| Literature DB >> 29126161 |
I Sestak1, S G Smith2, A Howell3, J F Forbes4, J Cuzick5.
Abstract
Background: Anastrozole reduces breast cancer risk in women at high risk, but implementing preventive therapy in clinical practice is difficult. Here, we evaluate adherence to anastrozole in the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS)-II prevention and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) trials, and its association with early symptoms. Patients and methods: In the prevention trial, 3864 postmenopausal women were randomized to placebo versus anastrozole. A total of 2980 postmenopausal women with DCIS were randomized to tamoxifen versus anastrozole. Adherence to trial medication was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and all P-values were two-sided.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29126161 PMCID: PMC5834118 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdx713
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Oncol ISSN: 0923-7534 Impact factor: 32.976
Figure 1.Kaplan–Meier plots for non-adherence and annual non-adherence rates (%) according to treatment arm for the IBIS-II prevention (A, B) and DCIS (C, D) studies. Kaplan–Meier curves were calculated and tested for equality using log-rank test. All statistical tests were two-sided. IBIS, International Breast cancer Intervention Study; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Early reported symptoms at 6 months associated with non-adherence in the IBIS-II prevention and DCIS study
| IBIS-II prevention | IBIS-II DCIS | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-adherence (%) | HR (95% CI) | Non-adherence (%) | HR (95% CI) | ||||
| Arthralgia | |||||||
| No ( | 30.0 | – | – | No ( | 28.9 | – | – |
| Yes ( | 24.6 | 0.85 (0.75–0.97) | 0.01 | Yes ( | 31.2 | 0.90 (0.77–1.05) | 0.2 |
| Hot flashes/night sweats | |||||||
| No ( | 30.8 | – | – | No ( | 31.3 | – | – |
| Yes ( | 32.0 | 1.02 (0.90–1.15) | 0.8 | Yes ( | 27.3 | 1.18 (1.02–1.36) | 0.02 |
| Gynecological | |||||||
| No ( | 30.6 | – | – | No ( | 29.4 | – | – |
| Yes ( | 37.4 | 0.78 (0.65–0.94) | 0.008 | Yes ( | 30.9 | 0.93 (0.74–1.16) | 0.5 |
| Eye disease | |||||||
| No ( | 31.1 | – | – | No ( | 29.4 | – | – |
| Yes ( | 34.4 | 0.90 (0.69–1.16) | 0.4 | Yes ( | 32.5 | 0.87 (0.63–1.22) | 0.4 |
| Osteoporosis | |||||||
| No ( | 31.3 | – | – | No ( | 29.5 | – | – |
| Yes ( | 30.0 | 1.00 (0.65–1.55) | 0.9 | Yes ( | 31.5 | 0.92 (0.57–1.48) | 0.7 |
HR adjusted for age, hysterectomy, and previous IBIS-1 participation.
HR adjusted for HRT.
IBIS, International Breast cancer Intervention Study; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence intervals.
Figure 2.Forest plots for non-adherence (hazard ratios) among women reporting symptoms at 6 months by treatment arm for the IBIS-II prevention (A) and DCIS (B) studies. The squares represent the point estimates. Sizes of the squares represent the number of events. The horizontal error bars show the 95% confidence intervals (CI) of each hazard ratio. IBIS, International Breast cancer Intervention Study; CI, confidence interval.