Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Research Articles

Reversal of Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone Agonist Induced Reductions in Mammographic Densities on Stopping Treatment

Inger T. Gram, Giske Ursin, Darcy V. Spicer and Malcolm C. Pike
Inger T. Gram
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Giske Ursin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Darcy V. Spicer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Malcolm C. Pike
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI:  Published November 2001
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Previously, we described the reduction in mammographic densities that occurred in premenopausal women after 12 months on a hormonal regimen designed to be chemopreventive for breast (and ovarian) cancer consisting of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHA) plus low-dose add-back estrogen-progestin. We sought to determine whether the density reduction persisted with continuation of the regimen for 24 months, and, if so, whether the densities would return to baseline after the regimen was discontinued. Twenty-one women, 27–40 years of age, with a 5-fold greater than normal risk of breast cancer, were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to the treatment group (14 women) and to a control group (7 women). The percentage of mammographic densities, calculated as the proportion of the breast area on the mammogram containing densities, were assessed blindly using a computer-based threshold method at baseline, after 12 and 24 months of treatment, and at between 6 and 12 months after treatment was stopped. The previously described percentage of mammographic density reductions of 9.7% (P = 0.012) after 12 months of treatment were increased slightly to 11.4% (P = 0.010) after 24 months of treatment, but the additional change was not statistically significant. Ten of 11 treated women assessed at 24 months had reduced percentages of mammographic densities compared with baseline. Six to 12 months after completion of treatment, the mean percentage of mammographic density in the treated group was no different from that at baseline (mean decline of 2.0%; P = 0.73). The women in the control group had no statistically significant changes in densities over the period of the study. Reductions in mammographic densities engendered by the GnRHA plus a low-dose add-back estrogen-progestin regimen persist as long as the women receive treatment. The densities return to baseline when the women resume normal menstrual cycles. These results confirm that mammographic densities are influenced by ovarian function. Improved efficacy of mammographic screening is to be expected as long as a woman continues on such a regimen. Whether such a regimen is chemopreventive for breast cancer remains to be established, but the recent report on a randomized trial of use of GnRHA alone in premenopausal breast cancer cases showing a marked reduction in incidence of contralateral disease provides strong support for the hypothesis.

Introduction

A hormonal contraceptive regimen based on a GnRHA,3 to suppress ovarian function, and low-dose add-back estrogen and progestin has been described previously (1) . The regimen was designed to minimize exposure of the breast epithelium to estrogen and progestin, while preserving the beneficial effects of estrogen on bone and other disease risks and still preventing endometrial hyperplasia. Spicer et al. (2) described the predicted reductions in breast and ovarian cancer risk with such a regimen; lifetime breast cancer risk was predicted to be reduced by one-third if the regimen was used for 5 years and by >50% if used for 10 years.

The effects of the hormonal regimen after 1 year of use have been reported previously (1 , 3) . The GnRHA-based regimen used in this study used a once-a-month depot formulation of a GnRHA with add-back estrogen and intermittent progestin given p.o. The regimen was quite acceptable to these high-risk subjects, and a symptom questionnaire used to assess tolerance of the regimen showed that subjects had fewer symptoms after initiation of the regimen (1) . Symptoms associated with the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle, commonly referred to collectively as premenstrual syndrome, were eliminated. The women on the hormonal regimen had statistically significant reductions in mammographic densities from their baseline mammogram to the mammogram taken after 12 months of treatment (3) . The women on the contraceptive regimen gained slightly more weight on average than the controls between baseline and 1 year (2.4 versus 1.2 kg; P = 0.63). Adjusting for this nonsignificant weight gain made almost no difference to the results. The decrease in mammographic densities was detected when a simultaneous pair-wise evaluation method was used (comparing baseline and year-1 mammograms in random order from each woman as a pair in a blinded fashion) by two radiologists (3) , or when mammograms were read in a blinded fashion using an expert outlining method developed by Wolfe et al. (4) , or when a computer-based threshold method was used (5) .

The purpose of the study reported here was to determine whether there were additional reductions in density after 24 months of treatment and whether the reduction in density would persist or the densities would return to baseline after the hormonal regimen was discontinued.

