborah Grady, M.D., M.P.H., of the University of California, San Francisco, summarize the findings from the recent major hormone therapy trials, and note that "as more deliberate and exhaustive analyses of this trial [the WHI estrogen only trial] become available, they will likely contribute to new practice guidelines. In the meantime, the available evidence supports these provisional clinical implications:

"For Treatment of Menopausal Symptoms. Hormone therapy is effective for treating menopausal symptoms, and for this indication things do look better for estrogen alone than for estrogen plus progestin. However, estrogen alone does have adverse effects, and it remains prudent to keep the dose low and the duration of treatment short.

"For Prevention of Chronic Disease. In the absence of evidence for an overall net benefit of postmenopausal treatment with estrogen alone, and with the evidence that estrogen plus progestin is harmful, neither therapy should be used for preventing disease. Although it is possible that other forms or doses of hormones could be more beneficial, this must be demonstrated in disease-end point trials before any hormone regimen can be recommended for disease prevention. Fortunately, there are other good approaches to preventing CHD and fractures for which trials have found benefits to outweigh harms," the editorialists write.
(JAMA. 2004;291:1769-1771. Available post-embargo at jama.com)

For More Information: Contact the JAMA/Archives Media Relations Department at 312/464-JAMA (5262) or email: mediarelations{at}jama-archives.org (please note new email address).

Go back to the top.


EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE: 3 P.M. CT, TUESDAY, April 13, 2004
Media Advisory: To contact Peter B. Cotton, M.D., call Ellen Bank at 843-792-2626. To contact editorialist David F. Ransohoff, M.D., call David Williamson at 919-962-8596.

'VIRTUAL COLONOSCOPY' TECHNIQUES AND TRAINING NEED TO BE IMPROVED BEFORE WIDESPREAD CLINICAL USE

CHICAGO—The accuracy of computed tomographic colonography ("virtual colonoscopy") for the detection of colorectal cancer is lower than that for conventional colonoscopy, suggesting that use of "virtual" colonoscopy should be limited until techniques and training can be improved, according to a study in the April 14 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

According to background information in the article, conventional colonoscopy is the best available method for detection of colorectal cancer and its precursors. However, it is invasive and not without risk, so a simpler alternative would be welcome. Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) has been reported to be reasonably accurate in the diagnosis of colorectal tumors in studies performed at expert centers. CTC involves the examination of computer-generated images of the colon constructed from data obtained from an abdominal computed tomographic examination.

Peter B. Cotton, M.D., of the Digestive Disease Center at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, S.C., and colleagues assessed the accuracy of CTC in a large number of participants from multiple centers. The study included 615 patients aged 50 years or older who were referred for routine, clinically indicated colonoscopy at nine major hospital centers between April 17, 2000 and October 3, 2001. The CTC was performed before the standard colonoscopy and results were compared.

The researchers found that the sensitivity of CTC for detecting participants with one or more lesions sized at least 6 mm was only 39 percent and for lesions sized at least 10 mm, it was only 55 percent. These results were significantly lower than those for conventional colonoscopy, with sensitivities of 99 percent and 100 percent, respectively. The accuracy of CTC varied considerably between centers and did not improve as the study progressed.

"Our results indicate that CTC using these techniques is not ready for routine use at this time, as many others have concluded. There is an obvious need for continuing collaboration between radiologists and gastroenterologists in further evaluation of this exciting new technology. If and when results do justify widespread introduction, similar multidisciplinary collaboration will be needed to ensure its efficient application," the authors write.
(
JAMA. 2004;291:1713-1719. Available post-embargo at jama.com)

Editor's Note: This study was supported by a grant from the Office of Naval Research of the U.S. Department of Defense. Co-authors Dr. Pineau is a minor stockholder and Dr. Vining is a major stockholder in PointDX, a radiology structured reporting company.

EDITORIAL: VIRTUAL COLONOSCOPY - WHAT IT CAN DO VS. WHAT IT WILL DO

In an accompanying editorial, David F. Ransohoff, M.D., of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, writes that "as the study by Cotton et al suggests, the biggest near-term problem for virtual colonoscopy is that it may be implemented too widely without sufficient regard for current technological problems that affect sensitivity.

"The level of sensitivity and specificity that virtual colonoscopy can achieve, in some specialized situations, is known. Yet the differences between what virtual colonoscopy can do and what it will do if applied in ordinary practice circumstances are so great that physicians must be cautious. There are many important steps yet to be taken in learning how to implement this new technology appropriately," he writes.
(JAMA. 2004;291:1772-1774. Available post-embargo at jama.com)

For More Information: Contact the JAMA/Archives Media Relations Department at 312/464-JAMA (5262) or email: mediarelations{at}jama-archives.org

Go back to the top.


EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE: 3 P.M. CT, TUESDAY, April 13, 2004
Media Advisory: To contact Jyoti D. Patel, M.D., call Elizabeth Crown at 312-503-8928.

ARTICLE EXAMINES REASONS CONTRIBUTING TO EPIDEMIC OF LUNG CANCER IN U.S. WOMEN

CHICAGO—An article in the April 14 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reviews current information on the "epidemic" of lung cancer in U.S. women, and explores contributing factors and possible reasons for increased lung cancer deaths in women..

