Correction to: British Journal of Cancer https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-024-02590-1, published online 13 May 2024

Following publication of the article, the authors identified an error in the variable defining breast cancer detection mode; this affected the data presented in Table 5. The table has been corrected to rectify the incorrect number of screening detected cancers, interval cancers and cancers detected outside of the screening program, and to provide correct estimates of the association between the use of menopausal hormone therapy and risk of interval cancers, screening detected cancers and cancers detected outside of the screening program.

Table 5 Use of menopausal hormone therapy and risk of breast cancer stratified by detection mode among 925,874 women aged 50-71 (women eligible for mammographic screening with two years of additional follow-up).
Full size table

The corrected version of Table 5 is presented below.

The corrected data impacts three sections of the article; the original and corrected paragraphs can be found below, with the affected areas marked in bold.

The corrections do not affect the conclusions of the article. The article has been updated.

Original abstract:

Results: We included 1,275,783 women, 45+ years, followed from 2004, for a median of 12.7 years. Oral oestrogen combined with daily progestin was associated with the highest risk of BC (HR 2.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.31–2.54), with drug-specific HRs ranging from Cliovelle®: 1.63 (95% CI 1.35–1.96) to Kliogest®: 2.67 (2.37–3.00). Vaginal oestradiol was not associated with BC risk. HT use was more strongly associated with luminal A cancer (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.86–2.09) than other molecular subtypes, and more strongly with interval (HR 2.00, 95% CI: 1.83–2.30) than screen-detected (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.26–1.41) BC in women 50–71 years. HRs for HT use decreased with increasing BMI.

Corrected abstract:

Results: We included 1,275,783 women, 45+ years, followed from 2004, for a median of 12.7 years. Oral oestrogen combined with daily progestin was associated with the highest risk of BC (HR 2.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.31–2.54), with drug-specific HRs ranging from Cliovelle®: 1.63 (95% CI 1.35–1.96) to Kliogest®: 2.67 (2.37–3.00). Vaginal oestradiol was not associated with BC risk. HT use was more strongly associated with luminal A cancer (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.86–2.09) than other molecular subtypes, and more strongly with interval (HR 2.00, 95% CI: 1.85–2.15) than screen-detected (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.34–1.47) BC in women 50–71 years. HRs for HT use decreased with increasing BMI.

Original Results paragraph:

Compared to HT non-users, current users of HT had a higher risk of interval cancer (HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.83–2.30) than screen-detected BC (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.26–1.41), or cancer detected outside the screening programme (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.43–1.57; Pheterogeneity < 0.001; Table 5). A similar pattern was observed across all exposure categories, with significant heterogeneity for past HT use (Pheterogeneity <0.001), and current use of oestradiol (Pheterogeneity overall <0.001, oral <0.001), oestradiol-NETA (Pheterogeneity overall <0.001, oral <0.001) and tibolone (Pheterogeneity=0.022).

Corrected Results paragraph:

Compared to HT non-users, current users of HT had a higher risk of interval cancer (HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.85–2.15) than screen-detected BC (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.34–1.47), or cancer detected outside the screening programme (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.20–1.39; Pheterogeneity < 0.001; Table 5). A similar pattern was observed across all exposure categories, with significant heterogeneity for past HT use (Pheterogeneity <0.001), and current use of oestradiol (Pheterogeneity overall <0.001, oral <0.001), oestradiol-NETA (Pheterogeneity overall <0.001, oral <0.001) and tibolone (Pheterogeneity<0.001).

Original Discussion paragraph:

To our knowledge, no previous studies have reported the risk of interval cancer according to route of administration of HT. Our results showed that use of any type of non-vaginal HT are more strongly associated with increased risk of interval cancer than screen-detected cancer. The risk of interval cancer is especially noticeable in users of oral (HR 2.68) and transdermal (HR 1.89) oestradiol.

Corrected Discussion paragraph:

To our knowledge, no previous studies have reported the risk of interval cancer according to route of administration of HT. Our results showed that use of any type of HT are more strongly associated with increased risk of interval cancer than screen-detected cancer. The risk of interval cancer is especially noticeable in users of oral (HR 2.46) and transdermal (HR 2.41) oestradiol.

The original article has been corrected.