Materials and Methods

The method of subject selection has been described in detail previously (1) . In brief: 21 women, 27–40 years of age (average, 33.5 years) with a 5-fold greater than normal risk of breast cancer, were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to the GnRHA-based regimen group (14 women) or to a control group (7 women). The risk assessment was based on having a first-degree female relative (mother or sister) with bilateral breast cancer before age 50 or a prior personal diagnosis of lobular carcinoma in situ. The eligibility criteria were: (a) premenopausal at 25–40 years of age with a 5-fold greater than normal risk of breast cancer; (b) no prior malignancy (other than lobular carcinoma in situ); (c) bone mineral density not ≥2 SDs below normal for age; (d) normal cholesterol levels; and (e) a normal physical and pelvic examination. The women agreed to use a nonhormonal contraceptive method during the study period. The study was approved by the University of Southern California Medical School Institutional Review Board, Los Angeles, California, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Women in the hormonal-regimen group received: (a) 7.5 mg of leuprolide acetate depot (Lupron Depot; TAP Pharmaceuticals, Chicago, IL) by i.m. injection every 28 days; (b) 0.625 mg of oral conjugated estrogen (Premarin; WyethAyerst, Philadelphia, PA) 6 of 7 days every week; and (c) 10 mg oral medroxyprogesterone acetate (Provera; Upjohn, Kalamazoo, MI) for the last 13 days of every fourth 28-day cycle. Eight women reported hot flushes or vaginal symptoms and had their dose of conjugated estrogen increased to 0.9 mg (1) . During the course of the study, a small daily dose of oral androgen (1.25 or 2.5 mg of methyl-testosterone) was added to the regimen to replace the ovarian androgen production blocked by the action of the GnRHA. The women in the control group received no hormones during the study period.

One woman was removed from the hormonal-regimen group after two cycles of treatment because of poor compliance. A second woman in the hormonal-regimen group had breast implants, and her mammograms were found unsuitable for inclusion in this mammographic aspect of the study. The remaining 12 women completed 12 months of treatment, 11 of them completed 24 months on the hormonal regimen, and four completed 30 months of treatment. The latter four women and five additional women who were treated for 24 months were followed for 36 months (i.e., for 6 or 12 months after cessation of treatment). The control women had a second and a third mammogram 12 and 24 months after baseline.

Digitized cranio-caudal mammograms were used to study mammographic changes. We used a validated computer-based threshold method developed by our colleagues to determine the percentage of mammographic densities, as previously reported (5) . The percentage of mammographic densities (i.e., area of densities as a percentage of the breast area) were estimated separately for the left and the right breast, and the average % density for the woman was then calculated and used in all analyses presented here. All readings of mammograms were performed by one of us (G. U.), masked as to baseline or follow-up, and as regarded being from treated or control women. All mammograms were reread for this report; consequently, the results for baseline and 12-month follow-up differ slightly from those reported previously (5) .

The statistical significance levels within each group of the differences between the baseline mammograms and the mammograms for the following years were evaluated using Wilcoxon’s signed rank test (6) . All statistical significance levels (Ps) quoted are two-sided.

Results

Table 1⇓ and Fig. 1⇓ show the changes in percentage of mammographic densities from baseline to 12 and 24 months in the treated group and the changes (from baseline) of the mammograms 6 or 12 months after treatment was discontinued in the treated group. Table 1⇓ also shows the changes in the percentage of mammographic densities in the control group at 12 and 24 months.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Changes in the percentage of mammographic densities in women treated with a GnRHA-based regimen.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Change in percentage of mammographic densities between baseline and follow-up in women treated with a GnRHA-based regimen and in control women

Compared with baseline, there was a mean reduction (±SE) in the percentage of mammographic densities of 9.7% (±3.5%; P = 0.012) and 11.4% (±3.5%; P = 0.010) after 12 and 24 months in the GnRHA treatment group, respectively. After 24 months of treatment, 10 of 11 women for whom information was available had reduced densities. Six to 12 months after completion of treatment, the mean percentage of mammographic density was no different from that at baseline (mean change, −2.0% ± 5.0%).

There was a mean change in the percentage of mammographic densities of −3.2% (±3.0%; P = 0.30) at 12 months and of −2.5% (±2.5%; P = 0.47) at 24 months in the control group. Neither of these changes was statistically significant.

Discussion

This study shows that most women on a GnRHA plus low-dose add-back hormonal regimen will show reductions in mammographic densities while they are on the regimen, and that these changes are reversed after cessation of the treatment.

Although we attempted to standardize the procedure for obtaining the mammograms, inspection of the projected area of the breast on different mammograms from individual women revealed that significant differences in the projection and/or compression of the breast had occurred. This is a common problem, not unique to this study. Absolute density measurements can be significantly affected by such artifacts. Expressing mammographic densities as a proportion of the breast area shown on the mammogram significantly reduces this problem, and is the measure of mammographic densities we have used in this report (percentage of mammographic density).

The percentage of mammographic densities are negatively associated with weight—for the same absolute density, heavier women will tend to have larger breasts so that the percentage of densities will be reduced. As is to be expected, there were some weight changes in both the intervention and control groups over the course of the study, but adjustment for such changes had little effect on the results shown in Table 1⇓ . We had no information on when in the menstrual cycle the baseline and off-study mammograms were obtained, but this is unlikely to be important (7) .

