Literature DB >> 17470740

Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: late results of the Italian Randomized Tamoxifen Prevention Trial among women with hysterectomy.

Umberto Veronesi1, Patrick Maisonneuve, Nicole Rotmensz, Bernardo Bonanni, Peter Boyle, Giuseppe Viale, Alberto Costa, Virgilio Sacchini, Roberto Travaglini, Giuseppe D'Aiuto, Pasquale Oliviero, Francesco Lovison, Giacomo Gucciardo, Marco Rosselli del Turco, Maria Grazia Muraca, Maria Antonietta Pizzichetta, Serafino Conforti, Andrea Decensi.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Initial findings of the Italian Randomized Tamoxifen Prevention Trial found no reduction in risk of breast cancer with tamoxifen use, whereas the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Breast Cancer Prevention Trial showed that tamoxifen treatment reduces risk of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Here we present an extended follow-up of the Italian trial.
METHODS: From October 1, 1992, to December 31, 1997, 5408 otherwise healthy women who had undergone hysterectomy were randomly assigned in a double-blind manner to tamoxifen (20 mg daily) or placebo for 5 years. Rates of breast cancer and other events in the two groups were compared by the use of risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS: After 11 years of follow-up, 136 women (74 placebo, 62 tamoxifen) developed breast cancer (RR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.60 to 1.17; annual rates were 2.48 and 2.07 per 1000 women-years, respectively). The rates of breast cancer in the two study groups were similar among women who had had bilateral oophorectomy and among women at low risk for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) disease but were much lower in the tamoxifen group among women at high risk (placebo, 6.26 per 1000 women-years, tamoxifen, 1.50 per 1000 women-years; RR = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.59). During the treatment period, women in the tamoxifen group reported more hot flashes (RR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.57 to 2.00), vaginal discharge (RR = 3.44, 95% CI = 2.90 to 4.09), and urinary disturbances (RR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.23 to 1.89) but fewer headaches (RR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.50 to 0.94) than women in the placebo group. Hypertriglyceridemia (RR = 4.33, 95% CI = 1.96 to 9.53), thromboembolic events (RR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.02 to 2.62), and cardiac arrhythmia or atrial fibrillation (RR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.01 to 2.98) were also more frequent in the tamoxifen group than in the placebo group.
CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate selection of women at high risk for HR+ disease may improve the risk-benefit ratio of tamoxifen intervention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17470740     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djk154

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  54 in total

1.  Uptake of a randomized breast cancer prevention trial comparing letrozole to placebo in BRCA1/2 mutations carriers: the LIBER trial.

Authors:  Pascal Pujol; Christine Lasset; Pascaline Berthet; Catherine Dugast; Suzette Delaloge; Jean-Pierre Fricker; Isabelle Tennevet; Nathalie Chabbert-Buffet; Pascale This; Karen Baudry; Jerome Lemonnier; Lise Roca; Sylvie Mijonnet; Paul Gesta; Jean Chiesa; Helene Dreyfus; Philippe Vennin; Capucine Delnatte; Yves Jean Bignon; Alain Lortholary; Fabienne Prieur; Laurence Gladieff; Anne Lesur; Krishna B Clough; Catherine Nogues; Anne-Laure Martin
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.375

2.  Statins and Breast Cancer: Future Directions in Chemoprevention.

Authors:  Cesar A Santa-Maria; Vered Stearns
Journal:  Curr Breast Cancer Rep       Date:  2013-09-01

3.  Breast Cancer Chemoprevention among High-risk Women and those with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

Authors:  Laura L Reimers; Parijatham S Sivasubramanian; Dawn Hershman; Mary Beth Terry; Heather Greenlee; Julie Campbell; Kevin Kalinsky; Matthew Maurer; Ramona Jayasena; Rossy Sandoval; Maria Alvarez; Katherine D Crew
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2015-04-16       Impact factor: 2.431

4.  Just another negative DVT?

Authors:  Devesh Sharma; Abha Govind
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2013-09-26

Review 5.  Suitable trial designs and cohorts for preventive breast cancer agents.

Authors:  Kathrin Strasser-Weippl; Paul E Goss
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-10-08       Impact factor: 66.675

6.  Overdiagnosis in breast cancer chemoprevention trials.

Authors:  V Sopik; S A Narod
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 3.677

7.  Addressing barriers to uptake of breast cancer chemoprevention for patients and providers.

Authors:  Katherine D Crew
Journal:  Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book       Date:  2015

8.  Long-term follow-up in cancer prevention trials (It ain't over 'til it's over).

Authors:  Jack Cuzick
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2010-06

Review 9.  Molecular cancer prevention: Current status and future directions.

Authors:  Karen Colbert Maresso; Kenneth Y Tsai; Powel H Brown; Eva Szabo; Scott Lippman; Ernest T Hawk
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 508.702

Review 10.  Prevention of ER-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  Yuxin Li; Powel H Brown
Journal:  Recent Results Cancer Res       Date:  2009
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.