Jyoti D. Patel, M.D., of the Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues write that the death rate from lung cancer in U.S. women rose 600 percent from 1930 to 1997, surpassing breast cancer as the leading cause of cancer death by nearly 20,000 patients a year. The authors cite data that indicate "an estimated 80,100 U.S. women were diagnosed as having lung cancer in 2003 and 68,800 died from their disease."

However, the authors point out that women are targeted in tobacco advertising, and teenage girls are often drawn to cigarette smoking under a variety of social pressures, and also that "smoking remains the primary cause of lung cancer, and nearly one-quarter of women in the United States continue to smoke. Whether women are more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of tobacco smoke than men is debatable. What is not debatable, however, is that important differences exist among men and women with lung cancer. Women smokers are more likely than men to develop adenocarcinoma of the lung. Women who have never smoked are more likely to develop lung cancer than men who have never smoked. Mounting evidence suggests that this could be due, in part, to estrogen signaling."

The authors add that in the past, major studies for lung cancer prevention and early diagnosis have excluded women. "... it is critical that future lung cancer research specifically include a proportion of women that reflects the true incidence of lung cancer in women."

According to the authors, one of the most important challenges lies in avoiding the U.S. scenario in other parts of the world.

"Sociocultural constraints that previously discouraged tobacco use by women continue to weaken in many developing countries. Smoking prevalence among women continues to increase in these countries, often accelerated by aggressive advertising campaigns targeted directly to women. The extraordinary increase in lung cancer rates seen among U.S. women in the 20th century will be repeated among women in developing countries during this century unless effective tobacco control measures are implemented. Curtailing the increase in tobacco use among women in developing countries represents one of the greatest opportunities for disease prevention in the world today," the authors conclude.
(
JAMA. 2004;291:1763-1768. Available post-embargo at jama.com)

For More Information: Contact the JAMA/Archives Media Relations Department at 312/464-JAMA (5262) or email: mediarelations{at}jama-archives.org

Go back to the top.


JAMA REPORTS

ESTROGEN LINKED TO STROKES

VIDEO:
SOT/FULL
Beverly Wagstaff, Study participant


AUDIO:
"I was a little surprised when I received the letter."

VIDEO:
B-roll of Beverly Wagstaff with nurse getting a check-up


AUDIO:
THAT'S 65-YEAR-OLD BEVERLY WAGSTAFF'S REACTION WHEN THE SEVEN-YEAR ESTROGEN STUDY SHE VOLUNTEERED FOR WAS ABRUPTLY CANCELLED. WAGSTAFF SAYS SHE TOOK PART IN IT TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

VIDEO:
SOT/FULL 2:16:43
Super @ :14
Beverly Wagstaff, Study participant


AUDIO:
"I just think that you should be willing to do your part to help women in the future."

VIDEO:
B-roll of Wagstaff getting exam
Wagstaff with Dr. Limacher in exam room
GFX: JAMA cover


AUDIO:
WAGSTAFF WAS ONE OF MORE THAN 10-THOUSAND WOMEN AGED 50-79 WHO WAS PART OF THE RANDOMIZED TRIAL TO TEST THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF ESTROGEN USE. ONLY WOMEN WHO HAD HYSTERECTOMIES WERE ENROLLED IN THIS STUDY, BECAUSE ESTROGEN USED ALONE CAN INCREASE THE RISK OF UTERINE CANCER. HEART DISEASE, CANCER AND BONE STRENGTH WERE ALL BEING MONITORED. THE STUDY IS PUBLISHED IN THIS WEEK'S JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION.

VIDEO:
SOT/FULL
Super @ :44
Marian Limacher, M.D., University of Florida, Gainesville/Jacksonville


AUDIO:
"The findings of this study are that there were no differences in heart disease over time, but there was an increase risk of stroke."

VIDEO:
B-roll Limacher talking with a nurse at clinic


AUDIO:
BECAUSE OF THE STROKE RISK DR. MARIAN LIMACHER WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ALONG WITH WOMEN'S HEALTH INITIATIVE COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE COUNTRY STOPPED THE STUDY ONE YEAR EARLY.

VIDEO:
SOT/FULL
Marian Limacher, M.D., University of Florida, Gainesville/Jacksonville


AUDIO:
"These results suggest that for every 10-thousand women followed for one year there would be 12 additional strokes in women who were taking estrogen alone, than in women who were not. There would also be six fewer hip fractures."

VIDEO:
B-roll Dr. Limacher at computer


AUDIO:
THE STUDY ALSO INDICATED A POSSIBLE SLIGHT DECREASE IN BREAST CANCER.

VIDEO:
SOT/FULL
Marian Limacher, M.D., University of Florida, Gainesville/Jacksonville


AUDIO:
"Estrogen alone did not increase the risk, and there's even a little bit of suggestion that there was a reduction in risk."

VIDEO:
B-roll of Wagstaff with clinic staff
B-roll of Limacher with charts


AUDIO:
THAT'S A DIFFERENT OUTCOME OF ANOTHER WOMEN'S HEALTH INITIATIVE STUDY, INVOLVING ESTROGEN AND PROGESTIN, WHICH WAS STOPPED EARLY FOR INCREASING THE RISK OF BREAST CANCER. RESEARCHERS SAY MORE STUDIES ARE NEEDED TO KNOW WHY THE RESULTS DIFFERED.
THIS IS LAURA MEEHAN REPORTING.

HOME | EMBARGOED CONTENT | PAST ISSUES | EVENTS | HELP | SEARCH RELEASES
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2009 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.