The mean percentage of mammographic density 6–12 months after stopping use of the GnRHA-based regimen was no different from the mean percentage of mammographic density at baseline. However, the mean of close to no change conceals a wide range of apparent changes in individual women (see Table 1⇓ and Fig. 1⇓ ). We believe that this wide variability is an artifact caused by the lack of strict uniformity in the taking of mammograms (positioning and compression). In this regard, it is noteworthy that the two women (subjects 1 and 9) with the largest measured increases in percentage of density had almost no reduction (subject 1) or an actual increase (subject 9) in percentage of density while on GnRHA treatment; the most likely explanation of this is that the baseline mammograms were taken in a different manner, and inspection of the relevant mammograms is somewhat supportive of this interpretation, although it is not completely clear. Future studies will need to pay very close attention to obtaining standardized mammograms if reliable interpretation of individual changes are to be made.

It seems most likely that the described reductions in the percentage of mammographic densities are directly attributable to the reduced hormone exposure, and the return to baseline is directly attributable to the resumption of ovulation. However, although all women resumed regular menses during the follow-up, we do not know exactly when they started ovulating, and therefore cannot estimate directly how density changes were associated with the timing of resumption of ovulation.

Although there are no other randomized clinical trials to which we can directly compare these results, the results from this study are in accordance with other studies that examined the relationship between hormone levels and mammographic densities. First, mammographic densities decrease after menopause (8 , 9) . Second, there is compelling evidence from many observational studies that postmenopausal EPRT significantly increases mammographic density, and this has been confirmed in a placebo-controlled randomized trial (10) . Third, the GnRHA-based regimen studied here mimics a bilateral oophorectomy with ERT with infrequent use of a progestin. Postmenopausal ERT does increase mammographic densities but only to a small extent, much less than does EPRT (10) , so the reduction in densities seen in this study is as one would predict. If the progestin had been added every 28-day cycle or had been given continuously, one would have expected a much smaller reduction in densities or possibly no reduction at all.

The return to baseline densities after cessation of the regimen agrees with the opposite effect seen in a study of the effect of cessation of EPRT on mammographic density (11) . In this latter study, 47 women who experienced a new or enlarging mass or a developing mammographic density while on HRT (the type was not specified; but, inasmuch as the study was done in 1995–1996, most were likely to have been on EPRT), 35 (75%) underwent a reduction in density or resolution of the new mass shortly after cessation.

The likely improvement in efficacy of screening mammography to be gained from the use of such a GnRHA-based regimen in premenopausal women has been emphasized by Feig (12) , and this possibility is strongly supported by the studies of the effects of EPRT on mammographic screening in which EPRT use led to an increased incidence of interval cancers between screening mammograms (13 , 14) .

Mammographic densities have consistently been shown to be a strong breast cancer risk factor in epidemiological studies (9 , 15, 16, 17) . Factors that substantially reduce breast densities would, therefore, be expected to significantly reduce breast cancer risk. We have argued previously that, although the reductions in densities are reversed after cessation of the regimen, relatively short-term use of the regimen would still be expected to confer a significant lifelong reduction in breast cancer risk because the total amount of breast cell proliferation will be permanently reduced (2) . The initial report from a randomized ZIPP trial of use of a GnRHA for treatment of premenopausal breast cancer showed a 40% reduction in contralateral breast cancer incidence in patients receiving the GnRHA (18) . The addition, in the GnRHA regimen discussed here, of low-dose ERT with minimal progestin given only three or four times/year should only marginally affect this figure, because the breast cancer risk from ERT is low (19) . Tamoxifen’s breast cancer chemopreventive action in women without breast cancer was accurately predicted by its effect on preventing contralateral breast cancer in breast cancer patients. These results (18) are therefore most encouraging of the predicted breast cancer chemopreventive efficacy of the regimen discussed here.

Acknowledgments

We thank the women who volunteered to be in this study; they showed great public spirit and were quite remarkable in their commitment to this research.

Footnotes

  • The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

  • ↵1 Supported by generous donations from the following contributors to the Kenneth J. Norris, Jr., Comprehensive Cancer Center’s research funds: the Ida Miles Foundation, the Candle Foundation, the Firestein/Gertz Gift, and Permanent Charities. Drs. Spicer and Pike are associated with Balance Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a company set up to develop the hormonal regimen discussed here.

  • ↵2 To whom requests for reprints should addressed, at Department of Preventive Medicine, USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, 1441 Eastlake Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90033-0800. Phone: (323) 865-0405; Fax: (323) 865-0125; E-mail: mcpike{at}usc.edu

  • ↵3 The abbreviations used are: GnRHA, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist; EPRT, estrogen-progestin replacement therapy; ERT, estrogen replacement therapy.

  • Received February 9, 2001.
  • Revision received August 7, 2001.
  • Accepted September 6, 2001.

References

  1. ↵
    Spicer D. V., Pike M. C., Pike A., Rude R., Shoupe D., Richardson J. Pilot trial of a gonadotropin hormone agonist with replacement hormones as a prototype contraceptive to prevent breast cancer. Contraception, 47: 427-444, 1993.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Spicer D. V., Shoupe D., Pike M. C. GnRH agonists as contraceptive agents: predicted significantly reduced risk of breast cancer. Contraception, 44: 289-310, 1991.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    Spicer D. V., Ursin G., Parisky Y. R., Pearce J. G., Shoupe D., Pike A., Pike M. C. Changes in mammographic densities induced by a hormonal contraceptive designed to reduce breast cancer risk. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 86: 431-436, 1994.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    Wolfe J. N., Saftlas A. F., Salane M. Mammographic parenchymal patterns and quantitative evaluation of mammographic densities: a case-control study. Am. J. Roentgenol., 148: 1087-1092, 1987.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    Ursin G., Astrahan M. A., Salane M., Parisky Y. R., Pearce J. G., Daniels J. R., Pike M. C., Spicer D. V. The detection of changes in mammographic densities. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev., 7: 43-47, 1998.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  6. ↵
    Rosner B. . Fundamentals of Biostatistics, Ed. 5 338-343, Duxbury, Pacific Grove California 2000.
  7. ↵
    Ursin G., Parisky Y. R., Pike M. C., Spicer D. V. Mammographic density changes during the menstrual cycle. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev., 10: 141-142, 2001.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    Grove J. S., Goodman M. J., Gilbert F., Clyde D. Factors associated with breast structure in breast cancer patients. Cancer (Phila.), 43: 1895-1899, 1979.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    Oza A. M., Boyd N. F. Mammographic parenchymal patterns: a marker of breast cancer risk. Epidemiol. Rev., 15: 196-208, 1993.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    Greendale G. A., Reboussin B. A., Sie A., Singh H. R., Olson L. K., Gatewood O., Bassett L. W., Wasilauskas C., Bush T., Barrett-Connor E. Effects of estrogen and estrogen-progestin on mammographic parenchymal density. Postmenopausal estrogen/progestin interventions (PEPI) investigators. Ann. Intern. Med., 30: 262-269, 1999.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    Harvey J. A., Pinkerton J. V., Herman C. R. Short-term cessation of hormone replacement therapy and improvement of mammographic specificity. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 89: 1623-1625, 1997.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    Feig S. A. Hormonal reduction of mammographic densities: potential effects on breast cancer risk and performance of diagnostic and screening mammography. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 86: 408-409, 1994.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    Kavanagh A. M., Mitchell H., Giles G. G. Hormone replacement therapy and accuracy of mammography screening. Lancet, 355: 270-274, 2000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    Mandelson M. T., Oestreicher N., Porter P. L., White D., Finder C. A., Taplin S. H., White E. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 92: 1081-1087, 2000.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    Saftlas A. F., Szklo M. Mammographic parenchymal patterns and breast cancer risk. Epidemiol. Rev., 9: 146-174, 1987.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    Boyd N. F., Byng J. W., Jong R. A., Fishell E. K., Little L. E., Miller A. B., Lockwood G. A., Tritchler D. L., Yaffe M. J. Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 87: 670-675, 1995.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    Byrne C., Schairer C., Wolfe J., Parekh N., Salane M., Brinton L. A., Hoover R., Haile R. Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 87: 1622-1629, 1995.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    Baum M. Adjuvant treatment of premenopausal breast cancer with zoladex and tamoxifen: results from the ZIPP trial organised by the Cancer Research Campaign (CRC) Breast Cancer Trials Group. Breast Cancer Res. Treat., 57: 30 1999.
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    Ross R. K., Paganini-Hill A., Wan P. C., Pike M. C. Effects of hormone replacement therapy on breast cancer risk: estrogen versus estrogen plus progestin. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 92: 328-332, 2000.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
November 2001
Volume 10, Issue 11
  • Table of Contents

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Reversal of Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone Agonist Induced Reductions in Mammographic Densities on Stopping Treatment
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Reversal of Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone Agonist Induced Reductions in Mammographic Densities on Stopping Treatment
Inger T. Gram, Giske Ursin, Darcy V. Spicer and Malcolm C. Pike
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev November 1 2001 (10) (11) 1117-1120;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Reversal of Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone Agonist Induced Reductions in Mammographic Densities on Stopping Treatment
Inger T. Gram, Giske Ursin, Darcy V. Spicer and Malcolm C. Pike
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev November 1 2001 (10) (11) 1117-1120;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Gallstones and Gallbladder Cancer
  • Additive Effects of Aristolochic Acid and Arsenic in UTUC
  • Provider Lifestyle Discussions
Show more Research Articles
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
eISSN: 1538-7755
ISSN: 1055-9965

Advertisement